US Presidential Election

It ain't the mentioning of the g word that made me know you're religious, it's simply your sig. The content of your post showed me which kind of religion.

Sex is not merely an act of procreation; it is an act of mutual tenderness, a dialogue of passion, a sharing of intimacy, in which procreation might have nothing to do with. Yes, if precautions are not taken, pregnancy may result.
But the act itself was not a choice of having a child.
And an abortion isn't death at birth, as you mentioned in your first post.

The woman has the responsability and choice of her own body; she has both. And if she chooses to abort, then it is her choice.
Whether the embryo of fetus aborted is a killed human being, that is the point of debate in that issue, and it was discussed largely in one of Entmoot's famous long debate thread.
You might revive it if you want, or make a new one.
It's your choice.

I beg to differ on this issue.

True, the women's body is her own and she can pretty much make any choice she wants for good or ill involving it. However, abortion does not only involve the women's body, but also the child within her. THAT too is a human being, and its mother has no right to dictate whether it can or cannot live.

The original intent of sexual relations was to procreate AND to share intimacy between a completely DEVOTED couple.

"But the act itself was not a choice of having a child."

If the exchange of genetic material between a male and a female isn't a choice of having I child I don't know what is. Furthermore all kinds of birth control don't necessarily always protect you from venereal diseases and pregnancy. Refraining from sexual relations until after a married couple is prepared to have a child is the only safe way.

We should realize that sex should not be an every day activity that we simply carry out with anyone who comes along. It's a sacred bonding act, perhaps the best thing here on earth, and more important it BRINGS new life onto earth. Therefore it should be carried out as such, with discipline and respect for its enormity.

David

PS: Just because I quote C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien doesn't mean I'm a Christian. They were great authors, even if I disagreed with their personal beliefs.

That was my first Emoticon! I hope... Thanks, Anduin.

I've now forgotten who ACCUSED me of "Republican leaning" posts...(the Hobbit drew himself up to his full menacing height)...but let me set something straight.

(Get it? "leaning?" -- "straight?"):rollin:

If I sound GOP at times, it's because this time around the Republicans have come a little closer to the CORRECT point of view.

Thus, it's only natural you would think I "lean" that way.


***
Actually, I prefer LIBERTARIAN. I am not pleased with the Republicans. It is a lesser evil. The elite in the party (not the rank and file) are often greedy, snobbish, and utterly self interested. But they understand that they must protect their assets and so they can be counted on for a strong national defense, limited taxation and spending, and stable world diplomacy. Once in a while they throw a crust of bread to the needy, but they at least do not prevent the poor from becoming rich. They just don't do much to help.

I am adamantly opposed to the Democratic Party. Its core philosophy is errant and its leadership is utterly corrupt, if not treasonous in their corruption.

(I don't mind debating the philosopical differences between Left and Right, but I will not take seriously any dispute about the corruption of the present Democratic Party and the potentially treasonous developments of the last seven years. This is a matter of undisputed public record.)

But give the Republicans 60 years of power and corruption and then watch old Gilthalion (after his 97th birthday) totter in to the polls (insisting on doing it the old fashioned way) and vote for the Democrat/Green/Reform/Libertarian/Etc. candidates with the best chance of throwing the Presiding Establishment out.

Limiting government and oscillating between Left and Right, offers the best possible solution (as long as Divine Intervention is deferred).

The evil that Government can do, far outstrips any power of Business or Interest. For Posterity's sake, I argue that Government must be kept in hand, or it will inevitably get out of hand. (As it is even now!)

So until Kingdom Come, Keep It Simple! (And consider voting Libertarian!)

(And then the simple but smug little Hobbit strolled off to the cupboard.)

"The original intent of sexual relations was to procreate AND to share intimacy between a completely DEVOTED couple"

Wha..!?
Who's intent!?
Nature's intent? Then in which "school" did you learn that Nature intends sexual relations to be between devoted couples?


