That's a rather broad subject, so I'll start with something narrow.

What about abortion? It is legal now in much of the USA, but many people disbelieve it should be. What do you think? Here are the two sides.

1. Murder of human life. You are killing a SOUL. There is nothing more that needs to be said. You are ruining the life of an unborn child!

2. Murder of another type of life. You are ruining this person! For adults, an unwanted child can ruin relationships, and run this person to the ground. For a teenager, this person will have very few oppertunities in the future, and probably no chance of collage or a high-class job. (If the teen chose not to be safe about sex, it is their own mistake . . .) But what about rape cases? And then there's the whole problem that if the child was unwanted before it was gone, it's life probably isn't going to be so joyful . . .

I personally have no idea what to think. If I were pregnant I'd definately want an abortion, but I'd feel too sorry for the kid . . .

That's a rather specific subject, so I'll start with something broad. I'm pro-choice. I'm liberal. My dear friend ignominy says this when I asked her what she thought about the democratic takeover of Congress (Yay): Democrats? Aren't those the pro-abortion people? *I am so stupid I have no clue about anything that is important. Like who is running my life.* The bit in stars I added myself... democrats/liberals are not pro abortion, they are pro choice. Republicans are pro-religion...

Anyway, the first question is to determine at which stage of the pregnancy the cells become a baby. According to Christian ideals, life exists upon the moment of conception. I don't quite agree with that, I guess. Cells don't have a soul. If all cells had a soul, than killing anything is killing a SOUL.

Another argument ois to say that the baby never had a chance to clense itself of original sin, which doesn't really exist anyway...

All in all, I suppose that I personally would never get an abortion, (Even though I'm a guy) but the separation of church and state should still exist. When God is thrown into laws of this country, that's bad. A law against it should not be made because it's not the government's business to step in. I hope I didn't scare anyone...

You have no idea of the opposing side! Your number two is totally and completely wrong.

IT'S PRO-CHOICE!!!! CHOICE!!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?

I'll explain it to you because you seem to be a human being with a good amount of intelligence, which is rare in these parts (but you, The Intelligent Designer, seems to have it, for the most part, right). PRO-CHOICE MEANS THAT THE PERSON SUPPORTS THE CHOICE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY SUPPORT ABORTION ITSELF.

That is the argument. A woman should have the right to choose! The government can't choose for her!

And the first one is this:

A FETUS IS A LIVING THING. YOU CANNOT KILL A LIVING THING. IF YOU DO, YOU ARE A MURDERER.

As you can see, they are very different arguments. Get them right before you bring them into a debate.

I am pro-choice.

But that doesn't mean I like abortion. I personally would never have an abortion if I can help it. But I think that that's a private decision.

The damn government should just stay out of our lives.

"Politics is awesome."

Yeah.

I'm a big fan, myself. :).

I'll use that as a lead in to another discussion. Gay marriage takes, anyone. I believe that it is not the governemnts job to say that certain people can't get married to other certain people becaus religion has defined marriage. Stick to the legal concept, and avoid te religious area. Granted, I'm not totally sure of what the legal concept of marriage is, but I know what the Roman Catholic one is. Don't be mean to me, please?

I also believe that abortion should be controlled, however. If the state used the resources, I'm sure it could afford to counsel women considering an abortion to make certain it is the right choice for them. These counsellors should be impartial, not advising in favour or in disagreement with abortion or any other options, but evaluate the woman's mental state and other factors.

As for gay marriage? For me, it is discriminatory that gay couples are not recognised by law. If I were married to a man, I would have access to a split bank account, his life insurance, widow's benefits if he died, and equal access to our children. If I were to do as I desired and have a female partner, I would get none of these things, not even equal access to the children. If the children had been born or adopted under her name, I would have no legal right over them. And there are lots of other problems facing gay couples. In my country, in my state, for example, lesbians need to pay for IVF treatment, where married women get medicare cover for it. I don't care if you call it 'marriage', I'm fine with the idea of civil unions or whatever else you want to call it. The rights matter. I want my rights damnit!

personally, if i were pregnant, and i had to choose between the baby living or me, i would hesitate, surely, but after thinking about it, i would know that it i had an abortion to save myself, i couldn't live with it. i would most likly become depressed or insane and end up killing myself anyway. i am confident that would happen. i would in the end deside to save the baby. and not myself. the baby has a chance to live and for me to take that away, just because lets say i don't want the baby, or because i want my chance to go to college or to finish school or to get a good job, i would feel so selfish, that i'd rather have myself go to college then my child go to preschool. or to sing a song or to read a book. but even then if i didn't want the baby, why not put it up for adoption? for a family that CAN'T have children but wants them.

about that, think about people that can't have children. even if they want them, unlike some. think of the unfairnes that people who have the ABILITY to give birth to their children kill the ones they could have.

