Comments on: Hello Dynasty? http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/ Geektime Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:43:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: grant matthews http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-408 grant matthews Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:01:37 +0000 /?p=27#comment-408 I could not have said it better than Thomas Jefferson, “A government which governs least, governs best.� The question however remains, what should be governed? Government is established to ensure stability in society by enforcing the popular view. Obviously this is why Jefferson wanted government to govern as little as possible, he realized the danger of the majority enforcing too much in too many aspects of personal lives. This leaves many gray areas that we obviously struggle setting boundaries with, thus the controversy of abortion. Because government should govern as little as possible and because government is charged with enforcing the popular view to maintain stability the government’s major focus should be raising and cultivating conscientious and respecting citizens. If a government governs a majority of respectful citizens they will mostly govern themselves leaving the government to do as little as possible dealing with the minority and maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately our society is no longer working hard enough to perpetuate high quality citizens, and thus the government must expand their role to govern and legislate that which a conscientious society would not need help with. Certain citizen and political groups are attempting to regain footing in the quality citizen department to reverse the negative societal traits we now see consequent in expanding government. To have quality citizens they must have respect for each other, to have respect for each other they must respect life; and here is where the question of abortion comes in. First, the pro-choice campaign is both deceiving and hypocritical. Naturally in our society and in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, choice or agency is a vital and important right. The “pro-choice� campaign thus incites in all emotions that may blind them to the further or disturbing facts, all in an effort to “protect� choice. Pro-choice is also hypocritical in the fact that it alludes to the false notion that a choice has not already been made. In the vast majority of abortion cases the mother had consensual relations with their male partner and fertilization resulted. They already had the freedom of choice by having those relations. The consequences of sexual relations are well know and documented throughout history. To wait until another future life is in the mix to acknowledge choice is sick and wrong, it is also lazy. Now, this lazy attitude towards a fetal life and time of choice is damaging to the respect of the public. These lax moral values erode the quality of society; poor quality societies result in more crime, poverty, and illegal behavior, or behavior that is contrary to the majority. These resulting societal cavities force government to expand and attempt to govern all parts of life. Thus, the pro-choice philosophy on abortion is a contributor to the fatal phenomena of large sprawling government. Thou many view the pro-life and abortion regulation efforts as an attempt to expand government into the personal lives of individuals, it is actually an effort to improve society so that government can diet down to the role it was intended to perform. I could not have said it better than Thomas Jefferson, “A government which governs least, governs best.� The question however remains, what should be governed? Government is established to ensure stability in society by enforcing the popular view. Obviously this is why Jefferson wanted government to govern as little as possible, he realized the danger of the majority enforcing too much in too many aspects of personal lives. This leaves many gray areas that we obviously struggle setting boundaries with, thus the controversy of abortion. Because government should govern as little as possible and because government is charged with enforcing the popular view to maintain stability the government’s major focus should be raising and cultivating conscientious and respecting citizens. If a government governs a majority of respectful citizens they will mostly govern themselves leaving the government to do as little as possible dealing with the minority and maintaining the status quo.
Unfortunately our society is no longer working hard enough to perpetuate high quality citizens, and thus the government must expand their role to govern and legislate that which a conscientious society would not need help with. Certain citizen and political groups are attempting to regain footing in the quality citizen department to reverse the negative societal traits we now see consequent in expanding government. To have quality citizens they must have respect for each other, to have respect for each other they must respect life; and here is where the question of abortion comes in.
First, the pro-choice campaign is both deceiving and hypocritical. Naturally in our society and in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, choice or agency is a vital and important right. The “pro-choice� campaign thus incites in all emotions that may blind them to the further or disturbing facts, all in an effort to “protect� choice. Pro-choice is also hypocritical in the fact that it alludes to the false notion that a choice has not already been made. In the vast majority of abortion cases the mother had consensual relations with their male partner and fertilization resulted. They already had the freedom of choice by having those relations. The consequences of sexual relations are well know and documented throughout history. To wait until another future life is in the mix to acknowledge choice is sick and wrong, it is also lazy.
Now, this lazy attitude towards a fetal life and time of choice is damaging to the respect of the public. These lax moral values erode the quality of society; poor quality societies result in more crime, poverty, and illegal behavior, or behavior that is contrary to the majority. These resulting societal cavities force government to expand and attempt to govern all parts of life.
Thus, the pro-choice philosophy on abortion is a contributor to the fatal phenomena of large sprawling government. Thou many view the pro-life and abortion regulation efforts as an attempt to expand government into the personal lives of individuals, it is actually an effort to improve society so that government can diet down to the role it was intended to perform.

