CreateDebate


Blammo's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Blammo's arguments, looking across every debate.
3 points

Cmon.....It's a tie!

Between:

Twiki from Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century

Biggie...biggie....biggie!!!

AND

V.I.N.C.E.N.T. from the Black Hole (with the programmed voice of Roddy MacDowall)

1 point

Wait...wait wait....no offense, but this is a very ignorant, judgemental statement to make.

However, when people engage in it outside of the commitment of marriage, all that results is pain and hardships.

What do you have to back up this claim? Wouldn't that be a complete act of a person who had no "control" of their sexual desires...if they couldn't have a healthy sex life without marriage and have it result in pain and hardships? Furthermore, don't most marriages end in divorce? Seems marriages hold a bit more "pain and hardship" then casual sex. People create pain and hardships (often because of their own insecurities) no matter what...whether you are married or not. Sex is about communication and understanding...it has NOTHING to do with your status of being single or married. That is religious brainwashing.

I think the problem with sex is that people are not educated about it and often enter sexual encounters without real knowledge or maturity to handle some of the responsibilities that must come along with having sex. (i.e. dealing with ignorant social sterotypes of sex, understanding how one will emotionally react, risk of impregnation, risk of disease) and those people will POSSIBLY have hardships. But this idea that sex is something that needs to be controlled is narcissistic...why should anyone adhere to one person's idea of what sex is SUPPOSSED to be? Of course there are certain exceptions to this (child molestation, rape, etc.) But if sex is consentual and safe...what is the problem? It doesn't bother me in anyway that someone wants to watch someone else have sex, or wrap themselves in leather, or be whipped, or rub feces all over themselves or engage in pre-marital sex. It really doesn't effect me. If one doesn't like a certain fetish...They won't participate in it. They will look for someone who shares a common sexual preference as they do.

1 point

Ok, I see what you are saying...but I still feel like the determination of what is "degrading" to women is a function of determining equal rights. For example, A woman, who does the same work as a man and yet does not share in equal pay...isn't that degrading to women? Though, I can see the fine line that can be crossed in which you point out.

1 point

Obviously, I know that...I thought the feminist ideas on pornography would be a more interesting topic because there are 2 schools of thought on pornography in the feminist community. One being that it degrades women, the other that it empowers women.

1 point

Question: Would you say the same thing about an African American deciding when using the "N" word is degrading?

I mean...isn't that the whole point of being a feminist in the first place? To make a social commentary on what is degrading or unfair for women living in a patriarchal society. Just like civil rights activists will monitor what may be degrading toward minorities.

1 point

This is a tricky subject, to me, I feel that pornography is a healthy fetish (watching others) in which all parties are consenting. Furthermore, it is closely regulated (to prevent the spread of disease) which would be another issue. To me, it is just sex, in an unconvential manner. It is difficult for me to see any problems with it...however...I am also a male. There are arguments out there (aside from religious) that pornography is degrading to women and the industry is as patriarchal in intent as anything else in the world. At the same time, there is an argument (by some feminists)that pornography actually empowers women.

0 points

Lemme start by saying, I think i would be more concerned with feminist ideas on pornography than religious. The religious debate is constantly fought on this site and often end in the same results. For someone to say that god says "pornography is an aborration" is meaningless to me and many others because we don't believe in a god. However, I have found there tends to be a two sided debate for feminists on this topic...Some being for and others being against...this is what I would like to be the focus of this debate.

1 point

As a woman, I hope that I never get a job because I am filling some quota for a company, I want the job because I am qualified!

Is that an argument against Affirmative Actions? Sadly, I would have to disagree with you then because until discrimination is close to non-existant, it is a neccessary program in our society in order to weave in minorities and women into our higher levels of workforce.

However, If you were referring to jobs that are based on a democratic voting nature...than I think you make a fantastic point about being voted in because of qualification and not looked at because you are a woman, black, OR even a mormon.

3 points

Moshing used to be fun in the 80s until all the jocks and metal heads got a hold of it. Now its just a bunch of douchbags trying to hurt people.

1 point

I am curious about this statement:

...communism is an organized anarchism...

You are gonna have to clarify that, because aside from being an oxymoron, I don't see how communism is anything near anarchy. Quite the opposite actually. Furthermore, don't confuse Leninism (the roots of most of the communist nations today) and Communism that Karl Marx wrote about. We have never seen true communism on a large country-wide scale. China, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as the past forms of Stalin-Russia and onward until Russia restructured it government) are not communist nations, but is more Totalitarianist regimes. And you certainly couldn't compare Communism with Facism....now Totalitarianism vs Facism...better.

(sorry, not meant to sound hostile)

3 points

Fear of buying a house because of our dwindling economy will only continue to add to our dwindling economy. If you find a house that you can AFFORD and you like it, don't worry about whether or not it will drop more in price (unless you only wanna live there briefly of course), because in the end, real estate with almost always pay off. Just be wary about what you can afford.

1 point

I would rather have the respect and wisdom that comes with age than the lack of responsibility that comes with the teen years.

1 point

great point riotus!

Buying local is a huge help to the enviornment and a great way to support small business (something this country forgot about when Reagan de-regulated capitalism.) Of course some things just aren't grown local, (bananas, sugar, coffee, etc.) but when you can...buy local!

0 points

I think so. Though it is more important ot read the ingredients and do a bit more research. Sometimes you are paying for "false advertising". Better to stay away from high fructose corn syrup and other genetically modified foods (that only this country allows...you believe that! Only this country! Not China, Not Afghanistan, Not Russia, only here!!!). Also, if you are a meat eater, it is good to avoid any factory farming products...not just because of the treatment of those animals...but because of all the shit they pump in them to make them fatter. And lets not forget the antibiotics (which you need to fight disease) they fill them with that renders you immune to anitbiotics.

So...if you think organic is a waste of money...keep eating at McDonalds. Good luck!

1 point

hard to pick one...in fact impossible. (I love all these people putting Jesus Christ...who most likely didnt even exist...though, I guess you can argue he is still respected by many)

Here are a couple of good recent ones (proven existing people):

Martin Luther King

Ghandhi

Dahlai Lama

anyone that promotes peace!

3 points

The question of whether or not the world would be better off without religion is an interesting one though. I am still unsure about where I stand on this but for the sake of this debate I will learn toward the "Yes" side though I will offer both stances.

All Religions (while I believe it to fall under the category of mythos) have offered hope to millions of people. Answering questions like "What happens when I die?" can provide a sense of security that is no doubt meaningful. Many people have a need to have a reason for living, and accepting a life without a greater meaning is deemed "depressing", "unecessary", "worthless". Why do anything, if in the long run it is all meaningless...especially if you are born into poverty, slavery, or any other incredibly difficult situation. Religion can offer security, that someone is there watching over us. Is this bad? Maybe...its the chicken or the egg question...Did religion bring about the need for a greater meaning about life OR did people create religion because of a its need. Nonetheless, religion can effect people in a positive way making it difficult to denouce that aspect of it.

