Project for the New American Century: Time for a draft

[thebullet]

PNAC calling for a draft?
Monday 31 January 2005 @ 11:19

The Project for the New American Century:
The strength and influence of this group, makes the letter they released on January 28 all the more disturbing. It is titled 'Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces,' and basically calls ffor a draft without using the word:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those
who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a
bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying
out our fo feign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.

 

[brightlyiburn]

Odd. I didn't think this was a problem they would have, considering how many people are willing to get blown up for their country.
Although I imagine now that a lot of people have been blown up for their country, some folks might be a little less willing.

Personally I believe I can do more for my country alive than I can dead. And I think it's a shame that so many people my age or only a little older are getting killed before they even have a chance to experience life.
From what I've read, it sounds like the problem is a lack of money rather than a lack of people. Which is why our President wants another $80 billion to send over there. Only question is...where the heck is that money supposed to come from?

 

[rgraham666]

As always, they'll borrow it. [sarcasm]Taxes are theft, ya know. Unless you're poor, in which case it's your duty.

It's also the poor's duty to go to foreign lands, kill people and be killed in return. The rich, on the other hand, are too valuable to waste.[/sarcasm]

 

[shereads]

Golly. Someone should have told us about this "Project for the New American Century" before the election. And the election before that.

Can just anybody google this up and find out that Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz were part of an organization dedicated to reaping the Third World's natural resources in exchange for bringing them the gift of democracy? And that the one of the key targets was intended to be Iraq? Which means the Iraq invasion might not have been part of the War on Terror? And that the adminstration must have planned all along to bring back the draft?

That would mean voters were inexcusably complacent. You must be mistaken.

 

[amicus]

Damnitalltohell...

Stomp on these bleeding heart lying Liberals and like manure they just fertilize the muck and rise again.

The Draft, AKA Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson, those are the folks that believe American citizens ought to provide 'National Service"

Keep the goddamned Democrats out of office and there will never be a draft under a Republican administration, we believe in individual freedom and Liberty and limited Government.

Smoke that along with whatever else you are puffing on!

Amicus the reluctant...

 

[brightlyiburn]

Damnitalltohell...

Stomp on these bleeding heart lying Liberals and like manure they just fertilize the muck and rise again.

The Draft, AKA Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson, those are the folks that believe American citizens ought to provide 'National Service"

Keep the goddamned Democrats out of office and there will never be a draft under a Republican administration, we believe in individual freedom and Liberty and limited Government.

Smoke that along with whatever else you are puffing on!

Amicus the reluctant...

Yes, Republican's believe in individual freedom and limited government. That must be why they insist that gay marriage defiles the sanctity of marriage. That's why they want to ban women, even those who might die from having a child, from getting an abortion. That's why they want to take away healthcare for so many people who are now completely fucked. That's why they allowed changes to the Clean Air Act that make it possible for companies to pollute and make a fortune.

You Rebublicans have a strange idea of freedom.

 

[shereads]

Amicus the reluctant... [/B]

Speak of the devil! Have you been hiding out at the Undisclosed Location with Dick Cheney? Is it true he stays alive by drinking black-market stem cells with a Scotch chaser? Did you ask him about the Project for the New American Century? I knew we could count on you to go undercover and ferret out the truth. Your right-wing nutcase act is spot-on.

 

[amicus]

Well, Brightlyiburn...we have not crossed swords before, welcome to the fray... you said, in part:


"...Yes, Republican's believe in individual freedom and limited government. That must be why they insist that gay marriage defiles the sanctity of marriage. That's why they want to ban women, even those who might die from having a child, from getting an abortion. That's why they want to take away healthcare for so many people who are now completely fucked. That's why they allowed changes to the Clean Air Act that make it possible for companies to pollute and make a fortune...."


Gay Marriage: Most Americans tolerate alternative lifestyles, from purple hair to body piercings to Nazi parades. We are a diverse and pluralistic society and all are welcome.