"If the exchange of genetic material between a male and a female isn't a choice of having I child I don't know what is"

If genetic material is willfully exchanged between the two, from one sexyal organ to the other sexual organ, then yes, the choice is clearly about having a child.
But if the released genetic material is collected in a latex-based enveloppe that is put on the male's sexual organ, or is the female ingests hormonal compounds to counteract the procreational effect of the genetic material on her own genetic material (egg), then clearly in this case the exchange of genetic material between a male and female isn't a choice of having a child: it's only the choice of having non-procreational sexual relations.

"We should realize that sex should not be an every day activity that we simply carry out with anyone who comes along. It's a sacred bonding act, perhaps the best thing here on earth, and more important it BRINGS new life onto earth. Therefore it should be carried out as such, with discipline and respect for its enormity."

Who says it should be done with anyone at anytime in whatever manner?
Sex is much more than simply for procreation; it is part of the ongoing dialogue between the members of a couple, or a group of persons, all done between consenting adults.
And yes, it IS the best thing there is here on earth (although I'm sure it would be quite fine in space also!).
It CAN bring new life onto earth (is there such a thing as old life?), but it does much more than that.
To confine it to procreation or only within a married couple would be the "enormity", imnsho.

Gilthalion, please do tell us about how the Democrats (of now) are traitors to their country (if that is what you meant by treasonous).
And this is not a rhetorical question, just a question from a canuck that maybe has not followed american politics as closely as an american would.

I did hear about something financial involving Hilary, among others.

Also, I do remember from the Reagan era the Irangate affair, for which only good ol' Olly North suffered a bit for, but even then not that much. I guess enough documents had been shredded...

Both the Republicans and Democrats appear to me to irredeemably corrupt. The sight of Clinton at the conference of evangelical ministers had me reaching for a sickbag. That man has no shame or dignity whatsoever.

On the subject of the Republicans and abortion, an interesting story involving Reagan was circulated in the UK press some years ago. Apparently he had an affair with an 18 year old while still Governor of California. The unfortunate young lady fell pregnant and was paid a large sum of money to have an abortion and then keep her mouth shut, so as to avoid harming Reagan`s right-wing, pro-life credentials.

Voting in the US election is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. I do not envy you the choice.

Taimar:
I thought I'd heard every disgusting tale there was about our politicians, but I missed that one on Reagan. I find it hard to believe that if the story checked out in ANY way, that Reagan's bitter adversaries would not have made full use of it. So I tend not to believe it. (Actually, Reagan, like Dame Thatcher, was a very good leader, not without flaws, but better than we usually deserve!)

One of the things about two "irredeemably corrupt" parties is that they are watching each other intently, ready to pounce on anything. As I say, in America, the choice is ususally between evils and by keeping Saruman and Sauron at each other's throats, and aiding against this one or that one, we have maintained greater freedom, and thus greater prosperity and a greater ability for the People themselves to do the good that some wish for Government to do.

As I quoted before, it is the WORST system in the world, except for ALL the others!


Juntel:
Again, I really don't want to get into a debate about it but the treason we have laid bare is as follows (and this is all undisputed!):

To begin with, one of the first day measures of Clinton as President was to begin the dismantling of our Security apparatus. Background checks, identification cards, restricted areas, classified information... ALL such prudent measures were almost immediately discontinued or mortally crippled. The doors were opened...

China has given millions of dollars to the Democratic Party. This is illegal. Moreover, the fact that it is China, a military enemy of Freedom and a nation that targets our cities with nuclear weapons makes this Treason.

Overruling the strong protests of the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the entire intelligence community, Clinton personally signed the transfer waivers that allowed Hughes and Loral (key companies in our Military-Industrial Complex) to operate through COMMERCE rather than STATE to send China all of the technology they needed to catch up to a generation of development in missile launch capability, multi-stage rocketry, and multiple payload (nuke) capacity. This is Treason.

