Silvercat's Lair Comments - Brought to you by JoeUserhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/rss/comments© 2006 - 2008 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.An internet diaryen-us2008-08-08T00:38:182008-08-08T00:38:18http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.htmlStardock Rss Generator v1.0, Andrew Powellinfo@stardock.comapowell@stardock.comSilentPoethttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794
shortyjjb9


This nation may have been predominately christiant, but given that a large reason why people came to the colonies was to practice whatever religion they chose, then I would say that America was not founded as a Christian nation.

 

Gays/Lesbians should have the same right to marry (who they want), period. It's religion run amock otherwise.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18SilentPoet on Gay MarriageEL-DUDERINOhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Our country is based on God and Christianity. And God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I hate the idea of gay marriage but I think it will eventually be allowed because someone will eventually use the 3 Freedoms as an excuse to perform it

Our country is NOT based on God and Christianity. The notion that we are somehow a "Christian Nation" is just plain wrong. Go back and re-read our founding documents. Our founding fathers took great pains to make sure that our government and religion were two separate entities.

No where in our constitution is the word God or Christianity mentioned. There is but one reference to "our creator" is in the Declaration of Independence but it doesn't specify any religion. There is a very good reason why religion is NOT associated with our government, our founding fathers saw what mixing religion and government does, that is part of what they were rebelling against. In fact a few of our founding fathers were athiests (Ben Franklin most notably) and many of the rest were NOT Christians but rather diests meaning they believed in a God but no specific religion.

As for the original topic of gay marriage, what is marriage but a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other? And as such ALL people, gay and straight, should be allowed to marry. It's that simple. The argument that being gay isn't natural because two gay people can't conceive a child is insane. As others have pointed out if the point of marriage is to have children then my marriage should be terminated because neither my wife nor I want to conceive (I have actually gotten a vasectomy to prevent pregnancy). What about couples that are simply unable to conceive should they not be allowed to marry? It just doesn't make sense to pin the requirement of marrage on ability to conceive. If two people love each other that should be enough.
]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18EL-DUDERINO on Gay Marriagepatrikwillhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794What is wrong with love in any form if it is mutual.  Ignorance unfortunately is not bliss as it hurts people.  I also think the real issue is symantics.  It is not necessary to call it marriage.  Gays aren't straight so maybe partners or some other useless politically correct name would do.  The real point is to give the same rights to two people who commit to each other for better or worse richer or poorer and in sickness and in health, God or whatever that higher power is called is the judge of this not me.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18patrikwill on Gay MarriagePolitilocohttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Our country is based on God and Christianity. And God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I hate the idea of gay marriage but I think it will eventually be allowed because someone will eventually use the 3 Freedoms as an excuse to perform it

Our country was also founded on the work of slaves and the theft of land that didn't belong to us. To argue for anything on solely historical merits instead of of any inherent value is absurd.]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Politiloco on Gay MarriageKlugman09http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794
shortyjjb9

but I dont want to get in a religious debate.

Your entire position is based on religion and that is the only reason this topic has become an issue in america today. Also you talk about conception well it's not like if they are married all of a sudden a sharp decrease will happen in babies born each year. So yeah why does homosexual marriage matter it doesn't affect your busineess, religious, or normal day life why does it matter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Klugman09 on Gay Marriageshortyjjb9http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794
Locamama
Our country is based on freedom to worship or not worship as you please not having the majority force their religion on the non-believers.

Let me quote part of the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God, Indivisble"

It doesnt say under Buddah, or Under Allah. It says God, which is the Hebrew God and I believe the one true God, but I dont want to get in a religious debate.

Everyone on this earth was created by a Man and a Woman, that is physically how you make a child dont you think(Whatever God you believe) if gay marriage was ok that He would have made it possible to concieve a child that way?

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18shortyjjb9 on Gay MarriageLocamamahttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Our country is based on God and Christianity. And God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Actually God didn't make Adam and Eve. That is just the Hebrew creation story like every culture has a creation story. That doesn't mean you can learn from it but there was no Adam and Eve.

