Okay who here is a dumbocrate ( i mean democrate) and who is a republican and why? Or are you liberests like Steven and Elyse or whatever other parties are out there? I ma a republican just like Alex lol! hehe. I am a Republican becasue I thibk othe rpeople shouldn't feel sory for other people and the government shouldn't take money from us to help other people. I think people should work for themselves and not rely on the governemnt unless it is a real serious issue. For example if someone is reallly sick and there family needs support. Well anyway I was just wondering. Sorry if I offened anyone by the dumbocrate thing. It is just because I am very political and like debating things.

There is no need to be offensive by using words that doesn't exist... /Daniel

Republican here.

First of all, liberal and democrat are basically the same thing, so Elyse and Steven are democrats. You probably mean that they are radicals. I'm like Elyse and Steven and am a Democrat. I'm a Democrat because Republicans never want to raise taxes or anything they always want to lower them. The government usually needs that money for education, or programs like welfare and social security. A lot of times if people are unemployed it is not their fault, there is just a shortage of jobs in this nation so the government should help them. For example, a lot of unemployed people in the Seattle area where I live have college degrees, but have been laid off from failed dot-coms or from Boeing because of the recession. Also, Republicans want to take money away from programs for the environment and education and use it for defense spending. The environment is more important than the economy because if we use up all of the Earth's natural resources, than the economy will suffer tremendously. Not to generalize or anything, but more Republicans than Democrats seem to be pro-life and for organized prayer in school the latter which is a direct violation of the Constitution. That is just my opinion, I am not saying that all Republicans believe in these things, just more of them.

I am a Republican. I'm a republican because I believe in lower taxes and less federal government involvement in MY personal business.

Organized Prayer in school is NOT a direct violation of the Constitution. It is protected under the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment reads, and I quote
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

I.E. freedom of religion and freedom of speech right there.


D
:cheers:

I'm republican, because dumbocrats are for abortion and alot of other evil stuff.

ALEX RULES!!!!

Originally posted by Ags2000
I am a Republican. I'm a republican because I believe in lower taxes and less federal government involvement in MY personal business.

Organized Prayer in school is NOT a direct violation of the Constitution. It is protected under the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment reads, and I quote


I.E. freedom of religion and freedom of speech right there.


D
:cheers:

"It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15." Laws permitting organize prayer in school are unconstitutional because they would favor religion such as Christianity over non religion such as atheism. I'm an atheist, so I personally feel very strongly about separating church and state.

Originally posted by MJFfan
I'm republican, because dumbocrats are for abortion and alot of other evil stuff.

ALEX RULES!!!!

Why is abortion evil?

You originally said that organized prayer was a driect violation of the constitution. It is not. The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution many times to make their own personal politics and ideas the law.

Just becasue the Supreme Court has ruled on something does not mean that it is right. They once ruled that slavery was legal by upholding the fact that slaves were property. Did that make it right? No it did not.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.


Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan
Laws permitting organize prayer in school are unconstitutional because they would favor religion such as Christianity over non religion such as atheism. I'm an atheist, so I personally feel very strongly about separating church and state.

By this right, the same thing goes for me. By stopping me from praying, it is putting YOUR religion (athiesm) in front of my religion by allowing you to follow your religion and prohibiting me from praying.


D

Originally posted by Ags2000
You originally said that organized prayer was a driect violation of the constitution. It is not. The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution many times to make their own personal politics and ideas the law.

Just becasue the Supreme Court has ruled on something does not mean that it is right. They once ruled that slavery was legal by upholding the fact that slaves were property. Did that make it right? No it did not.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.




By this right, the same thing goes for me. By stopping me from praying, it is putting YOUR religion (athiesm) in front of my religion by allowing you to follow your religion and prohibiting me from praying.


