Questions Republicans just can't answer

I already do not like the republicans "answers"/positions. I hope your answers will represent the platform of the Democratic Party and not your personal opinion. I have been unable to look at the DNC Platform to find what their positions would be relavant to your questions (or any issue for that matter).

I don't necessarily agree that the terrorists themselves will not be able to take away our freedoms, although I do agree that we do need to worry about our government doing the same thing. I don't think that things like the wiretapping and datamining projects were taking away our freedoms... but it could be a step in that direction.

Terrorists can continue to force our government to tighten laws and restrictions that would eventually impede on our way of life, but the larger threat that I see are the terrorists themselves. It wouldn't take much for the American public to truely be scared of terrorists attacks. A few attacks on our land in quick succession, spread out across the country, targeting ordinary Americans, would certainly make me think twice about leaving my house to go buy a gallon of milk.

The thing about terror is you don't know when or where it will strike. I am not scared of it happening to me right now... and would like to keep it that way. If we don't improve our borders and our ports, I think this is a serious concern. Just think what a few hundred men spread out across the US could do with a relatively small arsenal. I think it is a realistic concern and would change the way the American people live their lives.

When talking about "fear," we have different tolerance for it based on the individual's subjective interpretation.

I don't have any "fear" of dying from any terrorism. If I did, I wouldn't have taken my first trip to Egypt soon after the Hatshepsut Temple massacre, nor my trip to Israel last month soon after the war.

My friends and family would ask if I'm crazy to be visiting Israel soon after the war. I fear more for life and limb by a car accident at home - through no fault of my own.

I think too many in our society creates boogymen under their beds for good health and sanity. It seems rational thinking is lost on many.

Don't you think that conclusions such as these, if obvious to us, should be obvious to those in charge as well?

Yet we see precious little done in the way of defending our borders or ports from such things.

It really makes you wonder...

Cycloptichorn

It certainly does make me wonder. It also makes me furious.
I just wish the majority of Americans would get furious, too.

What angers me more is our stupid government approving a 700-mile fence between the US and Mexico at a cost of one billion dollars. All of our members of congress have lost their brains - or maybe they never had one to begin with.

I certainly wouldn't go to Egypt today. I felt very uncomfortable when I was there in 2000 before the fit hit the shan.

I would probably do Israel again.

Me too.

So, if we've identified that the greatest threat that could be levied on America by the terrorists, can we please drop the 'Islamofascists want to take over America and convert the world to Islaam' nonsense? Even if it is true that some would like to do this, America is not in any serious danger of being taken over anytime soon.

Can we also start pressuring our leaders to actually do something about border and port security, something meaningful? If we would spend what we spent in just a month or two in Iraq, we could increase our security by leaps and bounds.

I think that those who like to complain about big government and cutting spending instead of taxes need to take a long hard look at the Dept. of 'homeland security,' who doesn't actually seem to be doing much to secure our country. Sure are spending a lot of our money, tho.

Cycloptichorn

I'd be willing to tone down the rhetoric, but do not think we should just drop the matter. There are people who want to take over the US and do want to convert us to Islam. We know this because they have said so. That it may not be a realistic threat right now, doesn't mean we should just drop the matter. While the actual conquering of the US is far fetched, they could do serious harm to our way of life.

I am pressuring my politicians (and anyone else that listens for that matter) to do something about the borders... except Feingold and Kohl don't seem to be listening very much.

I'm for cutting spending and taxes. Any governmental unity that is not performing up to standards is on my list to be looked at.

You've framed your questions in a pejorative way that tends to color any simple answer. "When will you stop beating your wife?" None of these questions are really all that simple or easy for anyone, no matter their political stance, to answer. Many of these questions assume "facts"/"conditions" that are in dispute. Other questions seem to only want to reargue old questions that no longer are relevant to the formulation of present and future public policy.

What is the plan for winning the war on terror? Without doubt the West is having war waged upon it by the Radical Islamic Movement. They want to make this a religious war enlisting suicidal volunteers with the promise of Paradise for killing anyone they describe as an infidel, including their own people. This is not a conventional war and there are still no clear guidelines of how a nation can best wage war against an enemy who defies all conventional protocols on who war is conducted. How does one best protect the nation against a sophisticated but unscrupulous enemy? This administration is responding to a threat that was largely left untended at least since the fall of the Soviet Union. Have there been mistakes? Certainly, but we have very capable and bright people dedicating their lives to securing our nation while taking the fight to the enemy.

Why should the average American fear terrorism more than other causes of death? Death is death, and it comes to us all sooner or later. One always hopes for a healthy longevity free of suffering, but sadly that isn't the future for most of the world's people. "Fear" is also in my opinion a false characterization of what Americans feel in regard to the attacks upon us by the Radical Islamic Movement. This administration has not fostered the idea that American's should be afraid, but that we must be much more diligent in protecting our People and interests while the threat continues.