Our country is based on freedom to worship or not worship as you please not having the majority force their religion on the non-believers. ]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Locamama on Gay Marriageshortyjjb9http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Our country is based on God and Christianity. And God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. I hate the idea of gay marriage but I think it will eventually be allowed because someone will eventually use the 3 Freedoms as an excuse to perform it

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18shortyjjb9 on Gay Marriageliberalismwithagrenadelauncherhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Huh?

 

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18liberalismwithagrenadelauncher on Gay Marriageerathonielhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Legalizing intolerance? What the heck? Intolerance is always legal. You force it, or the lack of it, and all you create is war.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18erathoniel on Gay Marriageliberalismwithagrenadelauncherhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794My firends are gay, and there is no difference between them and any of my other friends except for who they love, which affects no one besides themselves.  Not letting gay people get married because they dont like people with certain stereotypes that are often not true(you honestly would have no way of knowing the two friends i am talking about were gay unless you asked them).  Legalizing intolerance and prejudice is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard, and yet politicians actually believe it is a reasonable position. *sigh*

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18liberalismwithagrenadelauncher on Gay Marriageliberalismwithagrenadelauncherhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794My firends are gay, and there is no difference between them and any of my other friends except for who they love, which affects no one besides themselves.  Not letting gay people get married because they dont like people with certain stereotypes that are often not true(you honestly would have no way of knowing the two friends i am talking about were gay unless you asked them).  Legalizing intolerance and prejudice is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard, and yet politicians actually believe it is a reasonable position. *sigh*

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18liberalismwithagrenadelauncher on Gay Marriageliberalismwithagrenadelauncherhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Amen to that

 

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18liberalismwithagrenadelauncher on Gay MarriageLocamamahttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794I think marriage is about partnership not procreation.  I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage.  If they love each other and want to commit to each other, who am I to tell them no? 

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/314794Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Locamama on Gay Marriagelulapilgrimhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669I guess I should say that while the "lonely man" has a right to work, he does not have a "right" to be paid for it.

Good we agree that mankind has a right in justice to work.

(In fact, if he wants to continue to live, he'd better work).
We agree again. Mankind is obliged to preserve his life (as well as those he is responsible for), and unless he is already provided that by lawful means, then he is obliged to work.

All workers also have a right in justice to a living wage. The general principle is that equal must be rendered for equal. The contract between employer and worker must conform to the basic principles of natural justice and human dignity (although throughout the world grave injustices have arisen).

Lula posts:
Every man has a right to the necessities of life and can enforce that claim on his fellow man.

Wrong as a matter of "natural" right; possibly not even correct as a matter of societal justice. I have no "right" to anything of yours save what you voluntarily give me. Voting to force you to give it up as a requirement to participate in society may be coercion (the power of the State is being used to force you to give up your rights in your property).


Private property is a natural right. Nature confers on man the right to possess things privately as his own. The right of private property is a natural right from the very getgo. When God gave the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", He acknowledged that men could acquire property to which others had no right. He sanctioned the right to private property and it is therefore just.



]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18lulapilgrim on Rights vs privilegesCharlesCShttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/304565http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/304565http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/304565Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18CharlesCS on The roller coaster is at the toplulapilgrimhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Healthcare is indeed a privilege; it is not a right possessed by the "lonely man". It is a privilege because in the end you must force another person to work for you, therefore it cannot be a right. Likewise I do not believe in the "right" to work (forces someone to employ you), much less the "right" to a minimum or living wage (forces someone to potentially pay you more than your labor is worth).

I agree healthcare is a privilege and once the presidential candidates are chosen, we'll see that healthcare is going to be one of the front topics of debate.

Yes, as far as "right to work". Because work is natural to man, we do have a right in justice to work and a right in justice to a living wage. Every man has a right to the necessities of life and can enforce that claim on his fellow man. The State has a duty to safeguard the natural rights of its citizens and working is one of them. It's obligation of justice and charity the State should regulate and encourage, not dominate and absorb.

