I do not know what change has had this negative impact upon you, and I hop things get better for you. However there have not been any medicaid spending cuts.

The bailout was intended to help badly managed banks, and put well managed banks at a financial disadvantage.

Like most big government socialist programs it is doing significant harm, while the benefits of the program are questionable at best.

Oh, and I think something like $17 billion is going to automakers.

Clearly Stevens should be executed for treason. I can not imagine a worse crime than a guy trying to have sex with another guy.

Sometimes it is difficult to avoid appearing arrogant when you are the top dog.

Being serious for a moment. Sure America has its faults and makes mistakes now and again, but in the history of the world you will be hard pressed to find any other superpower that has been nearly as benevolent as the USA. Americans may be arrogant at times, but they are also generous. The American people give more to the poor of the world than any other nation... and they should give even more.

It is a good thing that other countries are willing to point out when the US makes a mistake, and also that people on the internet from other countries are free to share their opinions about the USA. I welcome constructive criticism both personally, and regarding my country. However, I do sometimes grow annoyed at constant attacks by certain people (not in this thread) who never admit to any of the wonderful things that the US does.

I know there is a tiny minority of Christians who want to have officially sanctioned prayer is school, but the vast majority of conservatives just want the school to leave little Johnny alone when he says a prayer before lunch. And if little Barrack wants to say a little prayer to Allah before lunch that is okay to.

One of the minor little details that many people do not seem to understand is that a central part of conservative philosophy is that the government should not endorse any one religion or attack any one religion.

Conservatives do not want the government mandating religion in schools or elsewhere. Of course I am aware that not everyone on the right is a true conservative. In fact I am not 100% in agreement with the conservative philosophy, but that is a discussion for another day.

Bush listed something like 16 different reasons to go to war with Iraq.

The fact that Saddam previously purchased uranium just add believability to the claims of nearly every intelligence agency in the western world. If Saddam managed to buy uranium back in 1981 it is completely believable that he would try again in 2001 (or whichever year).


I know that people expected George Bush to do a better job of knowing which intelligence information is accurate than Bill Clinton. However, just because George Bush is more intelligent that Bill Clinton doesn't mean that he knew that the information he was given was false. It is very likely that Bush believed what he was told, just as Clinton believed that it wasn't an aspirin factory he bombed.

In some school districts in eastern Michigan, the classes stop for muslim prayers throughout the day, and have added assort special provisions for their islamic students.

That goes far beyond allowing students the freedom to say a prayer at lunch, before school, or after school, yet there have not been any lawsuits against the schools for their openness to muslim needs.

I think most everyone agrees that the USA was not intended to be a theocracy.

However, to claim that the foundation of the US has nothing to do with christian beliefs is to ignore the many references to God in our founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence.

Even the most logical person is still an emotional being, and thus influenced by their culture, religion, spiritual beliefs, and so forth. To demand that people should vote without any influence from their religious beliefs is asking more than people can achieve.

I am confident that our founding fathers were aware that people can not vote without the influence of their beliefs, and that is one of the reasons that they feared the tyranny of the majority and wrote so many restrictions on the power of government.

By restricting the federal government's power, the constitution is designed to help avoid bad laws being created in the passion of the moment. That includes laws that favor one set of religious beliefs or endorse a specific religion. But they did not claim people should not vote for laws based upon their moral code (be that religious or spiritual).

And when schools deny students the right to pray before eating lunch? Or to pray before or after school, on school property?

Both of these things have been attempted, and are examples of government trying to restrict the free exercise of religion.

Well said.

Your first statement actually depends upon how you define religion. If you use a broad definition of religion such as this one taken from dictionary.com "6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" Then one can even make the claim that Hammurabi's Code is based upon a matter of ethics.

Unfortunately for you, and the people writing this silly nonsense the Geneva Conventions protect UNIFORMED combatants from torture. Which is why the old USSR was not violating the Geneva Conventions when they would torture captured spy's.

Are you talking about the couple tons of uranium that Canada recently purchased from Iraq?

It should be noted that Iraq does not have any nuclear electricity plants.

When the CIA, and the intelligence agencies of almost every western nation, including France, all claim that Saddam is getting close to having nukes, most people would believe it. Which is why almost every Democrat in congress voted in favor of the war.

The possibility that there were a couple people in an agency of thousands who did not believe that Saddam was close to having nukes is not justification for inaction.

You might also be interested to know that there were a couple people who thought Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor before it happened, but since the leaders of the intelligence community did not bring that information to FDR until to late, does not mean that FDR intentionally let Japan attack Pearl Harbor.

In what way is it wrong?

If separation of church and state means that laws are unconstitutional when they are based upon religious beliefs, then laws against murder and theft are unconstitutional.

The first amendment states that the government may not dictate to religions or choose a specific religion as the State religion.

People often use the phrase "separation of church and state" to mean that laws can not be based upon religious beliefs. The major logical problem with this view is that laws against murder and theft would be unconstitutional because they are based upon religious beliefs.

All laws are based upon the morality of the people in the USA, and the arguments occur because people disagree about morality, and sometimes because the courts have decided to create new laws that the people do not support.

IMO, Judeo/christian values are a set of common beliefs that certain things are wrong, such as killing and stealing, but also extending to a belief that killing and stealing is not just wrong because of natural law philosophy, but rather because God has said that they are wrong.

I am not sure if I explained that well, but hopefully it provides some clarification.

On the contrary, the first post does an excellent job of explaining that the constitution prevents the government from getting involved in religions, but it does not prevent the government from passing laws based upon the religious beliefs of the people (as long as the particular law does not violate some other part of the constitution).

Thus it is completely appropriate for the people to vote based upon their religious beliefs that killing babies should be illegal and perfectly constitutional for the government to take actions to prevent the killing of babies.

That is a tough situation, and I see that you have already received some excellent advise.

I would like to add that you might want to consider reading some self help books such as "10 Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives" by Dr Laura. I don't want to sound preachy with this advice, but I found her book for guys to be insightful and beneficial.

Seek out help. Be that professional therapy or whatever. They can sometimes solve the problems, and other times make a break up less painful.

The one exception is if the spouse is putting the family at risk, in which case you need to remove the kids from such a dangerous situation ASAP.

It depends upon how long you have known the person before the first date. If you have already developed some form of love for the person before dating the person, I can understand making such a statement right away.

For some I suspect that wanting a simple relationship is a backlash against a previous relationship that was filled with drama and negative complexity.

For example, after having a difficult breakup with a person who sometimes used her child to manipulate me, I did not want to date another person with a child right away. It was not that I thought all women with children were like my ex, but rather, I just did not want to deal with the complications of another relationship of that type.