Translator: Your claim to know the US system of goverment seems like a bit of an overclaim if you can seriously assert that the two-party system stymies debate and results in a winner-takes all condition. The checks and balances are very, very real. Ask Bush and his adminstration how "winner-takes-all" they feel. Better yet, ask Clinton how universally powerful he was -- stymied in every effort by allegations and investigations. I bet they would both take vigorous exception to your overly simplistic categorization of US politics and laugh in your face at your naive view of US government.

Mr Dark,
you obviously have no clue what real political debate means, then. I suggest you turn on your friendly neighbourhood Canadaian Political TV channel on and watch how things get passed Canadian style. Going to war with the US was debated left and right here; I didn;t seem to hear much debate over at the lesser Niagara there during the same time...Plus, a two party system only argues two points. We in Canada have the NDP, the Conservatives, The Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, the Green Party, and the independants. Each has its own agenda, and each has something to fight for. Don't tell me all those points could be argued by a two party system, becasue I won't believe you.
Cheers, Translator

While this may come as a shock to you, the two parties represent an amazing gradation of idealogies, perspectives and ideas. Not all Republicans agree on all views nor do all Democrats.

I have never argued that there is not debate in a broader, pluralist form of government. That seems self-evident. I was responding to your claim that a two-party system stymies debate. We have very broad debates in the primaries, the debates become much more black and white in the election process itself, and then we haggle shades of gray again in the actual task of governing.

In things like war, or other events requiring firm, directed action, I would argue that the US system is more conducive to the successful execution of that need, than a weaker -- though more argumentative -- pluralistic, multi-party system. The good of a multi-party system is that the debate airs ideas that need to be debated. The bad is that when government needs to act decisively, it is hard pressed to do so in an environment often not conducive to consensus.

I tend to agree much more with your latest post. But let me ask you this: What party is a person to choose if the person is most concearned about the environment? Ie, if the person does not like tons of Co2 escaping to the sky everyday? Let's say you say the answer is obvious - the republicans. What if another person is against the notion of Pre-emptive strikes? What party then? let's say Democrats. What if those two things are the formost things in the mind of the same person? With both parties lacking is ceratin areas, what is a person to do? In Canada, with the 5-odd choices, the cobinations are much better. You would vote NDP, for example - both pro-environment, as well as against the War. With your system that choice cannot be done. it is simply more democratic to have more parties.
As was witnessed by the Iraqi war, sometimes quick goverment action is a bad thing. If the issues were held down longer, perhaps the ar wouldn't happen. Or the Contitutional ammendment on Gay Mariages. In Canada it wouldn't ever pass; in the Us it almost did.

Cheers, Translator

The Gay Marriage amendment may still pass and it would be a sad day if it does. Imagine, an amendment that discriminates against an entire group of people.....who'd be next? And aren't there more important issues our government can argue about?

Mr. Dark,

I'm with you on your points. Even when the President has a majority in Congress - Clinton in his first two years and Bush now - they can't get their agenda through.

Translator,

Good point as well about what party represents your views. Personally, I'm not a one issue voter. That is to say, I won't let one issue be a deal breaker. I have to weigh what the other issues are, as well. In your example, I'd say the war effort was more important than any environmental concern. Thus, I would vote for the party that I felt best represented my views about the war effort. (Which, er, DOES make me a one issue voter, I guess.)

Best,

Pete

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
I'd like to join John Galt in his request for examples of Moore saving lives. And I'd like some form of independent confirmation or documentation.

lol, apparently he was bluffing Mr. Dark.

So it would seem . . .

)

Korby:

Strange, but when I sin...my life goes off the edge, and many times in the past I didn't even know about it. If sexual sins, homosexual, adultery, fornication, and all those other happy to indulge in life styles are so prevelent in today's society, exactly what do you think? God don't matter anymore? And nothng will happen to the individual?

If you think there are far more important things... this one hits you right where you live!

________________________________

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 07-27-2004).]

Nard,

I may not agree with alternate lifestyles, but I feel it's not my place to judge people living those lifestyles ("Judge not, lest ye be judged" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). I'm nowhere near perfect and I don't claim to be, but I really don't think it's my place to condemn or approve of an entire group of people.

And high taxes, Medicare, and the possibility of no SS when I retire hits me more where I live than whether or not gays have the right to marry. And this crap going on in Iraq hits pretty close, too, as my son is currently in Marine Corps boot camp.

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Korby:

Strange, but when I sin...my life goes off the edge, and many times in the past I didn't even know about it. If sexual sins, homosexual, adultery, fornication, and all those other happy to indulge in life styles are so prevelent in today's society, exactly what do you think? God don't matter anymore? And nothng will happen to the individual?

If you think there are far more important things... this one hits you right where you live!

________________________________

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 07-27-2004).]

