danielsh

There have been many, many famous homosexuals throughout history.

Hey, I don't know about you guys, but I rather like the idea of a sovereign nation run by another country's viceroys, with another country's laws, protected by another country's army. It's kinda like getting another country's sovereignty! And that's not an oxymoron at all!

I haven't played Tiberian Sun in a long time, but the NOD technology always struck me as much, much more fun to play with. What was that giant-ass laser pyramid? Nothing---nothing---was more fun than having one of those.

All I can do is laugh at that assertion, because I've been saying the same thing to straight guys for a while now. It really makes 'em nervous (and Wolfwiz can attest to this) when I postulate that heterosexual men are just gay guys with a nasty---but easily-cured---woman fetish.

Because he's a Republican presidential nominee whom you actually like and would even vote for in certain circumstances ;-).

Kinda like that new Bush & Co. ad that compares Kerry to Hitler, hm?

McCain seems like a good guy, generally. His political views are kinda all over the place:

But what you have to realize is that no one chooses his sexuality. The situation is certainly less serious now, but for a long time homosexuals were incredibly marginalized. No one would roll out of bed and think, "It's a gay day today," even if he could. Some people who are inclined to be naturally bisexual might swing both ways, or choose to swing only one way, but that's about the only choice involved. (When I say "naturally," I don't mean "genetically." If a person's life experiences---not necessarily abuse, but any experience capable of triggering change in psyche---lead him in one direction or the other, that's just as natural as if he was born that way to begin with.)

Edited. Didn't intend it to be offensive.

She was apparently Seven of Nine from Voyager. And isn't his punishment supposed to fit his crime? If it's cruel (which Star Trek conventions may well be) and unusual (that's a given), the Constitution says: NO.

Because his politics of self-interest represent everything I loathe. He supports tort reform, vouchers, and NCLB, and all of those policies are terrible mistakes.

I'd have to agree with Hasimir. Dean/Kucinich (or Kucinich/Dean) would be my ideal choice, if I have to chose from modern American politicians. Then again, I like Russ Feingold a lot. Maybe he could be on someone's ticket.

Happy as I was to see him leave the race, and happy as I am to see a new example of right-wing hypocrisy, I have to agree. A person's private and public lives should be completely separate.

The Constitution only requires the act to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor," so it all depends on whom you're asking. What is an impeachable act is using $700 million to prepare for a war Congress hasn't approved when the money was budgeted for other purposes. The Constitution is pretty clear on who gets to decide how money is spent.

(Bear in mind the fact that this is from 1991.)

Most likely. But I can assure you, I criticize absolutely everyone. As I said above, FDR is one of the few Presidents whom I respect, and even that respect is tempered by the knowledge that he may have changed the nation just enough to prevent major social upheaval and change. And considering how right our Left is, it's unlikely that its representatives will make me happy.

If the citizens kept quiet until election day, critical debate would no longer exist.

I'm deeply unhappy that too few people questioned Adolf Hitler's leadership to keep him from coming to power. Leaders who desire power would indeed oppose the questioning of their decisions. Leaders who desire democracy would encourage it. Authority is not to be respected, common sense and the human conscience are. Authority has a nasty tendency to silence man's internal voice of reason.

What frightens me most about President Bush is that, as far as I can tell, he really thinks he's doing good. As the canyon between the rich and poor widens, as we torture detainees on and off American soil, as we curtail civil liberties and fight civil rights, as the American hegemony expands to every corner of the Earth, President Bush sleeps soundly. I frankly doubt that he feels much doubt about any of his decisions. Consider his background: after Laura helped him to stop drinking, Mr. Bush decided that God had a divine reason to sober him up. On September 11, that reason became apparent and we began our crusade on terror. It's terrifying to have a leader who does not question himself. He could not come up with a single example of a bad decision. In his mind, President Bush does not make mistakes. There's something very, very wrong with that. Human rights? Don't make me laugh. Franklin Delano Roosevelt---one of the few U.S. Presidents, by the way, whom I do not despise---defended human rights. John F. Kennedy and Lindon B. Johnson defended human rights. President Bush opposes human rights: it's okay to keep the queers from civil marriages, it's okay to torture detainees in Guant