Beginning in the early 70's, when the american association of psychiatrists (what ever they are called) convinced the profession that homosexuality was not a treatable malady as had been the wisdom of the medical profession to that date and decided it was to be accepted as an 'alternative lifestyle', gay people have consistently pushed to have their agenda incorporated in schools, in entertainment and the arts and throughout the fabric of society.

Marriage is a contract between two people, authorized, approved and protected by law. Like any other legal contract it comes with many, many ramifications including child care and custody that are continually challenged and modified in the courts.

While in general, Americans accept change, when it is pushed under their collective noses with a stench of legalized sodomy and classroom instructions, they tend to become a bit recalcitrant.

Note please that in eleven states, even super liberal Oregon, bans on gay marriage were approved by the PEOPLE.

This is a losing issue for Liberals and most are well aware of it.

Abortion: Even the idea that the right of a woman to undergo a procedure to destroy the unborn life in her womb as a 'convenience' is abhorent to most. You may well be aware that abortion was a crime and illegal, prior to Roe v Wade in the early 70's.

Sexual promiscuity, careless intercourse and casual relationships seem to be an outgrowth of the feminist movement.

All of our values as a people stem from the nurturing and protection of human life. Hundreds of thousands of medical dollars are spent to keep a premature baby alive, because having 'life' however tenuous and tiny, gives that infant every right you have, at least in our society.

People remain glued to television sets to watch the rescue of a small child that feel down an abandoned well, no expense is spared to rescue that 'life'. We sent billions in aid to the Tsunami struck peoples of Asia because we value life, human life, young old and the unborn.

That is who we are. You want to destroy those values of humanity for a one-nighter or an unexpected pregnancy. That thought is beneath contempt.

Healthcare: Somewhere along the line, when States began forcing people through taxation to pay for the education of other peoples children, the decline in human liberty began.

The income tax, once ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, led to oppressive social programs that challenge the very concept of the founding documents of this nation.

The progressive administration of Roosevelt in the 30's with enforced old age retirement benefits, aka mandatory social security, opened a new path for social reformers such as Kennedy and the Great Society of Johnson.

Somewhere along the line, the popular belief became that people are 'owed' the benefits of society; that society should provide a cradle to grave security for all the needs of the people.

That is called Socialism.

We are a Republic. Our rights and freedoms are ennumerated and protected. We are guaranteed the freedom to provide for ourselves and our loved ones.

If you want healthcare insurance, buy it! Don't expect to use my taxes to pay for your care.

Pollution: It is not 'big business that pollutes; it is big government. The powerful coal miners union, to preserve jobs and supported by anti nuclear power Liberals, with coal fired electic generating plants pollute more than any other source save automobile exhaust.

Were the government to protect property rights from infringement by others, as by law it is required to do, there would be very little contamination of air or water. But 'interest groups' both labor and capital, influence legislation that allows pollution to continue in the 'public good'.

You should not go 'tinkle' in the stream I drink from. We don't need laws for each transgression you make on my private property, we need the existing laws enforced that protect my rights and my property.

If you want socialism, move to Europe.

amicus.......

 

[shereads]

Bill Maher believes that gerbils and other small rodents threaten the sanctity of the owner-pet relationship. He proposes a constitutional amendment defining pet ownership as a contract between one person and one dog or cat.

Socialism doesn't seem so bad. If we want socialism, I don't see why we can't have it here.

 

[thebullet]

Why this diatribe against liberals? I didn't make up this letter. It is a direct quote from a letter sent by the Project for the New American Century to the US congress.

Or are you just pissed that the truth is coming out?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Whoa, I think I've reached it. That plateau of too much bullshit, laughably surreal reality, utter loss of any remnant of trust in our political system, and utter personal political impotence, where I have absolutely zero caring left about any of it.

Draft everyone, nuke the whales, protect our bodily fluids. Hee hee, why not? Hell, let's make amicus president. He can force us to be free. Hahaha.

*Singing old R.E.M. tunes and hysterically laughing*

...and I feel fine.

 

[shereads]

Why this diatribe against liberals? I didn't make up this letter. It is a direct quote from a letter sent by the Project for the New American Century to the US congress.