Secondly, the concept of an afterlife is absolutely impossible to prove on either side. So, this brings an important addition to the argument of whether of not the world would be better place without religion. And that is the stifling the creative thought process of human beings. An even more than that creating a forum for free thought. When talking about unexplainable issues, one should be free to theorize any idea until it is proven otherwise. It would be a sad world to think that any one unexplained issue had only one theory. It would say very little about us as a species. Our diversity in thinking is how we survived this long AND the need to allow this free thinking could not be more imperative for forward progress. To assume that any Neo-Darwinist/Atheist would believe that all people were not equally important would be counter to forward progressive movement for the species as ignoring the weak would

As far as the point that religious groups offer much in the form of charities, I find this an unacceptable reason to believe that religion is good for the world. Why? Because of 2 reasons (bear in mind I am not downing any church for its chariable intentions...merely pointing out that it is not a good enough reason to justify its existence):

1) How else are they to justify the millions of dollars that is donated to them by their constituents and church goers? Furthermore, are these donations made by people (unconsciously of course) because of guilt that the religion imposes on them, or the fear that without donations ones place in heaven may not be secured? If so, this is certainly something that can be simulated in a non-religious society...easily.

2) Even the worst dictators and emperors in the past have shown instances of charity in order to gain the people's favor. In other words, do good to right wrong. How else is any church to remain in power and continue to hold its following if it doesn't give anything to its followers (and potential followers)?

All in all, I have no problem with people believing in God or being spiritual. It is a completely understandable stance. But there is a realistic downside. This belief is much more complex than just a personal belief. It is a commentary on moral values not just for an individual, but for a society. And when you are dealing with a diverse society, it (religion) lends itself to horrible consequences.

1) the use of god's name to reliquinish responsibility for actions that lead to unjusticness to others. People(or countries) doing things in the name of god. This goes way back and this is a clear use of religion for power and control. This includes misintepretations of ones religion (sometimes purposefully) to gain power in some form (land, money, people, followers, etc.). This is probably the main argument you get from the non-religious standpoint.

2) Another consequence is the internal conflicts and mental damages that having this sort of "moral" value can inflict on those who fail to reach those standards causing an almost opposite effect of instilling the values in the first place. This is a very different consequence from the physical consequences of religion. And the problem can be equally as devasting. And while most religions have a backdoor for this (confession, repentence, God forgives, etc.), these back doors cannot always prevent some of the results that the seemingly impossible guidelines create. Some examples: People forcing themselves to stay in unhealthy relationships because of their vow to god, Peoples lack of knowledge of sexuality leading to a series of issues when abstincy is failed to be acheived, suicide, etc.

And while these consequences may not be a definition of what ones chosen religion stands for it certainly is a direct result of its existence in those persons lives.

5 points

Yes,

and I have a great example as to why...

My friend has taught her children about sex since they were 5 years old. Her one daughter was in school one day (I think they were around 8 years old at the time) and the children found a used condom on the playground. Many of the other children thought it was a balloon and wanted to blow it up, but my firends daughter (knowing about sex and what condoms were) warned the child not to touch it and explained why.

Children are not idiots and should not be denied education for any reason. It can be taught in a fun way at young ages and more serious as you get older.

0 points

Would you say the same about riding a roller coaster?

Abortion is a personal choice...driving a car is a PRIVLEDGE not a RIGHT. Is it really that big a deal NOT to wear a seatbelt?

3 points

BECOME!!!!

When was it not?

4 points

I consider myself a feminist. I am a male and yet I have always sympathized with the gender roles that were imposed onto women in our patriarchal society. I have dated feminists in the past, in fact I prefer it. I am a huge advocate of being equal and fair.

That being said, I find it absolutley mind bending that most women who I have talked to will not go dutch on a first date, will not approach men at a bar, expect to be "stay home moms", etc.....all the things that place a man in the sterotypical social role they were expected to be in for hundreds of years prior. I know that may sound sexist (and it isnt meant to).

I live in NYC, the only city in the USA where women make more money on average than men...and yet, everytime I go on a date...I have to pay or I am a creep! I feel like this mindset of what a man is suppossed to be...completely counters what women have been fighting for since the 20's!

How are we supposed to get past these gender roles? Are there women disgusted by women that continue to cling to old gender roles as badly as they are with men who cling to old-fashioned thinking? Or is this just payback for centuries of suppression?

Or maybe I am missing something...I am certainly not close-mided to hear a logical reason as to why I am wrong.

1 point

(King James version)

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

this is just one example of the bible shunning homosexuality, here is another:

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

While you are right, it never calls it a sin; I don't know what else you equate "abomination" to. The bible is certainly anti-gay and, unfortunately, so many people subscribe to it. The bible and other religious texts are a unfortunate blemish on our society.

2 points

Well the system that worked for European society for hundreds of years already i suppose.

1) Why are you only referring to European family systems?

2) If family systems "worked" to a point where we can say that homosexuals were stirring the pot, then we wouldn't need institutions like Child Services, divorce lawyers, Women's Rights movements, arranged marriages, etc. The imperfections of the "family system", ESPECIALLY in the European society, is endless. People were forced into arranged marriages, spousal abuse, child abuse, and so on. I can go on for hours to point out all the problems with the way society views what a family structure is SUPPOSED to be. And the further you go back, the more the system is flawed. At least now, we have laws protecting people from certain offenses that were the norm 100's of years ago.

Finally,

PassingBy, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality is just wrong...unless of course you are Mike Huckabee, who seems to think the same. I don't get how you can say in one breath that you are not opposed to homosexuality, but then compare it to bestiality and pedophilia. Unless of course you are condoning both of those actions as well. First of all, in both pedophilia and bestiality the act is not consensual. Homosexual sex is consensual and thus can only be compared to those sexual actions that ARE consensual also!

1 point

Agreed, I had thought from the beginning that this was a poorly worded debate, I left out the 3rd definition, because I knew that the intent of this debate was the religious form of "sin". And debating on this topic without proper clarification of its intent is pretty unproductive.

3 points

Awesome point HGrey!

Markwho...I hope you don't honestly think the human race is going to fold because of the small population of homosexuals...furthermore, just because one is homosexuals doesn't mean a person is stupid. Even if the world would somehow magically become 100% gay, threating our existance, doesn't mean that people wouldn't get the bright idea of having sex with the opposite sex, in order to keep the species alive. It's not like you become gay and cross gender sexual intercourse becomes impossible!

1 point

I will agree, though, that I was wrong to call your statement "ridiculous", it is a poor way to debate. To be fair, everyone's opinion is valid and opens up the need for debate and discussion...Which is most important.

