jimshiz

Did anybody watch the DEAD ZONE on USA Sunday July 9? The opening scene is a "preacher" interested in politics speaking about "tolerance". John Smith, the main character, points to a crowd holding up "Abortion = Murder" signs and says something to the effect of "not everybody is getting the message on tolerance". Can somebody tell me how believing that abortion is murder is an example of intolerance? In the same show, a TV reporter refers to a White Power, neo-Nazi group as a "right wing" group. Is a White Power, neo-Nazi group really a "right wing" group?

How did "Pearl Harbor" play in Japan?

I saw Superman Returns when it opened last Wednesday and the classic line is spoken by Perry White; but in this film he says: "Truth, Justice, and 'all that stuff'" instead of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". The screenplay writers explained why they changed the line; I did not read their interviews but I heard them paraphrased on the radio. When this line was spoken in the movie, I wondered why the hell they changed it. It is bothering me more and more as I think about it. Superman had a purpose when his creators thought him up. And the "American Way" was part of why he came along. Some might say, "you're making a big deal out of nothing". But, if it really is nothing, then why didn't they leave that particular line in its original form?

- pave stone !!!

I assume you saw this already? http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....TREE.xml&rpc=22

NO THEY DID NOT !!! That is the whole issue here. It is NOT a fact. They consented to "something"; but, they certainly did NOT consent to SEX questions being asked of their first grade age children.

The reason this is a legal matter that might require monetary damages is because the "damage" was already done. Had the court ruled that the schools could not give the survery, what real damage would have occurred? Unfortunately, since they ruled the other way, and the survey was already given, you can't undo the "damage" that was done, so monetary damages I guess is the next best thing. If they used common sense in the first place, there would have never been a need for a legal case at all, Constitutional or otherwise.

NOT !!!

The answer is "NOTHING" !!! Except for those of you who would rather parse the context of whether parents rights were being trumped by the "state" or by the "school board".

These are appropriate topics for first graders? The sexual references are: 8. Touching my private parts too much 17. Thinking about having sex 22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts 23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to 26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside 34. Not trusting people because they might want sex 40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex 44. Having sex feelings in my body 47. Can’t stop thinking about sex 54. Getting upset when people talk about sex To be asked by non-parental-units?

Parents here, please tell me, any of you, who would be OK with this survey being given to your child in the first grade? I'm just curious to know if you are really OK with this or you are just being confrontational because if you disagree with the 9th circuit you are somehow on the same "side" as people, many of whom, agree with conservative ideas.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0356499p.pdf Prior to administering the survey, Seymour mailed a letter to the parents of the children to be surveyed informing them of the questionnaire’s nature and purpose, and requesting their consent to its administration.1 The parental consent letter was enclosed in a School District envelope and was mailed using School District postage. The letter did not explicitly state that some questions involved sexual topics, although it did specify that the survey questions were about “early trauma (for example, violence)” and there was a warning that “answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”

What does the 'No Child Left Behind' "act" have to do with the 9th circuit decision that basically said the "state" trumps the parents' authority on what their kids will be taught?

This is coming from a radical right-winger Christian... I believe that just as a Creche and menorah can co-exist in public places in December, so can Halloween and All Saints Day (in October/November). The following is just like real-life Footloose: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus..._newton?mode=PF It goes against Freedom OF "expression" and is more like Freedom FROM "expression".

Doesn't this legislation only kick in when determining whether or not "tax dollars" can be used for such things as homosexual parenting, single parenting, etc.? The way I read it was that those things can still occur; just not with "tax dollars". Am I reading it wrong?

Yes, I meant the votes by each Senator... Thanks anyway !!!

Does anybody have a link to a news story or official Senate web site that shows the actual votes? I checked CNN, FOX, and http://www.senate.gov/ None of them have reported that "news" yet...

http://www.drudgereport.com/ "Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best' Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'..."

etc. was going to be the doctor because lots of people say "it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor". But, I'm not sure a doctor should have a say. It is a no brainer to me that there are 3 people involved each time this happens - mother, father, baby; unless it is twins or something. Now, I don't think a father should be able to say abort if the mom wants to keep the baby. But, I do think the father should be able to say don't abort. I'm allowing for a father to have the right to choose life.

To answer your "second part": You have to be careful if you are going to use the argument that "it's none of your damn business" because people do lots of other things besides abortion that they might think is "none of your damn business", but it is illegal all the same. Just because I believe that there is life at the moment of conception should not make this a religious issue. So, for me, "reserved to the people" includes the mother, the baby, the father, etc. The baby should have a voice in the matter, but since they are innocent and cannot protect themselves, then others must speak out for their interests. It is not a privacy issue if you want to kill somebody in your own house, on your own property, or in your womb. And, I'm not a !@#$ing lemming because I am passionate about the abortion issue. I don't live off of other's buzz words. I thought it out on my own and that's just the conclusion that I came to. As for the "racist" label - it is NOT sarcasm. It is actually what many people do call those of us who believe that affirmative action is wrong.

I am a "racist" because I think that affirmative action is "wrong".

"abortion" is not a women's rights issue !!!

Good, we agree !!! A majority of Americans voted for GWB, therefore a majority of Americans would support GWB nominating someone with the same principle beliefs as he does. NOT true !!!

Nice spin - If he does "get rid of them", it will be because they are ILLEGAL, not LEGAL. Or that it is not illegal to "forbid" them. But, it won't happen anyway, you know it, I know it, they know it, it is all for show.

If GWB is President, and it is the President's job to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and GWB thinks that abortion is "wrong", then what is wrong with GWB nominating someone who also thinks that abortion is "wrong"?