Society and in practice government, has the duty of bringing about economic conditions which will make it possible for every employer to pay just wages according to the value of work done. When a person works, he exchanges his power, capacity, energy, or labor, (things which are part of himself) for a wage. The only way in which a man can live decently is by hiring out his labor. By this means he has the right in justice to work.





]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18lulapilgrim on Rights vs privilegesDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Rights are not something that are contingent upon what government you are in.

Excellently put! And love your explanation of Health care too!]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Rights vs privilegesemily711http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18emily711 on Rights vs privilegescactoblastahttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669You only have a right to healthcare if you are able to provide it to yourself, like stich up your own wounds. Otherwise, you have to convince someone else that they should provide you with the care. It's not an automatic thing. We just have a system set up that gives the allusion of the right to healthcare. You can't force people to become doctors and if there are no doctors, then how could you exercise your right to healthcare?

This is true in the American system, but there are other systems.

Where the education of the doctor is paid for by the state, it's not an unreasonable assumption that the healthcare provider has a responsibility to provide health care to those deemed appropriate by the citizenry. Refusing to provide service is a betrayal of trust and a breaking of the covenant with the people that was made when training was provided.

In a public healthcare system of course it's much more clear - the people pay for the healthcare to be universal, therefore doctors who choose to sign up with the service have no choice in their patients. If they want choice they can move somewhere else. It's a global labour market, so you if you don't like the country you're working in, go somewhere with laws that suit you better.]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18cactoblasta on Rights vs privilegesParaTed2khttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669You can't force people to become doctors and if there are no doctors, then how could you exercise your right to healthcare?

Exactly! The only way you could have a "right" to someone else's services is if you owned the other person.]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18ParaTed2k on Rights vs privilegesemily711http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Rights are basically something you are born with.  The government does not give you rights, they simply protect them, do not protect them, or all together violate them.  All you have a right to are things like your body and the fruit of your labor.  You only have a right to healthcare if you are able to provide it to yourself, like stich up your own wounds.  Otherwise, you have to convince someone else that they should provide you with the care.  It's not an automatic thing.  We just have a system set up that gives the allusion of the right to healthcare.  You can't force people to become doctors and if there are no doctors, then how could you exercise your right to healthcare?

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18emily711 on Rights vs privilegeslulapilgrimhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006
Regarding our rights in human society...from a slightly different direction..beginning with the premise that all authority comes from God.

Our rights to life, liberty, the right to private property, our right to freedom of conscience and the practice of the one true religion are given not only to Americans, but to every human person directly from the Creator. They aren't given to us through the State but immediately and directly. The State's, the Government's, all its citizens authorities' purpose is to promote harmoniously the God-given rights of its citizens. No state or government may not on any pretext take away our God given rights..ever.

Instead of human rights, I'd call them natural rights becasue they are based upon the Natural or Moral Law. The idea of natural law certanly permeates the ideas and speeches of our Founding Fathers as well as our modern works. The Declaration of Independence expressly depends for its authority upon the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

The Founders understood that our sense of justice and fairness comes naturally to all people and appropraitely referred to it as Natural law. From Natural Law came the self-evident unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

Dennis Lloyd, in his "Idea of Law" (1964) wrote, "The US Constitution is essentially a natural law document setting out the fundamental authority of the people under natural law and guaranteeing the natural rights of the citizens.....not only did it indelibly associate that law with the idea of liberty but it also enshrined the unique idea, so influential in modern times, that natural rights could be the subject of legal guarantees....Moreover, because they were embodied in the Constitution, ...for the first time an actual machinery whereby natural rights might be brought into the fabric of law and enjoy recognition and enforcement as legal rights."


]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18lulapilgrim on The Rights of ManParaTed2khttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18ParaTed2k on Rights vs privilegesParaTed2khttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669IanTyger:
I could even make the argument that driving is a right; but on balance, if it is, it is a right that is given up in exchange for the social contract.