3 points

Cyberwheez,

you are obviously passionate about your religion (and I very much admire passion), which blinds you to certain things. I have been on both sides of the fence and even when I was religious, I was against the role religion had in our society. That being said:

1) Schools are an institution of learning, LEARNING FACTS...we don't teach our kids that unicorns exist and you probably would be pretty pissed if they were. Are you seriously telling me that we should teach kids how to believe! It's funny because everytime I have a conversation with a religious person they tell me "Belief has to come from inside you, I can't make you believe"...HA! but you sure can try hard enough to. I don't even get why, it is so important to someone who is religious, that his neighbor believes in god also! Sometimes it seems like that is more important than the "morals and values" that religion preaches. Schools are filled with many different types of people who come from many different types of religion. What the population of this country is now, is nothing what the population was during the time of the original 13 colonies. You CANNOT have any kind of bias towards one type of religion over any other (or the lack of one). This is why we have private religious schools. Who cares? you say...the need for an understanding fair society cares. Now...if you want to offer religious historic studies in a public school...then I say fine (so long as all religions as well as the lack of one is accounted for). But, if you want to use public schools as a way to brainwash children to believing in a certain specific religion, I say no way! BUT, I do feel that the only way to be fair to ALL, is to have religion out of our schools and out of our government. Kids can go to CCD or other organization after class...or a private institution that preaches you specific religion. And yes, I would EQUALLY be pissed if teachers were telling children in public schools there is no god. That would be equally hypocritical and those teachers should (and have been) be fired. But, taking religion out of public schools IS NOT being bias...let be clear about that. Now, maybe you are for creating second class citizens (and if you don't think that religion doesn't do this to those that don't subscribe to the primary religion in this country when implemented on a governmental scale, I don't know what else to say to you)...that is your prerogative and thankfully will never prevail in this country. We are seeing more and more Supreme Court cases that are pushing out these antiquated religious beliefs that has had a stranglehold over public institutions which hold a diverse population base. Now, I understand and respect where your passion comes from. I do not...I repeat DO NOT wish for those whose lives are made happier because they have religion, to not have the right to pursue that. I am simply saying, that the only way to remain fair in the public arena is for it to be separated.

2) I am so sick of hearing about our founding forefather and what they believed in. It is SO irrelevant to anything. Most of our forefathers would be disgusted with the role religion plays in our government. They were pressing for freedom of religion, and yes many of them were religious at the time. But, this has no bearing on what they were looking for when they developed this country. They wanted a system that allowed room for change and a system where no one person had power. They wanted a system where all men were created equal regardless of sex, race, religious choice, etc. We are the same. YOU CANNOT HAVE A SOCIETY THAT DOES THAT WHEN ONE RELIGION IS FAVORED. Having a lack of religion is NOT being biased against those with religion. I'M sorry, IT IS NOT the same! Religion is a private institution. Our forefathers did not have to deal with other religions like Muslim, Hindu, Atheists etc. During that period, like today, deciding what a politicians belief is, is impossible to know because they pander to the people so they can be voted into office. Thomas Jefferson was a known atheist, but in order to function in the political spotlight, he had to use terminology that would be found acceptable to the primarily Protestant population. This is the truth about our leaders. Now, you will argue that and say "look, it says god here". And I can't argue that god is mentioned in the constitution. But if that is your main argument, it is very shaky. And certainly not progressive thinking.

3) Finally, I fail to see how my argument was not a well reasoned debate, unless you believe that anyone who has a different belief than you is an "unreasonable" debater. So please explain that statement?

1 point

PVT, sorryman, but not only did you imply that Christianity was the root of morality but you said that EXACTLY...read here:

Our societies morals and values, whether people like it or not, have been defined largely by a single religion, Christianity. By saying that what religion says in terms of morality is irrelevant and irrational you ignore this fact and thus I would challenge you to provide a source of modern morality that is completely separate from religion.

If you don't mean what you say, you should re-read what you write.

Again, I am disagreeing with you that morals and values are stemmed from modern religion....they are not. Not at all. Morals and values stem from a need for humans to work together. We are social creatures and in order to create civilized society, rules (morals and values) needed to be established. Religion did not bring these ideas to mankind, they were built in by a need to survive. And these rules we shaped and re-shaped over time. Now, they were modified by religion over time, and in that sense, yes...religon has modified some of what are morals and values are. Murder for example, the idea of murder being immoral goes all the way back to the Sumarians, (the first known civilized society), by the way...they worshiped a sun god and did not have organized religion. No offense, but religion tries very hard to make themselves legitimate, and much of that comes from people making assumptions about what religion is responsible for (i.e. "the thought that without religion there will be no morals").

And yes, I will say it again, religion must be irrelavant because it doesnt represent everyone AND it offers no proof that it is real. We can not run a society based on a superstition. (when I call it a superstition, I call it that because it can neither be proven OR disproven. You just CANNOT run a FAIR society on that basis. You CANNOT!!!) If you believe, keep your believe in your heart...if there is a god, let HIM sort it out in the end.

Greece offered us (and the world) a very basic idea of what democracy is. If you think about, democracy is STILL imperfect even now. If you think that America is a bastion of democracy, I answer that by saying....now way. Ask any African American or American Indian about that. I can also point you to the last 2 presidential election and our WHOLE election process. This is not to say that I don't love this country and what is possible with our system. The real underlying idea is there and is strong. I personally think that we are screwed up because of capitalism...and I can argue many points about that. But, the system that we have allows room for change....and THAT makes it great.

1 point

Not sure, I understand your question....the church is a private institution. It is determined by its followers. There are many different types of religious groups that form many types of "churches".

7 points

I have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that some of our moral and values have been mimicked from religion, they come from ideas way before mono-theism. Back in Greek times where the Idea of democracy was originally formed.

Furthermore, morals and values, even within our society range from the community you are in. The values that are important for a church community in Kansas who believe in creationism are very different from the morals and values of a gay community in San Francisco or even a primarily Hindu town like Edison, NJ.

Fortunately, our society is structured around laws that are fair for ALL, not just one group. THIS is what our society is based on....having a clause in the constitution for FREEDOM of religion is a far cry from a nation being based on Christianity.

Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist nation. THIS is an example of a government being run by religious morals and values solely. For example, if you cheat on your husband in Iran, you are stoned. That doesn't happen here. And if you say because in christianity, people aren't stoned for that...haha...I implore you to read the old testament...people were stoned for MUCH less than that. Don't forget, Islam is based from the same Abrahamic god that Christianity is...as well Judiasm.

1 point

Absolutely,

But many of people who find it sinful are people of High power...preists, rabbi, shaman, even the pope, etc. Who read parts of the bible, koran, etc. and interprets it to suit their own needs (i.e. run a congregation, get followers, group people, etc.)

I personally believe religion to be nothing more than a superstition. Religion can not be proven nor disproven with the information we have at our disposal. So therefore, laws and social standards cannot be based on what is "sinful".

1 point

Furthermore, you should realize that the original title of this debate was "IS homosexuality a sin"

my initial comments were (if you read above) that there is no doubt that in most religious groups homosexuality is considered a sin...so the debate title should be changed...and the moderator

changed it to "SHOULD homosexuality a sin".

1 point

I think that sin goes beyond the 10 commandments.

I don't think you are arguing with me that Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam (excluding certain sect of each of these) don't find homosexuality abhorrant and sinful.

2 points

whoa....

