Welcome to Gaia! ::

Uh nope... But I don't ever have classes on Friday's. That's alright though. It'll be nice to get back to my own place I suppose. Does the strike include the alternative schools?

Miles? Kilometers? Or has California adopted some new, different system of measurement that the rest of the United States will call 'Head-Up-Assius'? No offense, ButterBalls.

Ah, thank you for clearing that up.

That sounds like a good project. But it's like a lot of the Iraqis. There were many who didn't want a democracy. Not quite the same, but still.

But you're still considerate about it. biggrin

Well, I haven't fully read the book. I read the intro and 1 chapter and after all of that I strongly recommend reading "Using Terri" and I'm not even one for reading books. It's written so well. Kind of like he's talking to you. I think I can make an inference today that my genre is definitely non-fiction. Also, I think it's more of relevative issues.

Oh, and just from what I read the book is basically about a guy speaking out because he's kind of pissed off at the religious right. I suppose it's a good book because I agree with him. xd Anyway, I think some of us know the case. The wife that was on a feeding tube because she had no motor skills and she would be on (easy example) a respirator all her life or until she dies basically. The book, from what I've read right now, has brought up the right-to-die in the sense that should someone be able to pull the plug or not.

Right now it's brought up his own personal experience relating very close to what I know about the Terri Schiavo case.

And, just as a personal comment, I think it's quite funny how the religious right seems to be spending millions of dollars to influence our judicial system. That's all I'm going to say without offending anyone. God forbid. xd

The obvious pro is that he/she wouldn't make decisions based on faith. That would suggest a more utilitarian standpoint, but not necessarily. Utilitarianism does align itself more with agnosticism, but it's really up to the individual to define the fine details.

I think independents are snakes in the grass. In most cases, people believe in one thing or the other: you're either pro-choice or pro-life, you're either pro-gay marriage or against it. Sure, there's varying degrees of how much you support either side, but it's a rare day where someone is dead on in the middle. I do realize that some people just plain don't care, in which case they probably wouldn't have enough gumption to run for president. So, while independents claim that they're middlemen, everyone has an opinion on the issues, so why not say so?

Honestly, an independent president would scare me, but that's mainly because I feel rather strongly for the Democratic party.

Well, we'll likely never see an openly agnostic president for quite some time. The reason is simple: an elected official is supposed to be a representative of the populous, and with a religious population, there's no way in hell that a non-religous person would be chosen (i.e. elected). I honestly think the best non-religious president I've seen so far has been Clinton, even though he's technically "religious." It's an unavoidable technicality that religion is.

These threads are pretty standard. So are spam threads and post-your-own-picture threads. Hence the names.