I won't even go into the whole thing about its not a baby yet. that just drives me crazy.

i know i'm going to get so put down by this entry because i'm in a forum of people that are either pro choice or pro abortion but i don't care. i want my opinions to be veiwed.

i don't believe that if abortion is outlawed people will stop having them. i think the whole idea of abortion is sad and that the sides being taken are even sadder. 'pro-life' supporters will never win. pro-choice supporters are letting life be minimized because thay don't know how to make a disision. No i didn't mean that, some pro choise people have set reasons why their pro choice. I mean how many babies aren't getting born because they're killed before they're considered living. pro abortion... well... i've talked too long already and i don't want to start losing my control.

bring on the battlefront, i'm ready.

Good. I'm glad you agree. And the caps lock was there to emphasize my frustration at people getting this debate all mixed up. I think it did it's job, don't you?

As for gay marriage, I support it. I think it's unconstitutional for the US government to use a religious definition of marriage to make laws, especially after the Constitution bars religion from government (don't believe me? Check Article 6, Section 1).

In fact, I'm so surprised that gay marriage activists haven't brought this up in their arguments. And if they have, it certainly didn't come in mainstream media.

I think I know why.

Damn that Republican Congress and Bush! Argh! I'm so happy that Democrats got Congress. Bush was started to get a bit loopy from all that power.

As for the comment about gay marriage and the constitution, that IS a very good argument, but as I'm in Australia, we have a different hurdle than evangelists to overcome (actually, the number of evangelists in Australia has grown... eep). You see, in Australia, an amendment was made to the act pertaining to marriage and thus the constitution, so it now reads that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It's unbelievably frustrating! The ACT passed an act in August allowing gay couples to obtain marriage certificates. In a vindictive act of discrimination, the federal govermnent stepped in and abused its jurisdiction over the state's powers over marriage law, and overturned the bill only hours before it was due to go in force. Our current Prime Minister (who has served TEN YEARS and turned Australia into a place of conservative, complacent, uneducated morons) refused to even consider the option of civil unions because they were 'a cop-out'. Sort of like a Catch 22 thing we've got here. I'm so moving to Canada.

Too bad about your conservative country. In the November mid term elections for the United Sates, (The country of which I am a citizen of) the Democrats took control of Congress, sending the message that the American people will not tolerate ** politicians. I'm so happy...I wonder if the election results of one cou ntry made news all over. It should...seeing as George Bush is no longer in the too high position of power he was in before.

Jeez, am I coming across as anti-American here? Trust me, I'm not. I just don't understand a country that values its democracy so highly, yet has an average 30% voter turn-out (and that's just those who are registered) for a two-party electoral system that, in practise (especially with the life-term of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), is extremely un-democratic in terms of actually reflecting the opinions of a majority. In Australia, we have compulsory voting, which is sad because it means that a majority of people probably do want our PM (more than 60% last election not including donkey votes), but good in that at least it ensures that people are at least given every possible encouragement to put their opinions forward. It's somewhat comforting, but also incredibly scary, to think that GWB was elected in his first term by under half of 30% of registered voters in the USA. Now, I'm not sure how many of you guys are registered voters, but by my calculations, that's a damn small proportion of the world he now has power over. How frustrating it all is.

Anyway, I'm too young to vote. If I'm not mistaken, which I very well may be, so deal with it. 30 percent of elligable voters vote in elections. That's 30 percent of all people over 18, and if I knew census records, I would be able to give you a more exact number, but I can't. Your vote doesn't matter in America. Unless, as you said, you live in a swing state. Every 4 years, Ohio, Pennyslvania, Michigan Indiana, and several other states are toured by contestants. Frequently. My vote won't matter. I live in a state that has always, without fail voted Democratic. And we now have a Democratic governor, which until November, was not the case. The electoral college is a stupid concept that I wis we could change. If the system was truly a democracy, GWB would not be in office. Former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and should be in office. Oh well...

Oh, and you are seemingly anti-American. That's not a bad thing to be these days...

Regarding the whole Democratic Congress election: I also was very happy to see that the Democrats took control. And let me also add that the next Speaker is Nancy Pelosi (a major step for women! Yes, that's my feminist side talking). Anyway, what LoF was saying about the voting in swing states is pretty much true. I take American Government now and we discussed a couple of weeks ago that the places that really, truly matter regarding which party is in power are the states that lie on the border between Democrat and Republican. But that's no reason for voting! I plan to vote when I become a citizen/turn 18 (I don't know which will come first) though I live in California, a state that has traditionally been blue (kindly disregard the fact that we have a Rep. governor. Well, he IS internationally famous). But back to what I was saying: people should vote regardless of what state they live in.