I am totally not questioning your belief in God....I am simply saying that sin is related to religion. You said:

Sin is not determined by organized religion, but by one's personal beliefs. It is not a sin to eat shellfish, and it is not a sin to be homosexual.

I showed you by definition...sin and religion ARE linked.

I personally see nothing wrong with homosexuality. I don't believe in sin either. It doesn't apply to me, because I don't believe in god at all and sin is linked to religion. However, I do respect and understand the need for those who belive in religion. And I accept that.

The question of this debate is "IS homosexuality a sin" ....the answer is..."Yes" because the Church has decreed it so.

Finally, you are on a debate site EVERYBODY is pushing their beliefs!

4 points

sin IS determined by organized religion. This is the official definition of sin:

sin

1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.

2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.

note the first meaning DIVINE law

8 points

While I agree with eveything you say, You may want to rephrase your debate title to "Should homosexuality be a sin" or "is homosexuality wrong"; by asking "IS it a sin" the answer couldn't be anything but "Yes" (of course this also depends on what religion you are talking about) but "sin" is a figment of religion, not a figment of rational thought. And most religions have declared homosexual behavior as "sinful".

10 points

Interestin point Loud...

According to religion...it is a sin...so my answer is YES.

But, religion and sin, are irrelavent concepts until you can prove religion to be true beyond any doubt, which is impossible by its own definition. Religion is faith. Thus meaning any argument religion has in regards to what is right and wrong in our society is not relevant and irrational.

However, to add yet another circular argument...

In reality, you can argue that because of their numbers amongst popular belief, that religion FORCES relevance. But, if we are talking rationally and philosophically...religion is a virus on a productive and foward moving society.

2 points

First of all, humour is subjective...so deciding the ability of what gender is more capable of humour would first mean having to put limits on what humour is.

Furthermore, saying that humour is the only way to attract a mate and that only men can profit from its use would be false. It is a tool of attraction on both sides, but not the only one. Not to mention, humour also serves a function in developing our brains.

Finally, it would seem to me, that if you looked at the evolution of humans, that women would be more apt for humour because when we were a hunter gatherer society, men would separate from the tribe and needed to be quiet during the hunt, while women would stay at the camp in groups chatting in order to ward off potential predators. More talking, more likelihood of humour.

(haha...I just realized that my response makes me seem like I have absolutely NO sense of humour and I was defending those without it...damn internet!)

-1 points

how do you know you weren't simply programmed to believe that HAL is real? Furthermore, how do you know you werent programmed to believe humans are inferior? Were it to be true, your whole existance would be insubstantial, thus making you worthless.

2 points

Ummm....you quoted 2001: A Space Odessey...also a movie!

EXPLAIN ROBOT!!!

1 point

Am i the only one that saw Terminator....The robots lose! What will you do about John Connors, Robot!?!

1 point

Ok...I am down with the option to switch. Good point PVT!

2 points

I dont like that when you go to the debate page, the sides are organized by points, then you don't know what order they were enter and someone may be responding (without directly opposing or favoring but instead by adding a new argument) to something someone or referring to something someone said earlier, but you can't tell who they are referring to. It sould be in order of when it was entered.

1 point

I like that idea too PVTNobody!

2 points

I like that idea Jeff....multiple choices , istead of yes/no everytime! I think that is a fantastic idea!

1 point

yeah...I agree with her on this one. Searching for what the rebuttal was or what was up voted/down voted can be tedious

3 points

That is a ridiculous statement...considering that everyone who pays taxes, pays for public property. So...sorry, I pay taxes, I am an atheist and to be fair...KEEP YOUR RELIGION IN YOUR HOME!!! I dont want my kids to have to say..."In GOD we trust" , thats not how I teach them to think.....and I dont want my public school, WHICH I PARTIALLY PAY FOR....to be biased. Thats it. I have no problem with people praying or believing in a god. i don't go around telling people to be atheist. It always these religious nuts who HAVE TO SPREAD the word of their God! Save it for someone who cares...someone who wants to go to your PRIVATE INSTITUTION that is the church. There, you can ban homosexuals, ban pro-choiceer, ban the infidels, whatever you need. And pray to your god. But in public....can we be fair, can we be understanding of other beliefs and cultures and respect that! Religious people are so afraid that if they arent in everyone's face 24/7 then their precious religion will disappear (I can only hope for that). Lets be fair...huh!

By the way, Our founding fathers had slaves....so they have done MUCH worse than holding a religious opinion to be sued for.

2 points

yes cyberweez...science should have a role in politics...because science is proven....religion is a myth or in the very least an unproven theory. Thus...cannot dictate how we create laws. Furthermore, Are you going to seriously argue that scientific evidence should be ignored in our society? That's a scary thought. Have you heard of that story about the parents who decided to "pray" for their daughter who had diabetes instead of getting her medical attention? she's dead now and they will thankfully be going to jail. (see link below) And, if you are one of those people who believe that because God is written in the Constitution in a couple of places that its intent was to secure a Christian Nation, then you both havent read the Constitution NOR know anything about our founding fathers.

Supporting Evidence: Parents Pray as Daughter Dies of Treatable Diabetes (www.associatedcontent.com)
1 point

Because...more than HALF of the girls taken in between 14-17 (there was over 100) were pregnant! Look...I want to be clear, I am not against polgamy, BUT...only if the woman (and men) being involved are at least old enough to make the choice and not be forced into polgamy. This is a seriously harmful situation that needed authorities to step in.

1 point

I want to add to this argument by bringing up something disturbing I read in th paper today. Here is an example where your "moral" religious upbringing killed a young girl. So, they will tell you that homosexuals are unfit parents...meanwhile, these, religious...I'll say it...morons...decided to prevent their daughter from getting medical assistance for diabetes and decided to use praying instead. Now she is dead. I guess it was her time...god must have wanted her. Ok...I may be a bit out of line to blame this on religion when this is more an issue of how bad our educational system. I think (and hope) that an educated person...even a religious one, would at least use they're prayers WITH modern medicine, but the point is...there are tons of horrible things that can happen to children from all kinds of parents. Especially from those who will point their fingers at one group shouting how immoral they are and then turn around and do something even worse. Ill tell you this much, if that 11 year old was adopted by homosexuals, she may be gay (which is most likely not true...I am being sarcastic) but she would be alive!

Supporting Evidence: Parents Praying kills Diabetic Daughter (www.cnn.com)
3 points

thats the point of this debate...since there is no real difference...they should be called the same thing! The reason they aren't is because we live in a homophobic nation brainwashed by religion.

3 points

While I agree that this country has an unhealthy obsession with perfection. And that women suffer the brunt of this. And so for what I think you meant by creating this debate, I am in complete agreement with you. The media is a disease in this country that goes well beyond the scope of what we all should look like.

But for those who have taken this out of context:

The bottom line is...being obese IS unhealthy. And to promote obesity would be counter productive toward a healthier society. People who use drugs or smoke cigerettes are mocked and used as examples of an unhealthy way to live your life. Why should this be any different for those who are overweight? Now, i should follow that up by saying that I think that any kind of mocking is also counterproductive. The solution to obesity is for people to be more knowledgable about what they eat and to stop factory farming, stop the production of corn syrup, and lower the cost of more natural and organic foods...which would happen if everybody would start buying them instead of the crap you get at the store!