Despite warnings from the intelligence community, and despite the detonation of an American designed test nuke by the Chinese confirming the theft of nuke technology, the Clinton administration refused to clamp down on security at our national defense laboratories. This is Incompetance at best. We have more Chinese nationals (STILL!) working in our labs than from all other nationalities combined. In light of all of the other factors, I personally call this Treason, too, but I won't debate it. It may merely be Folly. He has furthermore sold the Chinese a set of the most advanced supercomputers on Earth with the proviso that we be able to monitor their activities. As any one might have guesed (and indeed strenuously warned!) China would not live up to the deal. They have not.

After Wen Ho Lee was targeted as the chief suspect in this, the FBI sought to investigate this fellow's government-supplied computer and the Justice Department refused to allow it. In the FBI's investigation of Chinese espionage they requested more than 1,600 wire taps. The only one ever refused by the Clinton Administration was Wen Ho Lee. During the time that Clinton had stonewalled these requests, Mr. Lee was able to download the complete set of technical data on our entire nuclear inventory. This is Treason.

Then there remains his self-described "loathing" of the military. He has reduced troop strength by about 50%, fleet strength by 40%, air defense by 30%(? A big number anyway...), some 6,400 soldiers are on FOOD STAMPS, recruitment is down, reenlistment is practiacally nonexistent, our stockpile of Cruise Missiles is utterly depleted (and no more are in production), he has given the veto over our Missile Defense strategy to President Putin of Russia... ...all together, this, if not treasonous, certainly fits in rather well with the plan of a presumptive traitor.

And there's more... bombing the asprin factory in the Sudan to divert attention from his Impeachment (again overruling his advisors and leaving the JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF out of the loop!), what I consider to have been an illegal war and war crimes against the citizens of Serbia...

Once more, none of this is debatable (and I won't debate it!). This is the undisputed public record. We KNOW that Treason has occurred.

It's like when you find a dead body, you know the victim has been targeted by the local gangster, but the Prosecutors are in the gangsters pocket, and so is the judge, and some of the jury. Demonstrating what everyone with open eyes knows, that the gangster was behind the foul deed, is difficult in a court of law. In America, the burden of proof is on the State. But when the State is controlled by the gangster, it is very difficult to use its apparatus to jail him.

It took a long time for Elliot Ness to put Al Capone away, and he did it on Income Tax evasion, rather than for murder, racketeering, blackmail, extortion, etc.

I don't know if Clinton will ever answer for his crimes in this life. Such things sometimes happen in the course of human events.

But I don't have to condone it, accept it, or close my eyes to it. And I am ashamed of the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Media for treating these matters as if it was just one more Hillary Clinton financial scam.

How did we get onto this subject? I thought we were discussing the implications and consequences of abortion? It's pretty much a futile effort debating with people who hold the modern idealism that sex is a cheap and basic principle now a days, so the following will probably do little good:

I believe you're contradicting yourself here: Why would our abortion rate be so high if every couple who didn't want to have a baby carried out what you can "the choice of having non-procreation sexual relations"? You know why? Because there is *always* the chance of having an unwanted pregnancy if you're having sex. Period. You should be prepared and ready to have a child before you even consider sexual relations with someone, all else leads down the path of destruction. Really what you're telling me here is that if a baby is made by mistake it's worthless. It should be killed off, smashed out like a bug. That statement probably goes right through you, though.

Sexual relations are too precious and wonderful to share with anyone BUT your devoted wife or husband. To do otherwise is just plain stupid, and carries the chance of catching a venereal decease or an unwanted child.

Did you know that 60 years ago it was considered extremely immoral if someone had sex outside of a bonding marriage, or committed adultery? Ah, you might say, but our society is more PROGRESSED than 60 years ago. I suppose our high rate of rape, molestation, pornography, sex related crimes, our children having children, etc, is a good example of our truly progressed society, huh?

It's obvious you and people who share your ideas don't believe that sex is special in any way. If you truly did then you wouldn't squander it on 20 different people throughout your life. People who think the way you do believe the current "politically correct" popular view, which is really quite sad; hinging your ideologies on the current popular views mean you really HAVE no ideologies.

David

PS: Btw, Gilthalion, I really enjoyed your list of Clinton follies. It's strange to me that the main stream media hasn't reported (or even mentioned) any of these events. Freedom of the Press. PSHAW!