The use of your property (your car) is a right, however, using it on public roads is a privilege.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18ParaTed2k on Rights vs privilegesPaladin77http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669My wife just challenged me to define why driving is a privilege and not a right - the best I can do is that you are operating a potentially deadly piece of heavy machinery with only limited required training in a public venue. If it is a right, it is a right that may be limited by society to a certain extent. Please note that driving in the US is very loosely regulated (minor proficiency test, no proficiency retest, nominal fee for the privilege); and that only for driving on public property.

Tell your wife, any court will tell you that driving a car is a privilege afforded to you by the state, which has the power to revoke that privilege at any time unless your profession is driving in which case you may appeal on the grounds that the revocation of the privilege to drive impinges on your right to earn a living. ]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Paladin77 on Rights vs privilegesDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Very good, both you and Parated.  I agree.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Rights vs privilegesParaTed2khttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669You make some good points here.

Another point that is important... When a person has the need for a lawyer, they can only be provided the services of lawyers who have agreed to offer their expertise to "those who cannot afford it".  In other words, no lawyer can legally be forced to represent you against their will.

In the case of medical services as a "right", no doctor, nurse or other provider can be legally forced to have you as a patient.  Just as with the lawyers, there are ways a medical professional can volunteer their services to those who cannot afford it, but it is the provider, not the law that is making the choice.

Socialized or "universal" healthcare requires providers to give up their right to choose whether they will offer their services to those who "cannot offord" it.  In other words, it violates many of the Constitutional Rights of providers.

The only way universal healthcare could be Constitutional is if there were a public healthcare system as well as a private system, and healthcare professionals are free to choose whether they want to participate in the public system or not.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/302669Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18ParaTed2k on Rights vs privilegesDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006
This means that I am for harsh penalties against employers of illegal aliens, while at the same time I am for the relaxation of immigration restrictions (and by relzed, I mean make it much easier to legally reside and work in the country - a "tight" immigration policy is nothing but protectionism for people who lucked out in being born here).

This is where you assumed wrong in response to Parated's answer.  Illegal immigrants have already broken the law, so they must be dealt with according to the law.  Many conservatives, think immigration should be eased (not open borders, but not a dribble either), but violating the law is not the way to do it. Changing the law is.  So you are saying pretty much what Parated said.  It is a conservative clarion call.  We can differ on how to go about it, but we agree on the basic premise.  Ignoring laws leads to anarchy which benefits no one, not even the law breakers.  Changing the law allows the honest to pursue an honest course of action, while not legalizing the otherwise criminals.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on The Rights of Manlittle-whiphttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006
I am married to a legal immigrant who has permanent resident status. He has been laid off from work since October and His unemployment benefits have been exhausted. (unemployment is not a 'means-tested' benefit, it's an insurance policy.) Our current income is less than $600 per month, what I get in disability benefits.

I visted the welfare office last week. Since we have reproduced responsibly, (meaning: not at all) and haven't got a litter of illegitimate bastards to feed and house, we qualify for almost no help at all. (Yet paid a little over 6k in federal ands state taxes last year, no refund due.)

Foodstamps? Haha, for foodstamps we have to count his INCOME but we can't count Him as a member of the HOUSEHOLD. It's moot at the moment, since He has no income, but wait, it gets better. Since a non-citizen cannot be counted as a member of the household, they view us as a household of ONE...and my disability check is about $15.00 too high to qualify me for foodstamps. If I could include my Beloved Other in those calculations, we'd get around $300 in foodstamps per month.

The only other thing they'd even let me APPLY for was Medicaid, which would pick up the expenses that Medicare (which I'm already on) doesn't. It would also severely restrict my choice of providers, as my current crop of physicians don't accept Medicaid.

On the other hand, ILLEGALS collect all sorts of benefits for their minor children who were born here after mommy and daddy jumped the border and committed their crime. Why? Because those children are citizens.

In the past 5 years, Simon and I have spent well over 10K paying various fees to Homeland Security and immigration attorneys in order for Him to be able to live and work here legally. We've obeyed the laws and payed our taxes. Yet there's nothing for us when we need help over a rough spot, nothing at all.