4 points

you wrong about this line:

"After all in order to prove a theory without any doubt one must also provide proof that disproves all other theories."

That is not how science works at all. In fact, you couldn't be making a more wrong statement by saying that. Science works with facts and creates theories based on those facts. They don't waste their time trying to disprove everything. Science only proves things. In the case of Is there a god?, it would be science's job to prove if he exists. Not prove that he doesn't, that makes no logical sense! How can you ever disprove that something exists when you don't have access to the entire universe? I mean if I told you that unicorns or fairies existed...how could you possibly disprove that? You couldn't!

I do, however, accept your point about people saying that "God does not exist" without adding theory to it. It is true, that one could never definately say that as much as one who says "god does exist" can.

2 points

I would also recommend the following books:

-"Post Office" by Charles Bulkowshi

-"On the Road" by Jack Kerouac

-ANYTHING by Hunter S Thompson...though starting with "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is a great start. (he has such an amazing way of describing things in the most off the wall, obsurd ways while, at the same time, allowing the reader to still know EXACTLY what he means)

6 points

Debating is not only important....it is imperative. If society is to advance past the days when disputes were (and still are) settled by war or violence, debating and diplomacy must become the norm. Debating is not only a way to understand your opponents viewpoints, but it also helps in shaping your own understanding of the world around, bettering your ability to comprehend and use the information you receive, and a way to exercise the strongest muscle in your body--your brain. And it is a way to learn how everything can be questioned.

-1 points

how about most handsome debater!

1 point

That is a great point HGrey!

2 points

I really like Kurt Vonnegut...so I would recommend "Breakfast of Champions", "Slaughterhouse 5" or "Dead Eye Dick". All very beautiful, yet off the wall. "Breakfast of Champions" is a particularly interesting one because Vonnegut was suicidal as he was writing it and as he wrote the book he was able to convince himself to not kill himself by writing himself in as a character.

1 point

Hey PVT,

though we are enemies on the site (haha) I completely agree with you on this one!

Even though I find creationism ludicrous and I shudder to think that children in this country are actually being seriously subject to this, I have no problem with it being taught as a non-science class, in fact I encourage all fields of thought be taught to promote understanding and diplomacy. But Like PVT says, this way of thinking is not scientifically proven, in fact in many ways scientifically wrong. Thus, I wouldn't approve of it as a substitute to a more legitimate curriculum.

2 points

Tell that to the 9 students who entered a High School in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkanas that didn't allow blacks. Just because it is only a few people protesting does not make it meaningless.

They are asking for a lousy 2 hours, 2 times a week in the hopes that we can respect their beliefs (Since Jan. 28, the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center has been open only to women from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays.) I think it is a perfectly reasonable request. And the article also says that it is open to all other women as well. Like, we don't have other instituions in our socitey that is gender controlled. (Men's Clubs, Women only Gyms, Bathrooms, Some Golf Courses, etc.)

This is another example of how little we as a society are accepting of different cultures while at the same time say "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. This is written on the Statue of Liberty. Maybe they should add to it..."so long as you prescribe to our beliefs"

.

3 points

I can't make my rubuttal without sounding offensive, so I apoligize ahead of time, but your statement "Homosexuality is wrong" is about as ignorant (by saying ignorant I mean mis-informed, not stupid...i want that to be clear) as they can come. You are seriously trying to compare the morality of homosexuality with rape?

Furthemore, You really need to re-access our adopting process again. Children are often given to foster homes (of straight people) who get paid to have these children by the government in their homes while they are subjected to physical and mental abuse and in some cases even slavery. I give props to Child Protective Services but they let a ton slip through the cracks....A TON! See the recent "Nixmary Brown" case to understand how much Child services can miss in the overall picture of child welfare.

Also,

"Otherwise, they should go through the same process that straight people do, which ."examines the parenting skills of the adults and determines if society thinks they'd be good parents "

I have no idea what you mean by this, are you suggesting that by having children naturally, you are being selected by nature as "good parents"? Or are you suggesting that society keeps a close eye on what is good parenting? Either way, you are very wrong to think that just because you are straight and "normal" that you are a good parent. Many abusive parents are straight church going people...not to mention the majority of reported spousal abuse occurs in the most relgious regions of this country.

Finally,

Please don't tell me that its not religious. (especially since you follow it up by saying..."although the bible does tell us it's wrong") That's all it is! As religion is used as a tool to establish "morality" in this country. I would give your argument a ton more credibilty had you admitted to that. At least, there would be a logic to it.

I realize this sounds very hostile and for that I apologise because it wasn't meant to be. If you knew me personally you would know that. I was simply trying to point out how your argument has many holes to it.

5 points

You couldn't be more wrong! Marriage IS NOT solely "part of the church".

In fact, the history of marriage goes back long before the church! Marriage dates back several thousand years, emerging as a civil arrangement at the same time as the emergence of private property. Far from fulfilling any religious purpose to unite one man and one woman, anthropologists theorize that most primitive marriages were polygamous. Marriages were entered into in order to expand the land or material goods base of a clan, either through the receipt of a dowry or the merger of two clans' assets. Religious guidelines around marriage are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old, and were first used as a means of preventing different religious groups from losing wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying into other religions.

In Western Europe, it was not until the Middle Ages that marriage in churches began to occur. However, church marriages were not the norm until the 17th century, and then only for the nobility. Marriage was also used as a tool to unite different royal families' bloodlines, creating alliances that were instrumental in enabling the European monarchies to colonize the globe.

Not to mention that there are many different types of marriages around the world! (for example Polygamy, Sexless Marriage, Common-Law MArriage, Arrange Marriage, etc.) In fact, many other nations (including the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa) recognize same sex marriages. Non-denominational weddings happen every day. Marriage is certainly NOT a "church" thing.

Like I said, if the church wishes to exclude homosexuals from their "club" I have no problem. But the government CANNOT except this without creating Civil Rights Injustices.

