h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Do the people who are strict Constitutional interpretation believers really mean as it was set up or do they also understand that our forefathers were not perfect and were only going by what was the common knowlege of the era.

Perhaps what they might want is for the government to protect our constituional rights as free people. When the government tries to run our lives and legislate our lives they are not doing what the government was set up to do.

How is it the government knows it all to be able to tell a woman what is right or wrong about keeping or not keeping a fetus. For those that believe it is the moral equivalent of murder that is between the woman and her beliefs and conscience not the government.

The same with Stem Cell research. We have to have faith in the people who would try to make people walk again or whatever other good is expected from the harvest of stem cells. Again it is their conscience they must work with, not the government.

The government was not intended to be shepards. We the people were supposed to have the right of our own beliefs and our own religion or nonreligion. President Kennedy once said that he would not affect by vote or veto a law that his religion found to be wrong in their opinion. To the best of my knowlege he did what he promised.

Unfortunately so many of our laws are based upon religious beliefs which have been interpreted off the basic ten commandments. Religion has no place in government. You can not legislate morality. That is not to say that if your religion does not believe in equality that you have the right to suppress or enslave another person, man or woman. Equality, late in coming, is a basic right of our people. If you do not believe in this you have a choice to abide by the law of the land even if it goes against your religious grain or move to a country that will allow you to practice your religious beliefs.

That to me is what seperation of church and state is all about. Not preventing children from saying a prayer before eating lunch in school. As far as money goes, it spends just as well with or without and enity's name being on it. I don't even look at money to see what it says other than it's value and to look to see if it looks real enough to spend. If the word God offends you then don't look at it.

And when the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance occurs, remember, we have the freedom of not saying it and if only one word offends you change or omit it when reciting the Pledge.

Having said all the above I still contend we need to find people who will run and get elected that believe in our constitution and want to run the government for the populace not for their own personal gain.

Those who want the job of President should not for any reason be allowed to hold that position.

Okay, I have to quibble with your post Mo--bringing up the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance together. The Constitution was written by the founders of this country. It's what holds this nation of laws together. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1890s, "under God" was added during the height of McCarthyism in the 50s, and it bears no relation to the Constitution. It irks me when conservatives compare the two as if they were similar holy texts under attack by godless traitorious (spelling?) liberals.

Not that I'm claiming you're saying these things, Mo. I just hate to see the two together--almost as much as I hate the war in Iraq being mentioned as part of the War on Terror or compared to 9/11.

Pledge of Allegiance aside, I agree *pretty much* with what Mo is trying to say.

However, how far should the government regulate? You have the right to smoke cigarretes, but who is going to get cancer from secondhand smoke? You have the right to an underground gasoline storage tank, but who is going to make sure it's in good repair so that it doesn't rupture and poison your neighbor's well? Who is responsible? Who will make sure the responsible party /takes/ responsibility?

Again, I'm sure you guys know my opinion- I'm just kind of playing devils advocate to keep the party going!

Yes. I was always the party pooper back in the days when we were passing out flowers and talking about revolution. I wanted to know who was going to collect the garbage off the streets.

Or, as a local rancher has said, for all this talk of property rights, I never seem to hear anything about property responsibilities.

[GDZ]

I really hate to see people wanting to muck around with the Constitution -- particularly if it's to make points relating to the cause du jour.

As for making constitutional amendments relating to abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research:

A) *If* these issues even need to be legislated, they would more properly fall under State's Rights.

B) Trying to make *laws* based on personal morality/religious belief points to a distinct *lack* of faith -- it's like there's no trust that S/He can handle Her/His own wishes. When did God die and leave the *faithful*, of whatever stripe, in charge? Sheesh!

SC

Not everyone believes in God. Right and wrong does not have to have a god.

Then you have different gods with different beliefs.

WAR is an interesting thing. According to many beliefs "Thou shalt not kill." What does that mean exactly? To some animal loving groups that means even cows and pigs.

J/W's won't even kill to survive personal attacks. At least that is what I have been told.

So if you are going to use a god thing for making decisions you can't make or fight in a war?

My major beef with Libertarianism is that it assumes all citizens are willing to take responsibilty for their actions and how they affect others--despite the abundant evidence to the contrary. If that was the case, why have regulatory agencies and the criminal justice system? Obviously people like to shirk responsibility. It's human nature.

Libertarianism does not assume that people will just take responsibility. Libertarians DO believe in a justice system.

Oh? Regulatory agencies, for better or worse, are part of the justice system.

Yeah, that's generally my beef with libertarianism. There's no safety net for those less powerful.

I agree with you 100% even though I am more libertarian than anything else. But right now I can't see enough good in either of the two major parties to want to be one of them. All they seem to want to do is fight with each other and get rich. The rich is okay but not as a politician. Too much of getting rich is not hard work but less than ethical behavior.

Regarding the Path to 9/11 "documentary" on ABC, this just in from Associated Press:

The president has asked broadcast networks to clear time for an address to the nation Monday at 9:01 p.m., or at the start of the last hour of "The Path to 9/11" on the East Coast.

Interesting!!! Let us wait to see what he is going to say before condemning him. Just maybe he is going to say something like the film you are about to watch is not based strictly on full truths.

Interesting.

I did read in the NYT that some FBI agents declined consulting roles on the script because some things were completely inaccurate.

But still... the POTUS address during the last hour of a docu-drama about one of the larger tragedies of his presidency... very interesting.

There are several stories out there about people declining participation and of people who worked on the project of denouncing it afterwards.

There are also stories about ABC still editing the project even at this late date.

If there is football or baseball on I'll miss it anyways. According to Bill's attorney it is all lies about Bill. And we know how honest Bill is.

Let me know what you think after you have seen it.

I'm boycotting Disney and ABC. We all know how honest they are. We all know how honest George W. Bush is. We all know how honest Karl Rove is.

Here is a review: http://www.pastdeadline.com/2006/09/five_years_late.html

It's going to air in Australia tomorrow, too late for Clinton's lawyers to get an injunction, but on the other hand they will now have grounds to sue. The Austrailian trailer, being shown as we speak, starts with the words OFFICIAL TRUE STORY.

Hey, why merely swiftboat an individual when you can taint an entire election?

I think this is an interesting bit of propaganda synergy. A television network, a Hollywood studio, a political party and a President all working together to keep a nation at war.

I am confused about working together. I thought that except for Fox Network the rest of the Television networks were Liberal and the same for Hollywood. As for the political party and the Pres working together I would expect that just as one would expect the other party to be behind their leaders. Am I mistaken about the networks and Hollywood?