D

It is true that the Supreme Court has often misinterpreted the Constitution, but not in this case. Stopping you from praying is not putting my religion in front of yours because my beliefs are not a religion, but rather a lack of one. Also, organized prayer in school violates the Establishment clause because it favors the religion that pray in that method. It would be favoring say Christianity over Hinduism or Buddhism. Even if it does not violate the Constitution, that is not the issue at stake here. The issue at stake is that these kinds of laws would be discriminating against atheists. Most people would support organized prayer because as Bush said in China, 95% of Americans believe in God. However, people would never even consider teaching Atheism in schools because of the backlash it would create.

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan
It is true that the Supreme Court has often misinterpreted the Constitution, but not in this case. Stopping you from praying is not putting my religion in front of yours because my beliefs are not a religion, but rather a lack of one. Also, organized prayer in school violates the Establishment clause because it favors the religion that pray in that method.

The Establishment Clause came about from a misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. It was taken out of context. If the letter were to be read as a whole AND if you would look at the fact that it was written 14 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was ratified, then you would have to agree that to take something written in that letter as word that that was what they were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights is wrong.

It would be favoring say Christianity over Hinduism or Buddhism.

How? I have no problem with them praying however they want to. I'm opened minded that way.

Even if it does not violate the Constitution, that is not the issue at stake here.

You are the one that stated:
more Republicans than Democrats seem to be pro-life and for organized prayer in school the latter which is a direct violation of the Constitution. [quote]
I'm just trying to say that it is NOT a direct violation of the Constitution as you originally claimed it was.

[quote] The issue at stake is that these kinds of laws would be discriminating against atheists.

Why just try to put the focus on athiests? Why is it whenever prayer is brought up, the athiests ALWAYS attack the Christians. Y'all never say anything to for example, the Hindu's.

Most people would support organized prayer because as Bush said in China, 95% of Americans believe in God. However, people would never even consider teaching Atheism in schools because of the backlash it would create.

Having prayer in school is NOT teaching Christianity. That has not been brought up at all. All that I am saying is that I want to have the right to pray whenever and wherever I want to. I don't want to be told that because somebody does not believe in what I do that I am not allowed to pray or be in a club that prays.


D

That is beside the point. I agree completely that an individual should be able to exercise their first amendment rights by praying in school or in any other place of their own accord. What I am saying is unconstitutional is a law requiring all students to observe a moment of silence every day. There was such a law in Alabama some time back which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Wallace vs. Jaffrey. It is only this type of prayer in school that I am referring to.

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan
That is beside the point. I agree completely that an individual should be able to exercise their first amendment rights by praying in school or in any other place of their own accord. What I am saying is unconstitutional is a law requiring all students to observe a moment of silence every day. There was such a law in Alabama some time back which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Wallace vs. Jaffrey. It is only this type of prayer in school that I am referring to.


What is wrong with a moment of silence? A moment of silence does not say you have to pray.

The only reason Alabama got in trouble in 1985 is because the Alabama Statute (§ 16-1-20.1) authorized a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer."

The court however, said that there was a state law already on the books that provided a moment of silence to these appellees irrespective of § 16-1-20.1. in Alabama Code § 16-1-20.

The ONLY reason the Supreme Court ruled against § 16-1-20.1 is because of the words "for meditation or voluntary prayer."

A moment of silence is STILL allowed in school as long as it does not mention mediation or prayer.


D

Am I the only one failing to see the connection between this subject and Family Ties...?

Originally posted by hofverberg
Am I the only one failing to see the connection between this subject and Family Ties...?


Well, it DID start out about politics.


D
:cheers:

OK, ive been off this site for awhile, and jsut came back for the good stuff! I am republican, just like Alex P. Keaton!!!!!! I could go on and on, but since this whole thingy is kinda off Family Ties, I should probably keep my mouth shut, LOL! Well, it's good to be back! Oh, nd, hehe, I luv ur dombocrat thingy, not to offend neone. Just funny because that is what I call democrats too, hehe! Again, no offence! BYE BYE!

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan


Why is abortion evil?


Ummm.... because it's MURDER....