If I was of a voting age I'd have a real hard time with this election. Not because I like the two candidates equally, but because I hate them both. This is the first time EVER that presidential candidates picked running mates who are better then they are! (not just a matter of opinion)

If I had to vote though, I'd vote for Gore. Though he tries to seperate himself from Clinton everyone who pays attention can see he's using Clinton's positive political moves and just pretending they have nothing to do with the adulterer. Clinton has done some very good things, my only fear is that Gore won't keep that up. He changes his mind like the weather changes in New England.

However, Bush is even worse IMO. The man is using his father the way Gore is using Clinton, only problem is Bush isn't that bright. The only good thing about electing him would be that hopefully he'd have a good staff and let them make all the decisions.

To Gilthalion:

Thank you for that list; wasn't aware of it (i guess we canucks don't dig that deep in american affairs!)
Of course, I can only let a Democrat or some other people to debate over this.
I have no intention of debating these points.


To Gwaihir"

As I said before, it would be better creating a new thread on the specific subject of abortion, or reopening the old abortion thread we had a few months ago.
But anyways, here goes...

"modern idealism that sex is a cheap and basic principle now a days"

That's your own view of these people, veiled by religious convictions.

"Because there is *always* the chance of having an unwanted pregnancy if you're having sex"

True. And there is *always* the chance of being hit by a car when crossing the street at an intersection on a green light...

"You should be prepared and ready to have a child before you even consider sexual relations with someone, all else leads down the path of destruction"

Proper prevention, good hygiene, good human relations with your partner (married or not), does not lead to destruction.
It's a pity that life is so black&white to religious zealots...

"you're telling me here is that if a baby is made by mistake it's worthless"

I never said that.
If you consider that even the single cell resulting from the newly fecundated egg by a spermatozoid is a baby, that's you and your kind's belief. Don't shove that belief down other people's throat by laws that would throw back your country to the old witch-hunting Salem's days.

"Sexual relations are too precious and wonderful to share with anyone BUT your devoted wife or husband. To do otherwise is just plain stupid, and carries the chance of catching a venereal decease or an unwanted child."

Sexual relations are too wonderful to be confined to its procreative function, just as the flexibility of the hands is too beautiful to confine them to picking up fruits or holding things: the hands can go beyond their functions and be used to play beautiful pieces of music, like guitar or piano.
And yes, stupid people can catch venereal deseases, and bring about undesired pregnancy, if they don't protect themselves adequately. Otherwise, they now live in a society where they can have a second chance...

"Did you know that 60 years ago .... "

All those ills of today you mention in that paragraph, do you really think 60 years ago they were absent or very far from todays statistics?
One of the thing that HAS progressed over the decades is the freedom of speech, the freedom to reveal the bad stuff that happens. And with all the information we can now have, yes we see more disgusting things.
Have things gotten worse in 60 years? I think they have become more abundant, as the population is more abundant, but I don't think proportionally it's much different. The difference is that the ills are more displayed by a society that craves on bad news, on sensionalistic journalism.

"If you truly did then you wouldn't squander it [sex] on 20 different people throughout your life"

Who are you talking about? Me?
What is this really about, Gwaihir?
Someone close to you?

"hinging your ideologies on the current popular views mean you really HAVE no ideologies"

I have my own views, thank you.
I think and I feel, and I evolve as I learn.
Maybe I will have another opinion next year; I don't know, for I'm a changing and free thinking person.
As for you, hinging your ideologies mainly on 2000 year old superstitions, what does that say about YOU?

I've really enjoyed posting to this thread! It's been fun reading what you all have to say. But I have found myself checking back 3-4 times a day and spending an inordinate amount of time.

I've abstained from the Abortion debate in this forum (thinking the subject even further off track than my own posts). For what it is worth, I am something of an activist, having helped organize massive Pro Life demonstrations (more than 8,000!) and speaking out for years as a local busybody.