Or are you just pissed that the truth is coming out?

Bullet, I thought you and amicus had already met. You seem surprised by his debate technique.

My first big run-in with amicus - before I figured out he was joking - was at a thread where I posted a link to a web archive full of recently declassified documents made available under the Freedom of Information Act (pesky liberals!). The particular documents confirm that Reagan was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein and that the administration moved to protect Saddam from the embarrrassment of a UN sanction when he used chemical weapons on Iranians at his northern border. We know this already, of course, but there was something particularly chilling about the clinical wording of these White House memos and conference reports from meetings in Iraq with the bad boy himself. Stuff like, "the potential for embarrassment was discussed regarding " blah blah. etc.

Amicus broke the ice by saying he had to question why I had gone to all the trouble to produce these documents. It could only be because I hated America.

He didn't mean it. He did, but he didn't know me then or he'd know I'm too flighty for the detail work required for fraud at that level.

He likes me.

Brightly, I don't know you well, so I hope you won't be offended if I caution you not to argue with the A man if you have high blood pressure, a heart condition, suffer from depression, anxiety attacks or a nervous facial tic. He's a lovely man when he's not talking crazy about politics, but trust me: You can't win.

Welcome back, smoove A.

 

[SeaCat]

Abortion: Even the idea that the right of a woman to undergo a procedure to destroy the unborn life in her womb as a 'convenience' is abhorent to most. You may well be aware that abortion was a crime and illegal, prior to Roe v Wade in the early 70's.

Sexual promiscuity, careless intercourse and casual relationships seem to be an outgrowth of the feminist movement.

All of our values as a people stem from the nurturing and protection of human life. Hundreds of thousands of medical dollars are spent to keep a premature baby alive, because having 'life' however tenuous and tiny, gives that infant every right you have, at least in our society.

People remain glued to television sets to watch the rescue of a small child that feel down an abandoned well, no expense is spared to rescue that 'life'. We sent billions in aid to the Tsunami struck peoples of Asia because we value life, human life, young old and the unborn.

That is who we are. You want to destroy those values of humanity for a one-nighter or an unexpected pregnancy. That thought is beneath contempt.

Amicus,

As you know there are many tmes I have agreed with you. On this one portion of your commentary I must take you to task though. (Not all of it, although that would be an interesting conversation I am sure.) I am sure I am mistaken, but it seems as though you are against Abortion for any reason.

The use of Abortion as a form of easy birth controll is something I also do not agree with. The use of it in certain cases though is something I do agree with. (I also believe you do as well, you just didn't mention it in your commentary for any of several reasons.) In the cases of rape and incestual abuse, if the woman becomes pregnant as a result of the rape or abuse then I believe she should be able to choose to have an Abortion. (The argument about the rights of the father should not even be considered in this type of case, they lose those rights as soon as they broke the law.)

The idea of aborting a birth because of genetic defects is a rather more throny issue, but here I agree that it should be the choice of both parents. (If they are still together, if they are seperated or divorced then it is solely the womans choice.)

In those cases of the womans life being threatened by the birth then I agree that it is again her choice.

One other aspect of this which is rarely mentioned is the rights of the father. In most cases I do belive it is also partly his choice. (Not mostly but partialy. Marriage should be a fifty fifty proposition, each partner is equal.) However, in the cases of rape or incest that right is forfeit. As it is in cases of seperation or divorce. (There are too many cases in which the man blocks the abortion, or otherwise forces the woman to have the child, then backs out of his legal commitments. It's whole hog or nothing. In raising a child you can no more be a part time parent than yu can be partialy pregnant.)

Now you may disagree with my views on this, and it is your right to do so.

Cat

 

[shereads]

Whoa, I think I've reached it. That plateau of too much bullshit, laughably surreal reality, utter loss of any remnant of trust in our political system, and utter personal political impotence, where I have absolutely zero caring left about any of it.

Soylent Green is people. Never forget.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Soylent Green is people. Never forget.