Okay, abortion is wrong becasue it is killing an innocent life that hasn't even had a chance to live life. If a mother doesn't want the baby she should put it up for adoption that way the baby can live a life. Every human being deserves a chance. Oh and about the prayer at school thing. i think it is right. What we do at our school is the kids organize prayer at the pole every wednesday morning. A lot of people go. If it is organized by the kids and they are willing to do it then it is not wrong. We also have a moment of silence. Wich i also believe is right because it gives kids of any religion to pray to their god or if they are not religious at all they can just sit there patiently.

Originally posted by hofverberg
Am I the only one failing to see the connection between this subject and Family Ties...?

No, I was wondering the same thing.

At last, we agree! :cheers:

Originally posted by LilNanFan
Okay, abortion is wrong becasue it is killing an innocent life that hasn't even had a chance to live life. If a mother doesn't want the baby she should put it up for adoption that way the baby can live a life. Every human being deserves a chance. Oh and about the prayer at school thing. i think it is right. What we do at our school is the kids organize prayer at the pole every wednesday morning. A lot of people go. If it is organized by the kids and they are willing to do it then it is not wrong. We also have a moment of silence. Wich i also believe is right because it gives kids of any religion to pray to their god or if they are not religious at all they can just sit there patiently.

Well, I agree in the ideal situation there would be no abortions. But it is not realistic to say that the baby should be put up for adoption because if all the mothers that get abortions instead put their babies up for abortion, there would be nowhere near enough orphanage space, there is already a lack of it. So it would require increasing taxes to get more money for orphanages which Democrats are fine with but Republicans won't do. It is not murder because there is an overpopulation problem in many country. What is better, that child never having been born, or not having any opportunities in life and having to beg on the streets?

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan


Well, I agree in the ideal situation there would be no abortions. But it is not realistic to say that the baby should be put up for adoption because if all the mothers that get abortions instead put their babies up for abortion, there would be nowhere near enough orphanage space, there is already a lack of it. So it would require increasing taxes to get more money for orphanages which Democrats are fine with but Republicans won't do. It is not murder because there is an overpopulation problem in many country. What is better, that child never having been born, or not having any opportunities in life and having to beg on the streets?
Well not all babies that are put up for adoption go straight to an orphange. Lots of people adopt babies right when they are born soemtimes before the babie is born too. There is also a thing called fostercare. Besides while the baby is in the womb it is alive and you hurt it and murder it if you abort it.

WEll hoveburg and Janlady I origannly posted this to relate to the fact that alex is a republican so i though this would be interesting to see peoples diffrent political views since Family Ties is based around that. I did not relieze that it would get this deep and start shifting into another topic all toghther. But i LOVE talking about this stuff i find it very interesting. So in some snese it does relate to family ties. Alex would have LOVED this post lol!

Originally posted by LilNanFan

Well not all babies that are put up for adoption go straight to an orphange. Lots of people adopt babies right when they are born soemtimes before the babie is born too. There is also a thing called fostercare. Besides while the baby is in the womb it is alive and you hurt it and murder it if you abort it.

Yes, but many of those kids are shuffled between different foster homes, and grow up in poverty. A lot of those kids could develop psychological problems. And this is in countries such as the US. I was also referring to third-world countries. In some of those countries the overpopulation problem is a much bigger deal than in the US. There is no foster care and very poor conditions in orphanages there. It is not murder because under Roe vs. Wade abortion is only allowed during the first three months. All I am saying is this, abortion is a personal choice that is sometimes a very good thing and the government should leave it up to the mother and not interfere.

well women should get pregnant in the first place if they don't want kids!!! (unless it was a rape) Lot's of teens get abortions but if they didn't do it in the first palce than there would be no need to even consider abortion!

Like I said before in the ideal situation you would be right. But let's face it, a lot of women are going to get pregnant even if they don't want kids. So abortion is the best way to deal with the problem. If you just say that those women should not have gotten pregnant in the first place and leave it at that, you are ignoring the problem and therefore making it worse. The only other solution would be the government educating people which is what Bush wants, but that would be a lot more expensive and it is not clear how effective that would be

If only we had a society with morals here in the U.S...

Originally posted by GoldenFamilyTies
If only we had a society with morals here in the U.S...

For the most part don't we?