In answer to Taimar, I've tried to set forth the fundamental principles of the Amercan Way (as I understand it) and how these are intended to inform our ideas concerning political access (the original concept of the thread). I hope it has been at least as instructive as the rest of the debate.

I've also laid out the case for Treason against Bill Clinton. My only problem with Al Gore (aside from issues, but that's a difference, not a problem) is his defense of the Traitor. And that is an insurmountable problem. There is no answer for it.

I have not come to praise George W. Bush, but to bury Al Gore!

In all seriousness, I've really enjoyed all of this a little too much. I've got other things to do with my life and I'm going to do them!

Oh, I may still check in a time or two. I know it's better to spend more time away from the computer. I know it's a problem for some people. I enjoy posting to these threads, but it's not like it's consuming my life or anything.

I can stop anytime I want to!

Let's try to leave the abortion debate out of this tread. I'm not saying that it can't be mentioned, just not debated here. I have dug up the abortion thread from the past, so please use that thread if you would like to debate further.

Thanks, Gilthalion. I have found your thoughts interesting, especially your `treason` post. As far the Reagan story goes, I would say that it may or may not be true, but I would point out that it is certainly plausible.

I wouldn`t like to comment on Reagan`s abilities as a leader, other than to say that my perception of his tenure in the White House is rather different from yours. Since I am not a US citizen and never experienced the effect of his policies at first hand, I can accept that it is likely that your knowledge of the subject is superior to mine, so I will gladly concede the point.

However, I consider it likely that history will not remember Margaret Thatcher in a favourable light. The gap between rich and poor in the UK increased markedly during her premiership, and she remained in power by selling off nationalised industries (for considerably less their market value) to fund tax cuts for the middle classes. She may be popluar in the south-east of England, but north of Watford she is generally despised.

Gilthalion,

as I said before, I can't debate the "traitor" issue, since not informed enough about it.

But what I'd like to know is, if (and when) the Republican will access again the Presidency, do you think they can or will make inquiries about what you called acts of treason?
And what is the penalty usually for such treason?
Since these acts are of public knowledge, as you say, then wouldn't Clinton be easily arrested after a Republican is elected President (and maybe also a Rep Congress)? (Or maybe Clinton also learned to shred fast enough... Or he may play on the definition of treason... hehe...)

BTW Gilthalion, thank you for your input in this thread.

The gap between rich and poor has increased markedly everywhere! But I take your point.

I don't know if your poor are themselves doing better than they were (which is more important than the gap in my opinion), but I certainly can't argue with your superior knowledge of the local feel for Mrs. Thatcher. I was thinking more along the lines of her international policies, particularly with regard to Europe. (I don't know if you also disagree with that! I liked her a lot from this side of the pond!)

Our theory is that "a rising tide lifts all boats."

The problem is that not all boats are seaworthy. And some vesels are much bigger and more finely appointed than all the rest.

It may not seem fair, but I maintain that the cure(Government Control), is worse than the disease (the Human Condition).

A mature and enlightened Civilization will ameliorate the ill effects of our nature through personal interaction rather than with Government intrusion. But since we ignore Enlightenment and seem to become more immature with each decade of the Entertainment Age, I fear for Civilization.

WHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! This thread is HUGE! I just leave 2 days and look what you do! Oh guys!

Anyway, its almost already too late... why care? Ever say a mine? Ever went to amazonian deforestation sites? Ever saw a dam? Look at your city. See the walls see the buildings. All this concrete, metal and wood comes from somewhere!!! When you look at all these evidence, you realize we're destroying ourselves, and at a fast pace!

Then, why bother with voting? There is more important things in life, and forget about the idea that government (one side or the other) can help about it.

Sorry... I had to talk about it... feel much better now.

Lat thing, yesterday, I heard American were secretly experimenting and shooting stuff in the ionosphere. They're supposed to be about to discover a new process to reform ozone. Anyone heard about that? Saddly I had some beers ( ) and can't remember exactly what was said to me about it. But if anyone heard about it, then I would appreciate your comments on that!

Shan.

Oh, and By the way, Gil I love your contribution to the board, you're a great poster!