I, personally, have always thought that god doesn't matter, but that's just my philosophical belief and I don't want to get into that argument at the moment. I think it would be a damn shame if this country, who fought a war for and has built its law system around freedom and personal choice, were to make an amendment to the constitution discriminating a certain people based on their personal choice. Bush is a bastard, unfortunately Kerry is not better. Vote Michael Badnarik

Korby:

Come one! You know you gave the 'cliff notes' version when you quoted
the "... judge not..." segment. It's like using "God helps those who help themselves" quote... THAT is NOT in the Bible, but found in Franklin's 'The Old Farmer's Almanac'. Ben Franklin came up with that quote.

"Judge not lest you be judged..." applies to non -believers. Believers I can judge ... for "judgment begins in the house of the Lord." I have no right to judge someone outside the faith.

America has always been an experiment in freedom. Will it work, ultimately?

The gay marriage thing? What do the theologians know, right?

John Galt:

Christianity explains a time coming when a vast event will take place that changes everything. For instance, you'll have a physical body that does not die. Christ is in 'heaven' with a physical body. Figure that one out. You can feel like a canary in a cage trying to understand the mechanics of a light switch. In that 'time', we can eat, if we so desire, or be in one place or another, even disappear. Christ had one like that after he resurrected.

Christ made the local news that even alcoholics wouldn't enter heaven, without him... well as people who led a hedonistic life style, etc. Now, that's enough to get some people a little irritated.

Now would you say that with thinking like that, there is much more at stake here than simple ammendments?

It's about what each of us are born with, what the most basic primitive people are inheritently found with...and that is the sense of God, an afterlife, and sin. Even scripture makes the statement that no matter how you bury that instinct ...even when someone 'burns away' at that understanding... you still will be held as responsible for what you intuitively knew. It's not there by accident. This is not infringing your belief on someone else. It's what everyone is already born with.
______________________

......on one other note, about war:

Is War today a little more civil?
Not best choice of words, but Tokyo, for instance, was a city that looked like any great modern city. Motion pictures of the city showed the grand department stores loaded with well dressed people and their families, the streets filled with the most modern cars. From above, it looked like Chicago. And when bombs landed there, 'everyone' was incinerated. There was '''nothing''' left. Years and years after the War did we learn of the horrendous germ warfare bombs that were being built and even in use, and of the grand fleet of planes being built to hit the West Coast, capable of 9,000 mile run trips on a single fueling.

I went to school on one specific day in October, 1962, not knowing we all were about to be blown away by Atomic bombs early afternoon. THAT was finally revealed decades later. What's really going on in Iraq? Stay tuned, and live long enough to find out.
____________________________




[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 07-27-2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
[B]John Galt:

Christianity explains a time coming when a vast event will take place that changes everything. For instance, you'll have a physical body that does not die. Christ is in 'heaven' with a physical body. Figure that one out. You can feel like a canary in a cage trying to understand the mechanics of a light switch. In that 'time', we can eat, if we so desire, or be in one place or another, even disappear. Christ had one like that after he resurrected.

Christ made the local news that even alcoholics wouldn't enter heaven, without him... well as people who led a hedonistic life style, etc. Now, that's enough to get some people a little irritated.

Now would you say that with thinking like that, there is much more at stake here than simple ammendments?

It's about what each of us are born with, what the most basic primitive people are inheritently found with...and that is the sense of God, an afterlife, and sin. Even scripture makes the statement that no matter how you bury that instinct ...even when someone 'burns away' at that understanding... you still will be held as responsible for what you intuitively knew. It's not there by accident. This is not infringing your belief on someone else. It's what everyone is already born with.


Assuming you are Christian, then yes, I suppose it is more than a simple issue of amendments, but church and state are to be kept seperate so the sin of homosexuality should have no weight whatsoever in the decison of gay marriage. I, personally, believe that the government should be left out of marriage completely.


I would rather "feel like a canary in a cage trying to understand the mechanics of a light switch" all my life than live all of my life abiding by the restrictive rules of a man who has yet to prove he exists. 3 weeks ago I was writing in my notebook on this issue and one passage I remember was "I am not a slave. And if this man shows his face, you still will not catch me on my knees... No, I won't be begging please."
which, in case you couldn't understand my thoughts means that I will not live my life in the bondage of God's rules.

And as Trent Reznor said in the song Heresey "If there is a hell I'll see you there."

Nard,

What I was trying to say (and failing, as usual!) was that I'm not going to throw stones, being as I'm not without sin.

I just think that the government has better things to do than to butt into peoples' private lives, esp. when they're not hurting anyone.

John Galt,

I'm straying into Nard's territory but you've compelled me to a comment or two. As a Christian, I can testify that being one makes you no slave. Perhaps some day you'll find the Lord lives in your heart and you'll use the free will He blessed you with and choose to believe differently. I pray that day comes soon for you.

Best,

Pete