What is being done to defend our borders and ports? What is being done to defend our chemical and nuclear facilities? In a country as large and open as our own the number of important targets for terrorist attack is almost limitless. Our borders remain very porous, and there are extremely large numbers of people illegally living within our borders. Most are escaping conditions in their homelands for the promise of opportunity in America, and such folks have always brought more to our table than they have taken. Unfortunately, hidden in those hidden masses are individuals who are dedicated to committing terrorist acts against us. These two "facts" make it virtually impossible to protect every target, or identify every terrorist cell.

U.S. security IS far better today than it was on 9/11, but it will never be perfect. Leaving security to the Federal government, would be ruinously expensive and plagued with bureaucratic red tape and foul-ups. It is far better that each State, County, City and business take responsibility for increasing the security within their own purview. This administration has set aside funding to help defray the expenses to localities. It is Congress that provides the funding, and it is hamstrung by the argument of whether every jurisdiction should receive a pro rata share of the funding, or if funding for very high risk targets should receive first priority. If the Democrats should take control of the Congress how do you suppose that argument might play out?

Everyday the number of commercial vehicles and containers entering the United States capable of delivering munitions to terrorists inside the country is enormous. Customs searches and detection systems to identify certain classes of munitions are in place. Unfortunately, trying to search every container entering the country would bring our economy to a standstill. We do the best we can, but no one should expect perfection. What alternatives would you suggest?

How does the Radical Islamic Movement intend to conquer the West? The short answer is: little by little; one step at a time. Their position is that God favors Islam over all infidels, and that victory is therefore inevitable. These aren't all foolish people, they know that final victory may take a hundred years, or even two. In this phase, they have several approaches. They will use every technology available, and propaganda is an important part of their approach. They regard the West as impotent, decadent, and unwilling to risk hardships of any sort. The current primary focus is on weakening the United States. If they can "defeat" the U.S., then Europe will be relatively easy to fall. They are actively seeking to drive a wedge between the developed Western States by concentrating most of their venom against America.

The radical elements of Islam have no intention of meeting us on anything like equal terms, or on any sort of conventional battlefield because they know they would lose. Their approach is slow and designed for the long term in hopes that we will tire of the game and concede victory to them. They don't need to occupy the U.S. or Europe to reduce them to subject status. Iran wants to be the undisputed leader of the Islamic World and dictate petroleum policies. How long can Europe maintain itself without importing Islamic Oil at prices dictated by Tehran?

How would the Democrats go about winning the War on Terrorism? Actually, that's a rotten label, but it has currency if not precision.

jpinM, I sometimes fear christians more than Muslims. I have Muslim friends in the Middle East and Africa, and they seem more sane to me than many christians in the US.

I really don't want to get into another Christians are worse than Muslims argument.

As to your questions regarding Gay marriage:

Short answer: The Federal government has no business in what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors. It is a matter for each State to decide how to handle marital laws, and there is no good reasons that I can see why there all marriage laws should be identical. Personally, I have no problem with having gay neighbors, and believe that community property of such unions should be handled exactly the same as if the couple were of opposite sexes. What Constitutional rights are Gays deprived of by the Federal government?

You ask about what harm can come of Gay unions/marriages. So far as I know, no substantial harm results from individuals pursuing their own ideas of sexual fulfillment, so long as children are not adversely affected. What would adversely affect children? I think that is a matter that has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

This isn't really a question for Republicans, or Conservatives, but rather for the more radical Christians who are just one important interest group who support Conservative Republican candidates. The Constitution constrains how the Federal government relates to organized religion, and so far as we know no administration in our history has adopted policies that specificall favor, or constrain an individual's freedom of religion.

I find homosexuality to be as repugnant as drug addiction, alcoholism and all other forms of masochism. While I understand some homosexuals are not victims of their choices, but are victims of flaws in their genes, I think a large majority are victims of their own choices. Nonetheless, I am opposed to any laws that seek to either prohibit or encourage masochistic behavior. I think prohibitive laws actually encourage masochistic behavior. On the other hand, laws that support masochistic behavior are also repugnant to me, because such laws entice masochistic behavior. Masochistic behavior is harmful to those who exhibit such behavior. For those reasons, I believe homosexual marriage harms the participants in gay marriage.

Homosexual marriage offends a great many of those people like myself who have always perceived a marriage, especially a happy marriage, a blessed union between a man and a women. Some like me believe that union is blessed by God, and that any union between two men and/or two women be called something else to reflect that it is something else.



I think the question would be better phrased: Under our system of laws, why should Gay Americans be permitted to enjoy the same rights as straight Americans?

Except for obvious distinctions that cannot be denied (e.g., children cannot be sired and conceived by the two members of a particular homosexual union and the contract establishing the homosexual union cannot logically be called a marriage for that practical reason), homosexual Americans should not be prohibited by law from participating in homosexual unions in accord with whatever private, non-expoitive legal contracts they choose.