]]> By: Sandstone http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-389 Sandstone Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:44:28 +0000 /?p=27#comment-389 Andrew: good to see you here! Welcome! :) Your argument above about not wanting goverment to legislate abortion because you dont feel that the government shoud legislate what a person can do with his or her own body may be suspect. How do you feel about PCP, cocaine, and steroids? What about possibly mad cow-enhanced beef from Canada? What about no smoking allowed in public restaurants? These are things that affect your body, and you can choose to eat/use them, but the government won't allow it. Do you support this legislation about your body? I sure do, and I believe you do, too. I believe it is the government's responsibility to think about removing those things that can harm my body from the country. Therefore, I feel that the government CAN legislate about our bodies in ways that help the public good. So, is the government free to legislate about abortions? Yes. The real question, my friends, is which way they should legistate. Should they help spread the cause of abortion, or try to reign it in? What about smoking? Smoking is not illegal, even though it will kill you slowly and painfully, cost you a significant percentage of your income, and make others around you miserable. I think it's immoral, yet should it be illegal? I dunno... what about free choice? What about agency? In the end, though, when it comes to my bodily safety, as I said above, I believe that it is the government's responsibility to consider removing those things that can harm my body from the country. I believe abortion falls into this category, just like I feel smoking and drugs do. Which brings us to the real abortion question - all legal arguments aside, do we feel abortion is immoral, or not? No more, "I find the idea of abortion distatsteful," but a solid YES or NO on its morality. Obviously, I feel abortion is immoral. As in, "a sin". As in, "you oughtta go to jail for killing your child". As in, "Take responsibility for your actions, child". Sound off: How do YOU feel? Here's an interesting idea: the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect">Roe Effect</a>: Andrew: good to see you here! Welcome! :)

Your argument above about not wanting goverment to legislate abortion because you dont feel that the government shoud legislate what a person can do with his or her own body may be suspect. How do you feel about PCP, cocaine, and steroids? What about possibly mad cow-enhanced beef from Canada? What about no smoking allowed in public restaurants? These are things that affect your body, and you can choose to eat/use them, but the government won’t allow it. Do you support this legislation about your body? I sure do, and I believe you do, too. I believe it is the government’s responsibility to think about removing those things that can harm my body from the country. Therefore, I feel that the government CAN legislate about our bodies in ways that help the public good.

So, is the government free to legislate about abortions? Yes. The real question, my friends, is which way they should legistate. Should they help spread the cause of abortion, or try to reign it in? What about smoking? Smoking is not illegal, even though it will kill you slowly and painfully, cost you a significant percentage of your income, and make others around you miserable. I think it’s immoral, yet should it be illegal? I dunno… what about free choice? What about agency?

In the end, though, when it comes to my bodily safety, as I said above, I believe that it is the government’s responsibility to consider removing those things that can harm my body from the country. I believe abortion falls into this category, just like I feel smoking and drugs do.

Which brings us to the real abortion question - all legal arguments aside, do we feel abortion is immoral, or not? No more, “I find the idea of abortion distatsteful,” but a solid YES or NO on its morality. Obviously, I feel abortion is immoral. As in, “a sin”. As in, “you oughtta go to jail for killing your child”. As in, “Take responsibility for your actions, child”.

Sound off: How do YOU feel?

Here’s an interesting idea: the Roe Effect:

