Here's a clip from the Daily Show about the media coverage of this circus.

click here for the QT version

A must see.

Leaving aside conspiracy theories, it certainly a case of bias (though obviously, not a very important one, since they fixed the summary later on). If left as is, it would also leave an impression that dying of starvation without a feeding tube is "dying with dignity", and that also is a highly subjective statement.
[/quote]
Well, it's a good thing I dont' watch it then

First of all, I don't agree that market forces always sort things out to the betterment of society. But that's not really the issue. Fundamentally, if you believe in market forces, it doesn't matter what the result is. Neither do I believe that the govt should ALWAYS force business not to discriminate, particularly in the case of non-chartered businesses that do not fall under the jurisdiction of corporate law.

But in the case of public establishments, the right of a person to equal access (of which not being discriminated against is a part) supercedes the rights of the business to discriminate. That's not about imposing morality, it's upholding fundamental rights.



Are you really, though? Because every time it comes up, you're quick to point out how liberals infringe on your civil liberties, but I've never seen you comment on how conservatives, particularly this brand of religious conservatives, are doing the same thing. In fact, I don't believe you've even said anything about it in this thread, which is ABOUT the presence of religious conservatives in politics. Instead, you pointed out once again how liberals are imposing morality, but not conservatives. And you've made an issue of CNN's glaring bias. But no comment yet on Republicans creating a circus out of this and involving every branch of the federal govt.

I'm just wondering why that is.

My point was not about market forces; that's just soemthing that happoens in a free market. My point was about you not being justified in trying to control others' private property.

Once again, you try to call some businesses that do not belong to you "public establishments". There is nothing public about them, except for the fact that the public goes there. It is not your fundamental right to go somewhere where the owner does not want you.

I never realized that my posts on this board had to be "fair and balanced". Yes, I have much less problem with the religious right in American politics than I do with the liberals, because the liberal agenda is much more represented. Be it minimum wage, Social Security, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative Action, public housing or the Welfare system - all these are pushed by liberals. The biggest religious right issue is abortion; something that I find myself having mixed feelings on. Granted, now that the religious right has more say in politics, things might change, but it would take decades before their impact is as felt as is the impact of liberal agenda today.

Krem, you don't live on an island. You can push private to a point, but this is a nation state. The minute you want to have some sort of a figurehead to dish out arms and make treaties internationally, the minute you want a highway from point a to point b, the minute you want a court to decide what happens to the neighbor who "privately" beat his wife, than you compromise a bit of your "private" entitlement. No one operates independantly of anyone else, even, surprise, in a free market economy. That means that they can't do whatever they want.

1. Because we've seen that it doesn't always lead to something even mildly bordering on "equality for all" and when there were no discrimination laws and labor laws for work=places, etc, than yes, there was a booming business...a slave trase, sweat shops, and many other things throughout the ages.

2. We've seen how non-centralized governing systems failed to handle negotiations with centralized ones. Check out how King Phillip tried to deal with Europe.

You're mixing paradigms here. There is only one legitimate function of the government, that being protecting people's liberties. So when someone beats his wife, without her approval, the government is justified in stepping in. However, coming into that same person's home and telling them that their carpet should black in color is not justified.

Again, you're mixing up different issues. Government supported slave trade or laws enforcing segregation are not justified either; much more so than anti-segregation laws. But going from one extreme does not mean that there has to be another extreme. By 1964 most segregation laws and rules passed by local governments were already overturned; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only about morality and not about Constitutionality.

That's anecdotal evidence. Besides, I am not advocating for anarchy; far from it. I am in favor of common defense, police force and the court system.

You concede that you support fire safety codes. That's exactly the same kind of infringement that you say you're "staunchly" against, right? It is, after all, the govt telling some business owner what he must do with his private property. And if you already support some kind of infringement, then your argument in the past has been that any other laws that also infringe don't make that much difference. Wasn't that how you explained your relative indifference to anti-gay marriage legislation? You opposed the involvement of govt in marriage altogether, so if the govt decided to get involved in marriage then it could also decide how to define it. Is that a correct summation?

I happen to believe that equal access is MORE of a fundamental right than public safety, which can't be guaranteed the same way anyway.



First of all, I think most of these programs have had a net positive effect on American society. But be that as it may, do they violate civil liberties or are they in any way un-Constitutional? Social Security, public housing, and welfare are arguably accounted for under the Constitution (depending on how you define "public welfare") but they do not infringe on civil liberties unless you consider it a civil liberty not to be taxed. And if you don't consider it a right not to be discriminated against, then I'm not sure how you could argue that it's our right not be taxed.

I can definitely see an argument over minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws IF you believe that corporations and businesses share the same fundamental Constitutional rights as private citizens. I think they do up until the point those rights are superceded by the rights of the private citizen (such as the aforementioned anti-discrimination laws). I do not believe, however, in regulation for regulation's sake. There would have to be a very well considered practical reason for enacting a regulation. You happen to believe there is such a reason for fire safety. I believe there is such a reason for the minimum wage.



The religious right now controls all three branches of government. I don't know how they could be any MORE represented than that. They are also clearly setting the national discourse, and the biggest issue (sadly) of the day is the Terri Schiavo case, which is about as big an abuse of govt intrusion as you can get.