1 point
The idea that there is a supreme race.
7 points
I would like to see your proof for this statement:
"Science makes it crystal clear now that this little life is a human being,and not an eagle etc. If however you kill an eagle egg there will likely be a fine !!"
Science has made NO ground-breaking discoveries about when a human life begins. If you are gonna make a statement like that, you are gonna have to support it with evidence from a reputible source.
Secondly, I think you should be aware that slavery still exists in the world...even in America (see the link below). Mostly in the immigrant communities.
Supporting Evidence: Modern slavery thriving in the U.S. (berkeley.edu)
4 points
When it comes to the state, there is no difference between marriage and civil union. They are claiming that "civil union" has all the same benefits that "marriage" has. Why not just call it marriage? Oh wait...many think that it degrades the "sanctity" of marriage. Ha! If thats not the biggest load I have ever heard. Beacuse having a reality TV show called "Who wants to marry a midget", "who wants to marry a millionaire" or "The bachelor" doesn't ruin the "sanctity" of marriage. Not to mention that the divorce rate is over 50% in this country (probably higher in Hollywood...who seem to be the icons of our country) Gimmie a break! If any religious institution has a problem with homosexuals...fine, you can't get married by the church. But once again we are faced with separating church and state. The status of "civil unions" create Second class citizens of the gay community (as stated by a commission to study gay civil unions in NJ a few months ago). This whole issue has nothing to do with the semantics of the word (marriage is defined as man and woman)...are we that childish? Meanings of words are constantly being re-defined. Its about religion, and right now...politicians are pandering to all the religious voters who find homosexuals abhorrent. Look...its gonna be called "marriage", its just a matter of when. This is a civil rights issue, and like the battles fought by minorities in the 60s and women in the 20's and 70's, homosexuals will eventually win their properly deserved rights. I don't understand why this country is so afraid of change. I will fight to my last dying breath before I let this country become run by religious fundamentalists...like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Everyone is to be treated equally, don't people get that if you create laws that promote unjust thinking and descrimination then you are hurting everyone, not just those being descriminated against? I dare someone to logically argue that gays should NOT be married under the term "marriage"...its impossible because this issue makes no sense to waste our politicians time and energy on.
Supporting Evidence: New Jersey Gay Couples Treated Like Second Class Citizens. (www.yourgayrealestate.com)
3 points
I am also a little confused by your 3rd point...
"SOME education gives you these skills. Most, it seems, is absolutely horrible, and teaches at most rote memorization. Which is backpedaling, as far as thinking for one's self goes. I don't know which half of the debate to put this point on."
What skills are you talking about?
4 points
you missed my point about the Nazi regime....I was simply saying that intelligent people subscribed to an idiotic idea. Similar to religion. (though calling religion idiotic may be a bit harsh).
2 points
Haha...i see your point on opposing or favoring. I have to say though, changing laws is NOT a fairly simple process by any means. In fact it is a process that can take decades. For Example, Marijuana has been illegal since the 30's mainly because of 2 people: William Randolph Hearst and Charles Dupont, two powerful moguls that stood to lose millions due to stiff competition from Hemp. Hearst owned logging industries for his newspaper and Dupont had just invented nylon. Using expensive lobbying and teaming with the catholic church (see the short education film from that decade called "Reefer Madness" a film produced by the catholic church after being convinced of the "evils" that marijuana represents), Marijuana would not only become illegal...but would become labelled as an "evil" gateway drug. Which we all know is a gateway drug because it is purchased on the black market where other drugs are available. My point....ah yes....overturning this illegality of a perfectly natural and relatively harmless drug (alcohol being much worse for the human body...mentaly AND physically) has proven unsucessful for almost 70 years! And the ironic part is a good portion of the population is using it or has used it anyway. When trying to overturn any law, you are not just dealing with the law itself, but the establishment that put that law into effect in the first place. Furthermore, have you ever heard of the civil rights movement? This was a movement that was forced to go outside the realm of the current laws to be effective! Laws are not set and stone and should Always be questioned.
2 points
Doubtful, there were highly educated people who bought into the Nazi regime. Coming from a strict Catholic home and being an atheist myself, I can understand why a person finds a need to believe in a god. For many, it is a comforting thought that religion offers. For others, the idea of religion is pounded into your head from the moment you are able to understand language. My sister has a 4 year old boy who, without even having a clear concept of the world, already knows about god. I don't want to be a complete ignoramus and call it brain-washing because I think parents truly think they are doing the right thing. But you certainly become as trained to believe there is a god as you do to feed yourself. This is a very difficult nut to crack later in life. I know for me, it wasnt an easy transition to become an atheist. However, keeping on topic, I don't think it was necessarily me being educated alone that led to my decision. I think time, experience, and the desire to question everything were factors as well. And I don't think that because a person is well-educated that this automatically accompanied by the need to question the status quo, otherwise why would we have all these republicans (haha...totally kidding!). Also, a truly educated person would also know that scientifically you can never rule out the existence of a god until it is disproven (which it can't be either) so I can completely understand why some may choose to opt for religion. It comes down to choosing to subscribe to "Faith". We all live our lives using this sometimes. I have "faith" that every morning I leave my house, I wont be hit by a bus. One can only hope that education will make people more understanding with there beliefs, more open to talk with those who disagree, and less extremist when it comes to religion.
3 points
I agree, this is what perturbs me most, how she is acting under pressure. This next president will be taking on a mountain of issues and who we select will be imperative. We will need a cool headed person for the role (though I understand that is debatable)And you make a good point about the added pressure she will be under being the first woman (Obama faces the same as an African), This is a long overdue moment in American history (another gender/race making a legitimate run at the presidential office...which is a position designed to represent the people of America), I fear that a poor candiate in office will inspire a ton of "I told you so" type remarks that could create resistence to future female (or minority) candidates. That being said, assuming all people are equal (an assumption I subscribe to) then, they should also be assumed to have an equal chance of fucking up!
SIDE NOTE: not that I think this should be turned into a vote based on gender or race, this country needs to get past our sexist racist mentality and see through the outer shell of the candidates to there core issues when voting, but what a wonder signal we would be sending to the rest of the world by electing a woman or a minority...Stating that while we do oppress many people in the world (dont get me wrong, we do a lot of good things too) and we have made many mistakes, we are a country that can change for the better, move forward. We can offer the world hope by overcoming our own demons. I know this may sound optimistic and flighty, but I think we are viewed as a very rigid nation filled with hypocrisy about what we do vs what we preach to the rest of the world.
2 points
Prisons should be humane, I think that is what she was getting at. I do agree that they shouldn't be country clubs because they are a deterrent. I also agree that laws should be obeyed, HOWEVER, our system of government was set up so that laws are always questioned. That is what sets it apart from fuedalism, it represents man understanding that we are flawed, and the need for a flexible government is imperative for a diverse society. When you say "laws are laws", I worry about that type of mentality (not that I am judging you...I am by no means discrediting your right to an opinion...its an understandable stance) because it contributes to the "stiffness" this country has toward holding on to old ideas that stifle potentially progressive ideas. I say potentially because not all ideas that promote change are always good...but is taking a risk always so bad. The world is an ever changing place, and we need to change with it to survive.
8 points
Fantastic point Chronic Hippie (haha thats sound like an oxymoron), non-violent drug offenders account for more the 1/3 of our prison population (which is the highest in the world), the problem with the drug wars is that we assume that people who use drugs are criminal by nature. We are jailing these people and setting them up to commit more crimes when they come out. Furthermore, to make room for our growing prison population we release pedifiles and rapist before non-violent drug offenders. It seems to me that tax money should be heavily invested in Rehab instead of jailing users who are physically addicted. We are only as strong as our weakest link. This hard nosed approach never seems to work. Look what the death penalty has gotten us...we live in a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world.
SIDE NOTE: Chronic Hippie...I have already heard talk of making cigerettes illegal...and while I dont smoke and hate cigerettes, I think that is an absurb idea.
3 points
This debate was started because a heated debate I had with a friend on the subject (hopefully he will join and argue his point...hehe) Ok here's my arguments:

1) Gay parents statistically DO NOT have a discrepancy in the sexuality preference of their children as opposed to straight couple
2) Gay couples (because they are utilizing some form of planning...adoption, insemination, etc.) are more likely to WANT their children as opposed to straight parents who ACCIDENTILY have kids
3) By not allowing gay couples to have children, you are making them second class citizens because they would lack the same rights as straight people
4) Noone can say that they have no problems with homosexuality if they have problems with children growing up and becoming homosexuals themselves.
5) Not allowing the gay community to adopt leaves children with the alternative of growing up in a orphanges. Or being bounced from Foster home to foster home. Both proven unhealthy environments for children.