]]> By: Andrew http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-387 Andrew Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:51:53 +0000 /?p=27#comment-387 Firstly, you should get something straight: there's no such thing as "pro-abortion" or "abortion-sponsoring" when it comes to that particular issue. "Pro-abortion" has a connotation that someone is in favor of abortions, and that's not the case at all. "Pro-choice" simply means that someone would rather leave it up to the woman than to a politician whether or not she can go through with the procedure. Since when have politicians ever had our best interests in mind, anyway? Take me, for example. I find the idea of abortion distatsteful, but I don't feel it's up to me to decide whether woman should be able to go through with that. It's up to them in my mind, and that makes me pro-choice. Saying someone is "pro-abortion" makes them sound like they're forcing women to go through with something they don't want to. Saying that someone sponsors abortions certainly isn't true, either. They've simply given the decision to someone else. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "A government which governs least, governs best." Moral issues aside, I take great offense and displeasure when the government steps in and tells me what I can and can't do to my own body. This includes abortion (which is moot with me anyway) as well as drug use. I'm not even a casual drug user, but when the government thinks they know best when it comes to my physical body, I must disagree. As for the particular issue of presidential term limits, this amendment has been introduced before by House Republicans, most notably during Reagan's second term as President. I should note that never have Democrats ever attempted to introduce a similar bill, even during Clinton's presidency. What makes this so funny is that the 22nd Amendment was first introduced by Republicans following Roosevelt's four-term Presidency, and all it served was to limit their own "golden boy" President in the amount of time he could serve forty years later. Besides, would you have wanted Reagan as President for a third term with his Alzheimer's onsetting at the end of his second term. Yuck. I see efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment as nothing more than efforts to solidify power by those in control of the government. I would say this whether it were a Republican President or a Democratic President in power. Because the Republicans control both houses of Congress and they might be able to pull off a 2/3 state majority, they think they can sneak this by, but it will likely die in the Senate along with the flag-burning amendment that gets introduced every couple of years. The fact that the Republicans have been lucky enough to pass enough of their legislative agenda in the last few years should be enough for them. The 22nd Amendment, in my opinion, serves as an excellent addition to our system of checks and balances to assure that no one party or man has too much control over the government. Firstly, you should get something straight: there’s no such thing as “pro-abortion” or “abortion-sponsoring” when it comes to that particular issue. “Pro-abortion” has a connotation that someone is in favor of abortions, and that’s not the case at all. “Pro-choice” simply means that someone would rather leave it up to the woman than to a politician whether or not she can go through with the procedure. Since when have politicians ever had our best interests in mind, anyway? Take me, for example. I find the idea of abortion distatsteful, but I don’t feel it’s up to me to decide whether woman should be able to go through with that. It’s up to them in my mind, and that makes me pro-choice. Saying someone is “pro-abortion” makes them sound like they’re forcing women to go through with something they don’t want to. Saying that someone sponsors abortions certainly isn’t true, either. They’ve simply given the decision to someone else.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: “A government which governs least, governs best.” Moral issues aside, I take great offense and displeasure when the government steps in and tells me what I can and can’t do to my own body. This includes abortion (which is moot with me anyway) as well as drug use. I’m not even a casual drug user, but when the government thinks they know best when it comes to my physical body, I must disagree.

As for the particular issue of presidential term limits, this amendment has been introduced before by House Republicans, most notably during Reagan’s second term as President. I should note that never have Democrats ever attempted to introduce a similar bill, even during Clinton’s presidency. What makes this so funny is that the 22nd Amendment was first introduced by Republicans following Roosevelt’s four-term Presidency, and all it served was to limit their own “golden boy” President in the amount of time he could serve forty years later. Besides, would you have wanted Reagan as President for a third term with his Alzheimer’s onsetting at the end of his second term. Yuck.

I see efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment as nothing more than efforts to solidify power by those in control of the government. I would say this whether it were a Republican President or a Democratic President in power. Because the Republicans control both houses of Congress and they might be able to pull off a 2/3 state majority, they think they can sneak this by, but it will likely die in the Senate along with the flag-burning amendment that gets introduced every couple of years. The fact that the Republicans have been lucky enough to pass enough of their legislative agenda in the last few years should be enough for them.

The 22nd Amendment, in my opinion, serves as an excellent addition to our system of checks and balances to assure that no one party or man has too much control over the government.