It's unrealistic to expect our government to deport millions of illegals already here, it's just never going to happen.

But we can damn sure stop the flow, and ANY discussion of immigration reform should be shelved until we do.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18little-whip on The Rights of ManLocamamahttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006So you think that healthcare is a priviledge?  I'm not talking about fake boobies and viagara, I mean basic healthcare?  I'm one of those leftist wannabe socialists who thinks that basic healthcare is a right. 

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Locamama on The Rights of Manlifehappenshttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Fantastic article.  Well said!

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18lifehappens on The Rights of ManParaTed2khttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006
I'm sure my views presented here (especially on immigration) will upset some conservatives. 

Actually, I thought your piece here was a pretty good Conservative Manifesto.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/301006Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18ParaTed2k on The Rights of Manstevendedalushttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/138244http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/138244http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/138244Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18stevendedalus on December 7th, 1941stevendedalushttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/138244http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/138244http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/138244Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18stevendedalus on December 7th, 1941Dr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/177844The NY times thinks they have figured out something that no one else can! 

The only thing surprising about the article is that the NY times is so naive!  Or pretends to be.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/177844http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/177844Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on A reminder to the worldDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/174195http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/174195http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/174195Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Sending a messageLocamamahttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/174195http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/174195http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/174195Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Locamama on Sending a messageDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Six wordslee3908870http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989 Wouldn't that be sad. . .an impeached president now as a good chance of becoming a member of the high court.

Lee]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18lee3908870 on Six wordsLocamamahttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173989Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Locamama on Six wordsDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173012http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173012http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173012Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Gold bugs meDraginolhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173012http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173012http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173012Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Draginol on Gold bugs meDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173546You are right.  It is not that they "cannot lose", but it is theirs to lose.  They need go back only to 1988 to see where the party in power was in disfavor at this point - yet won in November.

(I use 1988, as there was no incumbent. As in 2000 - yet in 2000, the party in power did lose - so either is possible - and is why I say it is theirs to lose).

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173546http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/173546Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Democratic attack debateDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/172830http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/172830http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/172830Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Thoughts on strange briefsDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/172562Damning with Faint Praise?  More like slamming with a semi truck!  That one just plain stinks and reeks!

(I agree with your assessment of Obama and Hillary vs Thompson - but dont want Hillary that close to the whitehouse period!)

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/172562http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/172562Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Damning with faint praiseCedarbirdhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688 This is a fascinating read. I just have a couple of things to say from my perspective as an overly protected...girl.
My brothers were allowed to ride their bikes to the library at ten and twelve, whereas I wasn't allowed to do that until I was sixteen and could drive myself. I, nor any of my female friends, were in scouting, all we learned about strangers was from school, and my parents in particular watched over me very carefully. I think girls are indeed treated differently than boys when it comes to "capability." So, while I see where you are coming from, there are indeed other factors, and Texas Wahine said.]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Cedarbird on Preteens on a planeParaTed2khttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688
There is the threat of danger, but I also think there is something else that you didn't mention. As a society, we don't expect people to fully "take on adult responsibilities" until well into their 20s. If we still consider them "kids" at 21, how must we look at then when they are 12?]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18ParaTed2k on Preteens on a planeTexas Wahinehttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688I don't have children yet - which is why I was posting from my perspective AS a preteen.

I suspected as much.

It's easy to say how kids should be when you don't have any.
]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Texas Wahine on Preteens on a planeDr Guyhttp://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/17068840 years ago (when I was that age), it was the same for me.  I flew unescorted across country and took Greyhounds regularly. However I do have some experiences that at the time were scary, but today they would probably be front page news (nothing traumatic, but with the sensitivity towards child abuse, it seems ANY touching is now considered abuse).

Maybe the times have not changed, just our perception of them.

]]>http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688http://ianargent.joeuser.com/article/170688Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:18 -04002008-08-08T00:38:18Dr Guy on Preteens on a plane