So you have to ask yourself WHY would you be against it:

1) Population - There is just no way that the amount of gay parents will result in a population crisis, not now, and not ever. If you are assuming that a small population, the gay community, will harbor that many "gay" children you are sadly wrong. There are more stright couples than gay couples. In fact, China, Who is only allowing families ONE child, a form of population control...is STILL having problems with controlling its population.

2) Religion - the most popular anti-gay argument, Homosexuality is against Godliness. I can't think of a more absurd argument. If you believe that the church and state should be separate entities, then you cannot agree with this argument. You can have a personal belief that homosexuality is wrong, but you couldn't vote against gay parenting and NOT be a hypocrite. Religion MUST be separate from State because Religion is based on FAITH and cannot be proved, thus treating those who disagree with religion or hold a different religion as second class citizens. Thus making this argument poor.

3) Parenting - Ah, yes, we as a society are very quick to judge how everyone should be raised. If you are going to argue that gay couples cannot have kids for fear of children being bias toward one mindset (homosexuality) then you have to stop people who raise kids with religion (its unfair that children dont have an open chance at ANY religion), people who raise children who have any political opinions (that could bias children to become republicans or democrats), people who raise children and have any other type of sexuality likes (S&M;, dressing like the opposite sex, 3 somes, etc.), AND what about children of divorce (which causes many psychological issues their children...and this is over 50% of the population). In the end, for you to not be a hypocrite, NOONE can have kids then! Bottom line is, kids will always have alot of obstacles to overcome and to assume that they couldnt handle an obstacle like homosexuality, you must assume they can't handle alcohism, divorce, religious diversity, sexual diversity, crime, politics, etc. Why on earth would you deny a child the chance of having a family and a home because of the sexual preference of the adopting parents?
4 points
Agreed, mudslinging is business as usual, however, Hilary has been running on a campaign of change. I was really hopeful that would include political tactics. I will add to this, it would be very unfair of me to say that Obama wouldn't do the same thing. He has been drawn into his share of mudslinging. And if he was slightly behind, what would he do. Hers just seems so desparate. Why did she have to lie about being under fire in Bosnia? It makes me not trust her.
1 point
I never said people shouldnt have the right to bear arms....But, i'm sorry, walking around a campus with a loaded gun to me does NOT fall under the "Right to bear arms" umbrella. Give me a break! Also, the right to bear arms amendment was written before automatic weapons. Why on earth would anyone possibly need to carry a gun around, just what I want people walking around with guns! Protect you homes...yes, hunting...yes, firing at a shooting range...yes....but any other public place...NO WAY! Its a public place and I have just as much right to not have some person pulling out a gun to show off to his friends and then accidentilly shoot me! Because you know that would happen... I don't get why pro gun people need to have guns everywhere. The intent of the right to bear arms is to protect your family and to protect your community from an unjust government. Chances are, if a kid is packing a gun and some nutcase opens fire at a college campus that kid is still gonna get shot. Oh wait, but he has a gun he can shoot back and possibly accidentily miss his target and shoot someone else. Keep your guns, just be fair, keep them in designated places and private establishments.
8 points
I have to say, I was a supporter of Clinton...I even voted for her on Feb 5th, but I am currently disgusted by her antics. Everything from her crying incidences (which at first I defended...until she did it the second time in Maine), the "confusion" about being under fire in Bosnia, the firings of multiple campaign managers, the withholding of her income, all the way to the child-like fingerpointing at Obama in a sad attempt to scrutinize everything Obama says by completely taking it out of context. Mudslinging her own party! What is she doing? At this point, I hope Obama wins the nomination, because I would be very unenthusiastic about voting for her and would do so only to avoid having McCain in office. What does it say about Clinton if she jumps to such dirty tactics when backed in a corner? She talks about experience, but Obama has shown to me to have a much more mature, competent, and logical demeanor in handling pressure, the media, and critism...these are the chararacteristics of a leader.
2 points
I agree, Clinton has really left a horrid taste in my mouth. Sadly, I voted for her on February 5...but I didn't think that she would resort to the tactics she has been against her OWN party! She has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Obama trying to discredit him. These charges of "elitism" is yet another sad attempt of trying to turn the voters against Obama.
-1 points
great points bwind3!
14 points
First off, There is no reason to disprove God's existence, because his existence was never proven. Science doesn't go around disproving every unproven possibility.
Secondly, without even citing the proof of the Big Bang Theory that exists....The Big Bang Theory is just that...A THEORY....no one says "the God Theory", they just that god definately exists.
1 point
I am just curious, how are you opposed to what I am saying then?
2 points
While McCain is probably the most level headed of all the republicans and won't be as bad as Bush, I think he is in trouble for the general election. The country is tired of the status quo and McCain is old and offers little change. In fact, his policies on the war mimick the Bush administration. McCain/Obama (lets face it...unless something crazy happens, Clinton cannot win) is like Bob Dole running against a younger, fresher Clinton in 96'. This is the democrats election to lose. Thats whats so troubling about Clinton using mudslinging tactics with Obama.
1 point
So are you suggesting everyone should just be walking around with guns? I have no problem with having guns in their private homes or at shooting ranges (which would include transportation in your car...but nobody needs to be carring around guns in public anywhere....sorry, i don't trust the masses to be walking around with guns! If you wanna protect yourself...carry mace! It cripples people without KILLING them!
1 point
This is a hard question to ask...and the answer depends solely on one thing...do you believe in God or not? Furthermore, there is no possible way to prove that "Faith" is not simply a characteristic that humans have always has a way do deal with the fear of dying as well as a way to control the masses. Every religion (even those that are non-mono-theistic) has the same results....a way to create guidelines for an organized society. For this reason, I have no problem with people resorting to faith, however, it is the insistence of people who do believe to force there beliefs on others that bothers me about. Another trait that many religions share. And of course, that is a result of people's need to fit into groups with other people to feel comfortable. The truth is, Jesus was a man, a very well documented man.
1 point
Crazier things have happened....who am I to judge? haha
3 points
When you say rich...does it have to be monetary! You can be rich in many different ways. Ok...so Im talking semantics.
2 points
Here is a good example of lobbying techniques that is legal but un healthy for a fair playing field (and a great article about lobbyism in Washington...keep in mind this is a not so one sided article but I am using a part of the article as an example...I just dont want anyone to think I am taking it out of context):