I don’t think homosexual marriage harms anyone other than its participants. I think it offends (like any other masochistic behavior) a great many of those people like myself who have always perceived a marriage, especially a happy marriage, a blessed union between a man and a women. Some like me believe that union is blessed by God (e.g., that which is the mind and cause of the universe and its evolution), and that any union between two men and/or two women be called something else to reflect that it is something else.



I believe that homosexual unions have probably resulted in a greater percentage of separations, betrayals, criminal treatment by a mate, or sexual abuse of children, than have heterosexual marriages. There may be other negatives like encouragement of a greater spread of diseases like AIDs in homosexual populations. At this time, I don’t have any confirmed evidence to support any of these beliefs of mine.



I have not encountered any such studies at this time.



As I have already said, many heterosexuals are offended by anyone calling a homosexual union a marriage. They use whatever evidence they can find to support their rejection of the use of the word marriage as a label for homosexual unions. Others are offended by the acceptance in their culture of homosexual unions because of the explicit prohibitions against them that exist in their documents that they say are the word of God. They think such unions are an offense against God and therefore they cannot tolerate such unions for that reason.

ican wrote: Quote:
How does Gay Marriage harm anyone?


I find homosexuality to be as repugnant as drug addiction, alcoholism and all other forms of masochism. While I understand some homosexuals are not victims of their choices, but are victims of flaws in their genes, I think a large majority are victims of their own choices. Nonetheless, I am opposed to any laws that seek to either prohibit or encourage masochistic behavior. I think prohibitive laws actually encourage masochistic behavior. On the other hand, laws that support masochistic behavior are also repugnant to me, because such laws entice masochistic behavior. Masochistic behavior is harmful to those who exhibit such behavior. For those reasons, I believe homosexual marriage harms the participants in gay marriage.

Homosexual marriage offends a great many of those people like myself who have always perceived a marriage, especially a happy marriage, a blessed union between a man and a women. Some like me believe that union is blessed by God, and that any union between two men and/or two women be called something else to reflect that it is something else.

Neither homosexuality or drug addiction is a "choice." You need to learn more about them before you make statements that are wholely untrue.

ican wrote: Quote:
Subquestions:

Under our system of laws, why should Gay Americans be barred from enjoying the same rights as straight Americans?


I think the question would be better phrased: Under our system of laws, why should Gay Americans be permitted to enjoy the same rights as straight Americans?

Except for obvious distinctions that cannot be denied (e.g., children cannot be sired and conceived by the two members of a particular homosexual union and the contract establishing the homosexual union cannot logically be called a marriage for that practical reason), homosexual Americans should not be prohibited by law from participating in homosexual unions in accord with whatever private, non-expoitive legal contracts they choose.

The reason gay Americans should be permitted to enjoy the same rights as straight Amerians is simply guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything else is simply discrimination again one group of Americans.

ican wrote: Quote:
How, specifically, is anyone else's marriage harmed by allowing Gays to marry each other?


I don’t think homosexual marriage harms anyone other than its participants. I think it offends (like any other masochistic behavior) a great many of those people like myself who have always perceived a marriage, especially a happy marriage, a blessed union between a man and a women. Some like me believe that union is blessed by God (e.g., that which is the mind and cause of the universe and its evolution), and that any union between two men and/or two women be called something else to reflect that it is something else.

"Offend?" What has that got anything to do with the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness? It's okay for "you" to belieeve that god blesses a marriage between a man and a woman, but we're not all christians. FYI, almost half of those god-blessed unions end in divorce, and not all parents of children are good for their children.

ican wrote: Quote:
What historical evidence can you show that people have been affected by Gay Marriage in a negative fashion?


I believe that homosexual unions have probably resulted in a greater percentage of separations, betrayals, criminal treatment by a mate, or sexual abuse of children, than have heterosexual marriages. There may be other negatives like encouragement of a greater spread of diseases like AIDs in homosexual populations. At this time, I don’t have any confirmed evidence to support any of these beliefs of mine.

Come on, ican. If you're going to make such important decisions about how you perceive other groups of people, at least get your information correct. You "believe?" Please show some proof of your claims.

For the record, "masochism" means to derive pleasure form being harmed, subjected to pain or humiliation.
I see not how homosexuality fits this definition....unless it's of the same kind of label as "islamofascism"--give it the worst possible name so as to denote the worst possible sin.

ican wrote: Quote:
Why is selective biblical evidence presented to provide a religious rationale for being against Gay marriage?


As I have already said, many heterosexuals are offended by anyone calling a homosexual union a marriage. They use whatever evidence they can find to support their rejection of the use of the word marriage as a label for homosexual unions. Others are offended by the acceptance in their culture of homosexual unions because of the explicit prohibitions against them that exist in their documents that they say are the word of God. They think such unions are an offense against God and therefore they cannot tolerate such unions for that reason.


I'm offended by many things, but to deny anything I feel offended about is about as irrational as it can get. "Marriage" is just a word, for crisesakes.