As one reader from Andrew Sullivan's site observes: "The Leftists couldn't even muster a majority of congressional Democrats to oppose the Iraq war. Yet the Theocons of the Republican right are able to call the Congress into a special session, pass an emergency bill and wake the President up in the middle of the night to sign it--all in the name of exalting an extremist religious belief over traditionally Republican principles of federalism, governmental restraint and family rights. All of this with only five, count them, five Republicans voting "No.""

There is an utterly fantastical amount of power there and all of it in the hands of the religious right that now effectively writes and controls the Republican agenda.

And no, you don't have to be fair and balanced at all, but YOU claim not to be on either side and equally critical of both. At least you've said so in the past. But obviously that's not the case, which is the point I'm getting at. If you're going to be on one side or the other, just say so. What's wrong with admitting your ideological bias?

Hey Mike I didnt want to re-post the entire graphic
On the Elephants with the LIFE and DEATH tape on their mouths, couldnt this be the exact same picture for the democrats except it would have to a Donkey, the one on the left would say Capital Punishment, and the donkey on the right would say Abortion, they dont believe in harming a hair on a criminals head but slaughtering an unborn child is AOK!

I am flipping the channels and the media seem to have added a count down to Terri S now, in case your wondering its day 12 without food, The guy who was talking was having a really tough time looking interested, the spokesman reported that she urinated last night ( asign her kidneys have not shut down) and I decided a repeat of Gilligans Island was infinitely more interesting than the news, I think at a NEW LOW

URINATION REPORT FROM THE BEDPAN OF TERRI SCHIAVO !!! EVERY 10 Minutes.............THIS IS CNN............

Jesse is holding the bedpan he says its pretty warm.......

yeah yeah blah blah blah...same old republican nonsense.

There is not a single Democrat who supports abortion as if it's a good thing, that we should encourage it, and that it doesn't pain people to have to make that terrible decision. What we support is the right for the people involved to make that decision without government sticking its nose into our business, like Republicans do all the time, and like they are doing with the case we are all talking about here -- which also concerns a private, painful, and difficult decision best left to the family.

No, No blah, blah, blah, same-ol... both parties are inconsistent I am for abortion because I think the alternative is much harder on everyone including the child, people make mistakes. But the Dems dont call it the Pro-death Party its the properly packaged and PC title of: Right-to-choose, thats what is all about choice, what a crock of dooky call a spade a spade and I'll respect you that much more

I would love to see the Govt in general stay out of all of our private business

In addition to what Mike said, abortion is not viewed as a right-to-life issue because the fetus is considered part of the woman's body until the third trimester. Up to that point, abortion is considered by liberals to be a privacy and civil liberty issue for the woman.

To give you an idea of what I mean about the fetus, and to illustrate a further disgusting hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue, Republicans consider the fertilized egg an unborn child with civil liberties in abortion cases. But with invitro fertilization, unused fertilized eggs (in all ways exactly the same as a naturally fertilized egg) are discarded in a process that Republicans not only don't oppose but actually encourage.

So no, Democrats don't think that abortion is "aok." But like the Terri Schiavo case, it's a difficult and painful decision for anyone who has to make it and the govt should keep its nose out of it.

Wait, so are you saying that you think the slaughter of unborn children is A-OK?

Not exactly. There are different types of fire codes, and I feel different about them. I support fire codes that are designed to protect the property of other people; for instance I would support a law barring me from having camp fires in my appartment, because people living on the floor above mine have no control over what I do here. However, if I own a secluded house, then what business does the government have telling me I can't have a campfire in it?


No, it isn't. My point was that marriage, as recognized by the governments, is about benefits; you get certain things from the government when you get married. So if public is already giving out certain things, then it should be up to the public to decide how to give them out. Anti-discrimination laws, on the other hand, don't provide any benefits; they actually take certain rights away from business owners.

The point that I'm making is that equal access is NOT a right. Access itself is not a right; it's a privilige granted to you by the property owner. On the flipside, you buying a product from a business owner is not his right either; it's a privilige that you grant to him. Can you imagine the uproar if a law was passed saying that you cannot discriminate between the stores you buy stuff from on the basis of race of the business owner?

That can be argued, but ultimately it's besides the point. Forcing everyone to finish high school would most likely also have a net positive effect on the society, but it would be abridging people's rights as well.

To reiterate myself, my point was not to argue about these programs - that has been done over and over in the past. My point was to show that the liberal influence in the U.S. is much greater than the influence of the right-wing Christians.

[/quote]
You are talking about the past few years. I am talking about liberal agenda items being pushed for the past 70 years. And frankly, if Terry Schiavo is the biggest case right-wing Christians have (and they're STILL losing it, even with supposedly controlling all three branches of government) then I am not that concerned about them.


And yet Terry Schiavo is still about to die; abortions still take place; students are still not required to say grace before teh start of school; and I'm still not in jail for being an adulterer. What gives?

I've admitted it in the past; I am a libertarian. But I am also not a drama queen. I can freely admit to that I wish Terry Schiavo was dead already (for her sake), without calling Bush and Republican Senators "theocons" or wingnuts.

And sorry it took me so long to reply. I was busy at work.

Yes, but I wouldnt consider it a best practice

One of the alternatives is commonly known as "the welfare child" the child in most cases is better off dead

Sorry for the stereo types but the other large sector is the "I didnt finish school cuz I had you" child, not a good way to grow up either

Free your mind and the rest will follow