Thanks, Shan!

***
I think you can link to my abandoned POOR ROBERT'S ALMANAC from my website (in the signature).

From the Almanac, find the RESOURCES FOR THE POOR page. It's got a lot of links for sounder ecological practices.

Also look for MY GARDEN JOURNAL. In it I propose a method of creating a virtually self-sufficient homestead.

I'm considering writing a little series of essays, or even stories, about "The Hobbit Life (Or How To Have A Hobbit Homestead)".

Maybe I'll start a thread...



***
You might be surprised to find that someone as conservative as myself would be so interested in the Environment! (That doesn't mean I believe in Global Warming, but that's another thread.)

I've read EARTH IN THE BALANCE by Al Gore and found it to be chock full of junk science. I believe the Environmentalist Movement has been hijacked by a coalition of New Agers and Marxists! Read the Green Party Platform!

Nevertheless, absolutely everyone knows that we've got to continue to do a better job with industry and lifestyle and also to bring along the heavily polluting Emerging Nations. I think that eventually things will be much better environmentally (if we don't blow it up or create a mutant virus or genetically engineer our successors or something.)

We will continue to do better out of naked self-interest.

When our nation was founded, chamberpots and privies, open sewage ditches, butchering meat and operating on a patient (without touching a drop of water in between), denuding entire landscapes without a thought of reforestation: these were the standards of environmentalism. Other nations were little better.

We do not need a President Gore micromanaging the production and transportation of the American People. This would limit our ability to improve the advances of understanding and technology that may continue to lift Humanity, from a casual disregard for Creation, up to our rightful place as Keepers and Nurturers of Paradise.

As if THAT would ever happen without Divine Intervention!

(And with that, the little hobbit sighed and looked out sadly over a pristine landscape that all too soon would know the heavy steps of Men.)

juntel,

I'm sorry I didn't notice your last post until just now. I'm afraid we've been a little too busy on this thread and it is slipping by fast, as Shan said.

But to answer your HIGHLY relevant questions:

***
No. The GOP will not reopen this. They are cautious, and have bigger fish than Clinton-Out-of-Office to fry!

Assuming a landslide Bush victory, with Congressional coatails that maintain a GOP majority, they will have their hands full with rebuilding the military, reforming trial laws, reforming the Judiciary, and reforming taxation. Not to mention dealing with the Southern Border, a rising Dragon, a beligerant Bear, and the wild dogs of war around the world. Plus, they want their stocks to rise. They will calculate that it is better to let Clinton go, and achieve their agenda, than to pursue Justice.

Instead, they will take glee in his humiliation, or rage over his indifference. And the indifference of his supporters.


***
The penalty for Treason has lately been incarceration. We all know the Old Price of Treachery. It is hard to argue against the Old Ways. They are old (and not forgotten) for both great and subtle reasons. But there are those who relish its payment.

(The little hobbit winces at the thought.)

***
Pat Buchanan in the speeches after the Iowa Republican Caucus (before he took over the Reform Party) got the loudest, most raucus, longest applause and cheers of all the candidates when he said (and I paraphrase):

"If you elect me President, unlike the present occupants of the Oval Office, I WILL admit to my responsibilities as Chief law enforcement officer of the nation...

(Clinton would not directly answer this basic Constitutional question.)

"...and after I take my Oath of Office my first official act as President will be to turn to Bill Clinton and say, 'You have the Right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be held against you in a Court of Law..."

The conservative crowd went nuts. And I couldn't blame them!


But, as Dennis Miller once said of Clinton (and I paraphrase):

"He's like James Bond. You see all the explosions and evil villains and danger that are after him and it looks like there's no way out, but you know that at the end of the movie, he's going to be floating away in a lifeboat with a woman and a bottle of champagne."



(The little hobbit resumed his long, simmering glare in the direction of Washington.)

Interesting (and sadly predictable) positions being taken.

It's a real shame that Alan Keyes didn't get the nod... that guy's got enough charisma and brains to win over the KKK vote.

he he he... don't know why you tought about them!
But who is this man, really?