*shrug* Eh, it'll probably be delicious. Except for the dangers of Mad People disease.

 

[shereads]

Everybody knows that the number of abortions is actually UP under the Bush administration, right? And that the numbers had dropped significantly under Clinton? And that the difference is attributed to cutbacks in social spending for single mothers, and the closure of birth control clinics that lost federal funding because their printed materials included abortion information?

You knew that? Amicus? Everybody?

Just checking. I know writers appreciate irony.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Everybody knows that the number of abortions is actually UP under the Bush administration, right? And that the numbers had dropped significantly under Clinton? And that the difference is attributed to two causes to cutbacks in social spending for single mothers?

You knew that? Amicus? Everybody?

Just checking. I know writers appreciate irony.

Irony tastes like candy.

Probably why I weigh 9,000 tons.

 

[shereads]

Irony tastes like candy.

Probably why I weigh 9,000 tons.

Imagine how sick of candy poor Colin Powell must be.

"You were right, you smug bastard. Happy? Good. Now get out!"

 

[KarenAM]

A few points:

Gay Marriage: Most Americans tolerate alternative lifestyles, from purple hair to body piercings to Nazi parades. We are a diverse and pluralistic society and all are welcome.

True, Amicus. Most Americans are tolerant. The danger today is that our politics is making us less so, and gays are high on many people's hit list.

Beginning in the early 70's, when the american association of psychiatrists (what ever they are called) convinced the profession that homosexuality was not a treatable malady as had been the wisdom of the medical profession to that date and decided it was to be accepted as an 'alternative lifestyle', gay people have consistently pushed to have their agenda incorporated in schools, in entertainment and the arts and throughout the fabric of society.

I fail to see a problem with psychiatrists reevaluating their views. After all, they have also changed their minds on the notion that evil spirits cause schizophrenia or that there are no such things as germs. Simply because something was part of the "wisdom of the medical profession" doesn't mean it was accurate.

And while there are definately some gay extremists, most gays really just seem to want to have the same rights and protections under the law that heterosexuals do. This requires social change to broaden attitudes, which has always been done through our schools. Entertainment and the arts reflect free expression, and as citizens of a free country, gays have just as much right to produce entertainment and art as anyone else, yes?

Marriage is a contract between two people, authorized, approved and protected by law. Like any other legal contract it comes with many, many ramifications including child care and custody that are continually challenged and modified in the courts.

If marriage is a legal contract between two people, the Constitution clearly sets forth that most any adult (with limited exceptions that do not relate to sexual preference) may enter into it. There is no stipulation in the Constitution that excludes gays from entering into contracts, and so if marriage is simply a contract, it violates the Constitution to deny gay marriage. Welcome to America.

While in general, Americans accept change, when it is pushed under their collective noses with a stench of legalized sodomy and classroom instructions, they tend to become a bit recalcitrant.

I'm afraid you haven't convinced me of the connection between legalizing sodomy and "pushing it under" anyone's nose. Nor, for that matter, of the connection between legalizing sodomy and sex education.

Note please that in eleven states, even super liberal Oregon, bans on gay marriage were approved by the PEOPLE.

And interracial marriage also used to be banned by the PEOPLE, who also once supported slavery. Attitudes change, and I think they will change regarding this issue. I will continue to encourage them to do so.

This is a losing issue for Liberals and most are well aware of it.

I can't comment on this, for as you know I'm not a liberal.

Sexual promiscuity, careless intercourse and casual relationships seem to be an outgrowth of the feminist movement.

Not true, I'm afraid. People have been sexually promiscuous, careless and casual for all of human history. We're sexual addict monkeys, I'm afraid. What happened in the past half-century was that people stopped trying so hard to repress their humanity so much (though we still do it some), and the results have been mixed, as they always are when society changes radically. Feminism, despite its flaws, is for most of us simply the proposition that women deserve to be treated fairly and given the same opportunities in life as men.

All of our values as a people stem from the nurturing and protection of human life. Hundreds of thousands of medical dollars are spent to keep a premature baby alive, because having 'life' however tenuous and tiny, gives that infant every right you have, at least in our society.