Not really. Just look at most of the jokes they use in sitcoms today. I mean, they can't seem to stay funny without turning to sexual content. Just look at why abortion is so high in the first place, and that's girls getting pregnant.

I am a full-blooded republican. One reason I am a republican is because George Bush is a republican and he's from Texas, and I was born and raised in Texas. Alex has a picture of Nixon by his bed; that's the way I feel about Bush and Bush Jr. The major reason I am republican, though, is because this political party supports my moral values. I have to agree totally with GoldenFamilyTies- if only we had a moral society in the U.S.

<If only we had a society with morals here in the U.S...>

Couldn't aggree more! Our society is so corrupt today! I mean, u cant even turn on the TV for more than five minutes, and normally there is something immoral or corrupt on a comercial or someting! I think it is really sad! And I aggree with, well whoever it was taht said girls shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place (unless it is rape which they cant help)! Why can't people just WAIT??? Neway, just my thoughts, and also, yeah, I think ALex would have LUVED to post on this topic! hehe! I would have luved to have read what he would say!

Well, enough from me!

Republicans RULE!!!!!!!!

Alexis

I haven't had time to read all these long posts on abortion. However, personally, if somebody doesn't want a baby they shouldn't... have one. Unless, as ftfan said, it is rape. In that case I still think that life is more important then all this democratic jabber. At one point just for fun, I wrote a pretend letter against abortion. If anybody woiuld like me to post it, please say so.

Yeah sure post it. I'd loev to read it.

It has come to my attention that you are for abortion. I feel it is my duty to explain to you why this is wrong.
I will begin by stating clearly that I look upon abortion as one of the worst forms of murder. Yes, you read correctly, I said MURDER. MURDER, MURDER, MURDER!! Oh dear, I think I'm getting to carried away. I will begin my arguments and examples.
Most debates concerning abortion circulate around the question "When does life begin?" I certainly consider this rather irrelevant. Life begins when it begins! Looking at legal rules is useless, because that's all rot. Something could count as a human in the U.S.A. and be a "thing" in Canada. You may believe that because of this, I will have no arguments to make on the subject. You are incorrect. Lets suppose that an unborn baby, to be born in about seven months is not alive. (This isn't true of course, but just for the sake of argument.) If this baby is not alive, then I suppose you would find it acceptable to kill it. However, you would have to agree that it will come alive at some point. If you destroy it at this stage, which we are pretending is before life, you are indeed preventing it from ever living. It will never cry, never eat, never breath, never talk, never grow up. Is this not just as murdering something? Even if something is not alive, but you know it will BE alive at some point, and you prevent that from ever happening? Indeed this must be just as good as killing!
Another argument that I have heard, is that even if a baby is alive, it is not murderous to kill it, because it knows nothing of life. This idea can be summed up more quickly: If something is not conscious, it is not murder to kill it. This is obviously an idiotic idea!! You will, of course agree that if somebody is asleep they are unconscious. Supposing I was asleep. My body is, in a way, lifeless and without intentional movement. If somebody were to come and stab my temporarily lifeless body, wouldn't that be counted as murder? Why different for a baby?
Look at all the people who have changed the world for the better. What if one of these people had been aborted? Maybe somebody who was prevented from living could have stopped the attacks on 9/11/01.

Usually when somebody realizes they are losing an argument, they say; "Well, you believe that etc…. " Unless you are even stupider than I thought, you are realizing your loss as you read. Most likely, you are saying, " Well, you believe in the death penalty, isn't THAT murder?" I will reply to this argument. Those who receive the death penalty have had a fair trial. These babies, these innocent babies, have not hurt anyone. They have not been fairly tried, have not had a chance to say "Please Mommy, don't kill me. Don't stop me from growing up and living a good life, from having friends and a family, even if it's an adopted one. Don't deny everything from me by murdering me in cold blood before I am even granted baptism or my first breath. You are alive, why can't I ever be? Please don't do this horrible thing to me. I haven't hurt you."
If you are still cold hearted enough to believe that murdering an innocent child is justified, then I hope you come to your senses before you die yourself.