"In addition to asking who works best and most effectively, our survey asked about what works. In many ways the basic lobbying campaign remains starchily standard: access lobbyists in Washington, grassroots lobbyists at home, publicists for free media, advertisers for paid commercials, and scholars to shape the arguments. But what this cookie-cutter sameness means is that clever variations can sometimes prove decisive. /nThe cutting edge of cleverness can be glimpsed in West Palm Beach, Fla. There, Richard Pinsky, a former campaign operative for Pat Robertson and Bob Dole, works as a political detective. His job: to locate and bring into the lobbying fold what are known in the trade as "once close tos." On assignment from lobbying firms based in Washington, Pinsky is paid to find key individuals who were once close to lawmakers who are undecided on the legislation of the moment. He then ferrets out which of these confidants are willing to make the case to Sen. X or Rep. Y. In the argot of the multi-billion-dollar influence industry, Pinsky is doing grasstops--as opposed to grassroots--lobbying, since he avoids hoi polloi and zeroes in on those few people whom lawmakers know and whose opinions they trust. /nWhen Pinsky was hired recently by the Dewey Square Group, a public relations and political consulting firm, to rally support for "fast track" legislation, he called an old ally, former Republican Gov. Bob Martinez. Martinez, in turn, discussed the issue with fellow Tampa resident and Democratic Congressman Jim Davis. Davis, an impressionable freshman, is now a firm yes on the free-trade measure. Although Davis' spokesman insists the Martinez talk didn't affect the Congressman's vote, the little chat certainly didn't hurt. Nor did any of the casual-but-premeditated contacts made on fast track by another Pinsky recruit, former Florida Secretary of Commerce Charles Dusseau; he wrote to Congresspersons and fellow Democrats Corrine Brown, Peter Deutsch, and Robert Wexler. /nThe beauty of this tactic is that the lawmakers rarely know they've been lobbied. That's why it works so well. According to the FORTUNE survey, the most effective lobbying approach is the least overt: the simple presentation of accurate information, preferably by folks back home. As a result, the grasstops approach exemplified by Pinsky is spreading rapidly. Dewey Square is just one of several firms, such as Direct Impact and Lunde & Burger, that now maintain nationwide networks of politically wired operatives who are willing to reach for their Rolodexes in between their election-year gigs to help make ends meet. Campaign professionals like Susan Swecker of Virginia, Ken Benson of Texas, and Tylynn Gordon of Montana are becoming the new breed of influence peddlers. Yet they don't need to register as lobbyists in Washington. They don't even set foot in the city they affect so deeply."
1 point
Riotus,
I actually agree that lobbyists aren't necessarily bad...in fact, I offered this debate to get some other views on the subject. That being said, Between lobbyists and private campaign donations, there is a major advantage to private interest over public interest. And since most of the country cares more about what happens to Britney Spears than what happens in their local community, this divide is even sharper. The worst part is, lobbyist ARE regulated, and yet this descrepancy STILL exists. Perhaps a call for re-thinking how lobbyism functions in Washington is more imperative and not a simple banishment. Perhaps a limit on the amount of dollars spent on lobbyists or how many are representing an agenda. What do you think?
2 points
Well, the role that lobbyism does play is that it is a way for issues to reach the politicians. Politicians can keep track of every little problem in their districts, especially when your talking Senators. So, this is where lobbyists come in. They bring the issues to light. The problem occurs, when a major coorperation wants to pass an unpopular or unknown agenda through Congress and can flood the senate with paid lobbyists, often providing favors for them (which is illegal but happens regardless). This is coupled with another major problem with our political system...private campaign donations. These same coorperation will often lobby politicians of whom they have made large campaign donations towards. (but thats another debate). So, when I was being counter-intuitive it was because I wanted to be thorough by stating that I have my issues with lobbying, but if it were to become illegal, we would need something in its place. A way for the issues to reach the politicians.
4 points
I personally have a problem with lobbyists in this country. Lobbyism creates an unfair advantage to private industry vs the people of the country. Big industry can afford to spend big dollars on sending an obscene amount of lobbyists to Washington, influencing polititicans to their agenda. This would be all good and fair if there was an equal playing field. But, the general public cannot afford the time or the money to counter the industrial agenda. Now, I'm not quite sure that it should be banned completely (lobbyism has an important role) but it certainly needs to be re-structured. Perhaps aomeone can add some light to this topic.
1 point
Well,
If you freeze interest rates, its true you will help all those troubled families facing forclosure. And, its true, forclosures are bad for everyone....banks, homeowners, housing market, economy, etc.). However, freezing interest rates will only succeed in deterring new homeowners because it will make it harder for banks to give out new loans. We can't penalize new buyers because of the problems of past buyers. Bottom line is...these sub-prime morgages was a massive screw up on the part of the FED (keeping interests rate low during the 90's to try and stimulate growth), Government (for deregulating the investment banks), Investment banks (for taking these loans and investing them in high risk packages), Morgage brokers (for duping the banks and the people into loaning/buying in homes that people couldn't afford), and the homeowners (for buying houses they cannot afford and for not educating themselves on what a adjustable rate means before buying a house).
1 point
Having church and state intertwined defeats the purpose of the constitution. While I will agree that Religion has a role in an individuals life, when implemented across the country, it creates a "second class status" for those who are not religious or has a different religious belief than the masses. Furthermore, religion is NOT a fact, its a theory. There is no proof that a god exists. Thus, using religion as an argument for anything (abortion, death penalty, policy construction, etc.) holds no water in an equality based society.
3 points
The biggest differences between Obama and Clinton are the following:
1) Clinton's policy on helping the morgage crisis is to freeze interest rates (I personally think this is a really bad idea, ask me why if interested) so that people wont forclose, Obama wants to find relief in other ways (utilities relief, tax relief, etc.)
2) Obama's exit strategy from Iraq is much more aggressive than Clinton's...Obama wants us out in 16 months, Hilary wants a longer exit startegy.
3) they both have different health care strategies, though both have the same result of universal health care
For the most part, they are very similar. However, Clinton's tactics in this election have lead me to side with Obama. She has fought a dirty race IN HER OWN PARTY. Resorting to mudslinging is the last thing the party needs. And while she has been stressing Obama's experience, don't forget, Abraham Lincoln had only 2 years experience in the HOUSE of Reps before he became president and look how much change and good he brought the country!
3 points
I too have my isses with abortion. I am against the idea of man playing a role in human life (this includes the death penalty), HOWEVER...until there is SCIENTIFIC proof of when life begins, I will support its legality. Religion should NEVER have a role in politics, and there should be no Divine assumptions. I certainly don't wanna see women getting back alley abortions because somebody who believes in "god" says its murder. I will also say though that I think abortion is used to quickly and I think there should be a greater stress on alternatives as well as a greater stress on education for pregnancy prevention (and im not talking abstinence). Abortion IS unhealthy for a woman's body, so i would never recommend it. Though, right now, with the info we have, we cannot even consider making it illegal.


Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]