This is important and true. Life has an intrinsic value that we should all respect. It is also an ideal we approach rather hypocritically. Why is it that many (thankfully not all) who oppose abortion seem to have no objection to war, which kills both the unborn as well as the born? Why does the Catholic church reject the birth control, even among married couples, that would render many abortions unnecissary? Abortion should not be debated in isolation, as so many have done. If one believes in the sanctity of life, then shouldn't one include all life?

People remain glued to television sets to watch the rescue of a small child that feel down an abandoned well, no expense is spared to rescue that 'life'. We sent billions in aid to the Tsunami struck peoples of Asia because we value life, human life, young old and the unborn.

And we have spent billions on weapons that we then use knowing that innocent people are going to get killed in the crossfire. Is this a culture of life?

That is who we are. You want to destroy those values of humanity for a one-nighter or an unexpected pregnancy. That thought is beneath contempt.

Do be careful with overgeneralizations. Not everyone who favors abortion rights favors them in equal ways. The question is more complex than that.

If you want socialism, move to Europe.

amicus.......

Of course, I don't want socialism, as you know. What I want is for America to try harder to live up to its ideals, which include tolerance, compromise, and compassion in addition to capitalism, individual rights, and freedom. Unfortunately, the nation is drifting away from these ideals in favor of authoritarianism, state socialism, and censorship. What's worse is that people who claim to be conservative are the ones leading the charge against all that America stands for.

And it's nice to see you back, Amicus.

 

[amicus]

Thank you KarenAM, for your always well thought out and presented disagreements, and for the welcome back also.

I believe this is a thread started by theBullet, about the draft, I would have to go back and look, well maybe not...Democrats that empowered the draft, led to Liberals and social manipulation...that was the drift, I think.

Shereads notwithstanding, this forum takes time to participate in and I, at least, am not interested in wasting time on endless, useless differences of opinion.

If that is all there is to two sides of a discussion, personal, subjective opinion, I have no interest in such a pursuit.

Nor do I often search the Web for a well known name or organization to support my arguments.

I prefer to think that an exchange of ideas, using some logic, some honesty and a touch of restrained hubris can lead to an exposure of a truth, here and there.

Such is often not the case. I find debating social issues with a left oriented person is quite similar to discussions of god with the faithful. They are both believers.

For example, in the discussion about gay marriage. The reason it is a matter of debate now is that 'marriage' has always been accepted by 'all' as a contractual union between a man and a woman.

Everyone knows that.

Now homosexuals want to change that.

The intimate and exclusive relationship between a man and a
woman has most likely been around since the earliest days of mankind. I am quite certain it has run the gamut of possiblities in terms of the nature of that arrangement or agreement.

Most people ( I think) still get married in a church, where the union receives the 'blesssing' of whichever god is being called upon.

But in a larger role, a marriage, a wedding celebration, where two people are joined before witnesses, is a community event. Or at least it was.

It is/was such an event because the entire community benefitted from the joining and the creation of a 'family' unit, that became part of a larged extended family unit in which each unit had resources available to the group in genera. Resources ranging from experience and wisdom to material goods, housing, jobs, land, et cetera.

So that 'marriage' has a much wider effect than just two people sharing a household and each others company.

Again, modern times; women coming out of world war two after having contributed to the war effort, continuing gender equality and expanded women's rights, have led to changes.

Which is about where I began a debate several months ago about the 'Feminine Mistake', a play on words about Bettty Friedan's, 'The Feminise Mystique', a seminal writing in the feminist movement in the latter half of the 20th century.

The changes brought about in the past half century are self evident; my questions, were that many of those changes have not been good ones.

And yes, I did a post graduate paper showing the 'possible' connection between womens lib and the upwelling of gay and lesbian activity. The paper was not well received which did not surprise me as I thought most of the professors were a little twinky anyway.

