Ann Coulter is a man posing as a women, solely for the purpose of getting more press. She is a media hound who will do anything for a few seconds of media coverage, and I'm sure she would approve of your post since it gets her more air time. I despise the women, I think she has a right to say what she wants, but I would rather get acupuncture with a pitch fork than listen to anything she has to say.
Bagels would not be appropriate unless they were 25 pound dumbbells shaped as bagels. I think she has succeeded in insulting the majority of America.
And the difference from heterosexuals is?
I think the correct fix is to remove the word marriage from government laws. Marriage is a religious institution, it should stay in that domain. Civil unions are the way to go. All relationships should be deemed as a civil union. People who choose to be in a civil union should get all the same government benefits, regardless of sexual orientation.
quinnhu says:
"There is also Affirmative action which takes care of everything."
Umm, what?
What do you mean that AA takes care of everything? AA in the forms that I have seen, are very broken.
Educational AA in its early forms might have been applicable in some ways, but that was mostly cause of red lining and gerrymandering. Read up on the educational system in India where they are trying to "make up" for their caste system by allowing a large number of third generation "untouchables" into schools not based on merit.
I believe these reparations should be done on a case by case basis. Let the judicial branch sort it out, cause blanket reparations are something that would cost way too much money and would do more harm than good.
Should we bring back a different kind of draft?
One of the reasons the draft came back into the spotlight was because of the total disconnect between what is going on in Iraq and what is going on back home. People are so disenfranchised from this war that the administration has been allowed to stay in a hopeless conflict. What would president Bush do if his daughters were in the war, or any of the other politicians for that matter. Having a draft would force people to be invested in wars like Iraq and would make people think twice about committing to something.
Your compromise is already implemented in some European countries. Citizens can choose how they will serve their country, but everyone must do it. Having a draft forces people and representatives to greatly consider whether we should go to war, since the impact of the decision is greatly magnified. More accountability for our countries actions are a good thing.
Sex education should definitely include abstinence only as one of the available options for today's youth. I do not believe it should be taught as the only option. Ignorance, in any form, is dangerous, especially for young adults (I'm being liberal with this term). In an ideal world, all our kids would make good decisions and be safe from all harm. Information and education is their only real weapon against peer pressure and day to day temptations. So, to answer this issue, yes I believe abstinence only sex ed should be taught, but it should not be the only thing topic covered.
The aging of the voting population
I think about this issue a lot and was wondering what other peoples ideas are concerning it. The "younger" generations, and by younger I mean children of baby boomer's or younger, have been raised in a very different world. The great depression, WWII, the birth of TV are all a long distant memory. How will this affect the way the country is shaped when these people are the ones with the most voting power? It is generally accepted that the older you get, the more power your generation has because a higher percentage of your peers actually vote. How will this affect things like legalization of drugs, legalization of prostitution, same sex marriage.
I also believe that religion as a whole does not have the influence in today's younger generations that it has on older ones. I believe this will also affect the outcome of future politics in America. You can already see democrats playing more to the agnostic/atheist crowds in past elections (which turned out to be a mistake).
Let me know your thoughts! :-).
MiriamSingsLoud says:
As an added bonus, hip-hop artists would have to find something else to "sing" about :-P"
HAHA, that is classic.
Legalization of prostitution and drugs seems like a good idea, and it seems to have been a good idea for a long time. Why hasn't anything been done with all the talking? That is another topic all together. I agree with the OP.
Intelligent Design out of public schools
More people may support ID in some regions, but that doesn't mean that the truth of evolution is less correct there.
I'm not questioning whether evolution is correct or not, I'm saying the people should decide. It was a poor choice of words. When I say what makes sense, I mean what the people want in their respective regions can differ greatly.
The federal government does have a say what is taught in schools, but I don't believe that it should make decisions that are better left to the people they directly affect. There are some things the federal government should be involved in, deciding whether ID should be taught in public schools, IMO, should be left to states or even local governments.
Let me reiterate that I don't believe in ID, I'm an evolutionary person as well. I just don't want the federal government enforcing something that is better left to the states.
Intelligent Design out of public schools
I don't think its something that should be regulated by federal government. Each region needs to make their own decision on what to do. What makes perfect sense in Memphis is not the same as what makes sense in San Francisco. I personally don't believe it should be taught in public schools, and if I lived in a region where it was being done, I would probably leave that area. The last thing I want is a blanket statement by the government saying that it should not be taught in the US, cause there is no way I'm leaving the country.
I agree with this. The electoral college is no longer applicable to todays world of instant messaging, email, and political wikipedia's. There is a movement by the California republican party to have the electoral votes in California be decided by district. This would effectively keep California a blue state, but a portion of its electoral votes would be red. This portion could swing the outcome of the election. (paraphrased from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121791/site/newsweek/).
I have no issues with this as long as it is done country wide and is not done selectively to give advantages to either party (the Dems are doing it in North Carolina).
