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!

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.

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!

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.

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)

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.

how about most handsome debater!

That is a great point HGrey!

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.

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.

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"

.

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.

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.

The idea that there is a supreme race.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

great points bwind3!

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.

I am just curious, how are you opposed to what I am saying then?

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.

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!

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.

Crazier things have happened....who am I to judge? haha

When you say rich...does it have to be monetary! You can be rich in many different ways. Ok...so Im talking semantics.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.