Another poster on this thread insisted that some abortions were proper if the life of the child came about by rape or incest. I would offer that it is neither the right of the mother or father, whomever they may be, but indeed the life of the unborn child that is at risk. Thus the method or circumstance of impregnation is not relevant, only the life created is.

All the social arguments about 'unwanted' children, 'too many people already' 'born into poverty' all those arguments and they go on ad nauseum, ignore the basic premise, as KarenAM said, 'life has intrinsic value' .

Abortion can only be moral when it is performed to save the mothers life or when the fetus is not viable and does or will present a danger to the mother.

Sighs, and that was a half an hour I should have used to write something else with, as I am well aware this effort falls on deaf ears....

Thank you.... amicus....

 

[brightlyiburn]

Everybody knows that the number of abortions is actually UP under the Bush administration, right? And that the numbers had dropped significantly under Clinton? And that the difference is attributed to cutbacks in social spending for single mothers, and the closure of birth control clinics that lost federal funding because their printed materials included abortion information?

You knew that? Amicus? Everybody?

Just checking. I know writers appreciate irony.

There's two reasons for that. 1) they haven't been able to get the abortion ban through and 2) abstinance education is more rampant these days.

Allow me to explain. Take for example myself and my ex-boyfriend.
Myself: Democrat. Raised on liberal thought. I was always told if I had a question about anything sexual I should ask it. My mother never acted like it would be horrible for me to have sex. She never told me "no, because I say so" as so many parents will. Hence, I've never gotten pregnant.

My ex: Republican. Born again Christian. Raised on abstinance education. Got it into his head that he couldn't get women pregnant without first seeing a doctor. Didn't know that a woman can only get pregnant roughly 3 days out of 28 and while it is possible to get pregnant at other points, it's highly unlikely...therefor leaving a wide margin. Got his girlfriend pregnant and is now chained to her for life.

Kids need to know. Teach your children and chances are good they'll never come home and tell you they got pregnant or got someone pregnant before they were ready.

And as for health insurance...If I could afford it, I would. Unfortunately what with the two dollars a gallon for gas and oil so we don't freeze to death and the ridiculous cost of food and housing, I can't. None of my family can, because we don't have a second income because my father is dead. You mean to tell me that I deserve to suffer because he killed himself? I think not.

 

[thebullet]

Come on, you liberal moaners, quit complaining.

This is the country where anyone can become president, even if you are a total incompetent. All it takes is an ex-President father, knowing all the right oil men, and a willingness to do whatever you are told.

Is this a great country or what?

 

[haldir]

hi cousins!

och aye the nooo!

what a wee stooshie yer gettin intae - and a' aboot nuthin.

Ye get the government ye deserve -de ye no ken that bi noo?

As fer "The Draft" - how the hell is yer president gonae get enuf boadies fur tae fight the mythical war against terror from if he disnae draft yer young men intae the army? Stand tall and be the first in line.

Seriously, as someone outside the US who isn't an American, liberals are the cause of the draft and therefore armed conflict? Excuse me!

The right resorts to two things under pressure

1. curtailing human rights (cf the Patriot Act)

2. Denial ( cf "I'm not going to waist time etc. etc. etc)

It was the right who initiated the unwinnable "War Against Terror". It was the right (with the collusion of the liberals) who decided to invade a sovereign state on a premise based on lies. By the way our government in the UK is right-wing, even tho they are called the labour party. Tony Blair has gone further to the right than even the madwoman Thatcher dared!

The war in Iraq was opposed by a majority of european citizens yet our governements went ahead anyway - what price democracy. I also know that there were millions of US citizens opposed to this war.

What we all need to ask ourselves is -

Who is the real enemy?

The US funded Bin Laden when it suited them to kill Russian boys in Afghanistan. Now it doesn't.

The IRA would have been impotent without the money donated through Noraid, from US citizens. So much for being anti-terrorist.

And lets not start on the propping up of fascist dictatorships by the US through an insane fear of communism.

Goin now - stirred the shit enuff. I bet I know what some of you are going to say to me now.