]]> By: grant matthews http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-358 grant matthews Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:45:07 +0000 /?p=27#comment-358 I do agree that term limits on the president are necessary, and in most cases good politically; however, there is a flip side. With our weakened political parties the continuity of policy and government falter as presidents leave office. Requiring the president to change every eight years increases the frequency of political upheaval. I am not suggesting that like some young democratic nation each new election stirs and disturbs the national strength as power shifts try the stamina of the people, but I am speaking to a more subtle political upheaval: policy and ideological shifts in the controlling hands, the learning the ropes syndrome combined with I'm the new guy so we'll do it all different. These changes and situations create wasted energy and resources as new ideas and processes that are unnecessary are instituted. Obviously, repealing the 22nd Amendment is the wrong way of fixing this issue. The real solution lays in strengthening the political parties. As political parties regain control over their candidates the presidents will return to their role as an extension and ideological head of a larger more complex and diverse organization, political parties; instead of the image seeking lone wolfs that have controlled the most powerful office in the world for 3 decades and only loosely associate themselves with the platform prescribed by the party they attest to ally. Political parties can thus provide the continuity and training needed by the president to avoid unneeded waste in recreation and extend the policies and ideologies beyond the eight year cycle. As the office changes party hands, or is threatened to change party hands the necessary policy changes will naturally happen. However, policy decisions instigated by a controlled president will be based on the support of a large democratic demographic, thus less likely to be political maneuvers aimed at improving public image at the expense of public good. I liked Ben's comment about the majority choosing evil over good, this happens easily when an image rather than motive or ideals are presented. I do agree that term limits on the president are necessary, and in most cases good politically; however, there is a flip side. With our weakened political parties the continuity of policy and government falter as presidents leave office. Requiring the president to change every eight years increases the frequency of political upheaval. I am not suggesting that like some young democratic nation each new election stirs and disturbs the national strength as power shifts try the stamina of the people, but I am speaking to a more subtle political upheaval: policy and ideological shifts in the controlling hands, the learning the ropes syndrome combined with I’m the new guy so we’ll do it all different. These changes and situations create wasted energy and resources as new ideas and processes that are unnecessary are instituted.
Obviously, repealing the 22nd Amendment is the wrong way of fixing this issue. The real solution lays in strengthening the political parties. As political parties regain control over their candidates the presidents will return to their role as an extension and ideological head of a larger more complex and diverse organization, political parties; instead of the image seeking lone wolfs that have controlled the most powerful office in the world for 3 decades and only loosely associate themselves with the platform prescribed by the party they attest to ally. Political parties can thus provide the continuity and training needed by the president to avoid unneeded waste in recreation and extend the policies and ideologies beyond the eight year cycle. As the office changes party hands, or is threatened to change party hands the necessary policy changes will naturally happen. However, policy decisions instigated by a controlled president will be based on the support of a large democratic demographic, thus less likely to be political maneuvers aimed at improving public image at the expense of public good. I liked Ben’s comment about the majority choosing evil over good, this happens easily when an image rather than motive or ideals are presented.

]]> By: nathan caulder http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-337 nathan caulder Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:08:50 +0000 /?p=27#comment-337 What is interesting to note is that of the 8 members who submitted this proposal, 6 of them are democrats. In my opinion, this article should not be appealed, as it keeps us from continual rule under one leader/dictator. Not that Roosevelt was a bad President, not at all, but let's just say it takes a Truman to drop a bomb or two. What is interesting to note is that of the 8 members who submitted this proposal, 6 of them are democrats.

In my opinion, this article should not be appealed, as it keeps us from continual rule under one leader/dictator. Not that Roosevelt was a bad President, not at all, but let’s just say it takes a Truman to drop a bomb or two.

]]> By: Diablo http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Diablo Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:48:53 +0000 /?p=27#comment-336 I heard about this as a possibility back in December `04(?). There are two issues here, and oddly enough, it has to do with Ahhhhnold Shwartznegger. If the democrats proposed this above mentioned bill, and it was passed (for their beloved B. Clinton) then, they wouldn't vote down another bill which allows non-US born citizens to run for president. I sincerely hope that none of it comes to fruition. I will be angry if it does (not that I have any angst against Ahhhhnold, but some things must remain true). I heard about this as a possibility back in December `04(?). There are two issues here, and oddly enough, it has to do with Ahhhhnold Shwartznegger. If the democrats proposed this above mentioned bill, and it was passed (for their beloved B. Clinton) then, they wouldn’t vote down another bill which allows non-US born citizens to run for president.

I sincerely hope that none of it comes to fruition. I will be angry if it does (not that I have any angst against Ahhhhnold, but some things must remain true).

]]> By: Sandstone http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-335 Sandstone Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:39:03 +0000 /?p=27#comment-335 Ooo - good one. Was it Padme that said that? I wonder if Lucas actually feels that way, or if it was just in character for her. Ooo - good one. Was it Padme that said that? I wonder if Lucas actually feels that way, or if it was just in character for her.

]]> By: Teh Rob http://www.stonesand.net/2005/06/14/27/comment-page-1/#comment-334 Teh Rob Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:28:57 +0000 /?p=27#comment-334 I found this amusing because the first thing that came to mind when I read this was the cheesiest line from the latest Star Wars movie: "And so this is how democracy is lost... with great applause." LOL... I found this amusing because the first thing that came to mind when I read this was the cheesiest line from the latest Star Wars movie: “And so this is how democracy is lost… with great applause.” LOL…

]]>