To quote Burns

"The best laid plans o mice an men gang aft aglae"

 

[KarenAM]

Thank you KarenAM, for your always well thought out and presented disagreements, and for the welcome back also.

You're quite welcome.

For example, in the discussion about gay marriage. The reason it is a matter of debate now is that 'marriage' has always been accepted by 'all' as a contractual union between a man and a woman.

Everyone knows that.

Now homosexuals want to change that.

The intimate and exclusive relationship between a man and a
woman has most likely been around since the earliest days of mankind. I am quite certain it has run the gamut of possiblities in terms of the nature of that arrangement or agreement.

Most people ( I think) still get married in a church, where the union receives the 'blesssing' of whichever god is being called upon.

But in a larger role, a marriage, a wedding celebration, where two people are joined before witnesses, is a community event. Or at least it was.

It is/was such an event because the entire community benefitted from the joining and the creation of a 'family' unit, that became part of a larged extended family unit in which each unit had resources available to the group in genera. Resources ranging from experience and wisdom to material goods, housing, jobs, land, et cetera.

So that 'marriage' has a much wider effect than just two people sharing a household and each others company.

Again, modern times; women coming out of world war two after having contributed to the war effort, continuing gender equality and expanded women's rights, have led to changes.

Which is about where I began a debate several months ago about the 'Feminine Mistake', a play on words about Bettty Friedan's, 'The Feminise Mystique', a seminal writing in the feminist movement in the latter half of the 20th century.

The changes brought about in the past half century are self evident; my questions, were that many of those changes have not been good ones.

And yes, I did a post graduate paper showing the 'possible' connection between womens lib and the upwelling of gay and lesbian activity. The paper was not well received which did not surprise me as I thought most of the professors were a little twinky anyway.

....

Thank you.... amicus....

Just a brief comment: Yes, marriage has historically been heterosexual, and yes, homosexuals want to change this. It's also true that marriage has traditionally been associated with religion.

But I don't think it has to be, and that's the crux of the argument. Human societies and ideas change. I see no reason that two homosexuals cannot provide all the same benefits to society, children, etc. that two heterosexuals can provide, and so see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to form a union in the same way.

I think your paper was on the right track, with one caveat: it isn't that feminism caused an increase in gay and lesbian activity but rather that it brought it out of the closet. The notion that individuals ought to be treated respectfully regardless of gender, race and so on led to the idea that individuals should be treated respectfully regardless of the gender of their lover. And for all the failings of feminism and other such movements, I regard this as a good thing, fully consistent with the ideals that America tries on its better days to reach.

As to your professors, they seem to have been a little crazy.

And I've hijacked the thread, haven't I? Sorry, Bullet...

 

[Op_Cit]

Re: hi cousins!

Ye get the government ye deserve -de ye no ken that bi noo?

Haldir's got some good points, up until he points at the Right as being responsible for this mess.

The left enjoyed a much larger amount of control over the government for a longer period in 20th century. With this they had the opportunity to either get out of the business with messing with other people or proactively dealing with these various issues.

Where Haldir is spot on is that we get what we deserve.

Both sides contributed to this position, and in your denial of your part in this current state of affairs you continue the long tradition of the ostrich that allows and ensures that things will only get worse. Nothing gets done when two kids sit pointing fingers at each other.

Yet when you guys get excited by something like gay marriage you rush to solve things with the myth of government. Marriage minded people think it's OK one second to say "'til death do us part" and the next go running for big brother to clean up their mess.

The real answer should be: why should government be involved in marriage in the first place? If you are unable to manage your own life effectively, and you are concerned with property, write a contract before hand. Simple.

But both sides want to be lazy. They do not want to go to the trouble of considering the effect of their actions and being proactively responsible.

And both of you want to make me the individual, the smallest of the minorities, pay for it all.

The guy next door who makes just as much money as me is taxed less because he's got five kids. A family of seven uses far more of the tax payer funded community resources yet, I pay more for it. But somehow this is justified.

Well, if you all can justify me paying for my neighbor, then what's wrong with the logic of bombing the hell out of another country for their oil?