And the parties should do more to get more votes. For example, Michael Moore proposed an excellent strategy in 2003 about how to knock Bush from the White House (yeah, it didn't work because Democrats were too stupid). Anyway, remember in 2000 when Nader drew votes away from Gore? And he didn't run in 2004? Well, what if Kerry had incorporated Green values into his platgform? That would have ensured him not only Democratic votes but also Green votes as well.

As for that huge part of America being bad that LoF mentioned: I agree. I've thought of it before. I think it's sickening that the government does something really bad, all of America cries out: "You can't do that! This is a democracy!" (like in the wiretapping scandal). But then, elections come around and people just sit on their lazy butts and forget.

OH! And I have a problem with American capitalism. Those damn corporations! I won't forget that Enron scandal, oh no...I remember our family had to pay so much to make up for that energy crisis.

So, in your opinion, what political system works best when put to practice? (I added in that last part because I've heard people say communism sounds good but can't be done in reality). I know each has its problems. But which minimizes those problems?

I would say a socialist democracy.

Hope you guys read all that. If you didn't, I totally understand. :).

Many more people voted in these mid term elections, knocking incumbent leaders out and placing fresher, newer, better people in office. I think that our government is best, if used correctly by the people...perhaps if I understood other govenments more effectively, I could give you a better and less childish answer, but I don't, so...

Democratic socialism, socialist democracy or social democracy? Lo and it be confusing! I'm not sure about socialism. Some of the ideas are really great, like free public transport, education and medicine, and I did flirt a little with the idea last year. However, looking at the Australian Socialist Alliance put me off somewhat- the attitude that America is to blame for all the world's woes is somewhat 2D and a little old. Don't get me wrong, the American government and military has done some MASSIVE screwing up, but if we look at the situation in Africa, a large part of that has been because of European colonialism. The Rwandan Genocide, for example, was partly the Belgian Colonial Government's fault for dividing Rwandans into two races based solely on their appearance. Paler Rwandans with slenderer noses became the privileged class and the darker Rwandans became resentful. Again, I don't excuse the acts of anyone here.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty okay with socialism as long as it does remain democratic. If every new law was given a vote, every legislation was put before the actual people rather than representatives, that is a true democracy. Just as long as it does not get bogged down in beaurocracy, which was one of the issues plaguing the USSR in the 1980s.

I believe socialism is not a very realistic government. Like communism, Socialism cannot be effectively used in the real world. I can't think of an example where that system of gov't is any good. Although Cuba is technically a Socialist Republic whatever, in truth, it's a dictatorship, with Fidel Castro's brother in charge...

By socialist, I mean hard-core socialism, with private businesses having frequent checks by the government (not going to eliminate all business here, that's communism right?) and higher taxes for education, healthcare, etc. Or maybe I should call it a socialist society with capitalistic tendencies? Hm. I don't know. I guess the society would be like American economy, except that businesses and corporations will not have a huge amount of power. Er...one thing I do believe in is the freedom of the press. In that case, there would be no limit to the number of private businesses that deal with the media. I say, the more, the better.

And then, there is the democracy part. There must be a TRUE democracy, a republic, I should add. It would be very much like the American version of democracy except that there, there would be no Electoral College to screw up elections. Every leader is put into office by popular vote alone. And to win, each leader must have over 50% of the votes to win. How to do this? My government teacher proposed an excellent idea here:

1. Round one of elections will run all candidates from any party for president. Here, the top two will move on to round two. That way, people will be more inclined to vote for the party they actually want to vote for, rather than the one that they think has a chance of winning. For example, let's say Nader decides to run again in 2008. There would be some people who highly support the Green cause but of course, the Green party has no chance of winning, so those people will vote Democratic instead. With two rounds of elections, the process will eliminate this bias.

2. Round two of elections will involve the top two winners of round one. A candidate must receive over 50% of the vote to win.

I like this version of electing better. Though it is more expensive and timely, imagine a nation where the leader is actually wanted by over half of the people. We will no longer have repeats of 2000.

But it's never going to happen.

Yeah. Socialist democracy. That's my version. I think with both of those together, society will run just fine. Of course, the people will always have the power to change to communism/capitalism whenever they feel like it. But never will it stop being a democracy. Man, wouldn't I like to live in this imaginary country.

I think I went a little off topic here but oh well. Suck it up and savor it, my friends. :).

Anyway, I'm happy to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with your opinions in mye eyes. I've said the exact same thing several times in my life. According to a reliable source, I've just learned that the system you are describing is a popular one in Africa. Here is a scenario: Round 1: The vote is Party 1 gets 30%, Party 2 gets 35%, and Party 3 gets 35%. Close race, right? In Africa, supporters of Party 1 go, "No $%#*in way am I letting my party not get in by 5%!" So they start a revolution that tears the country apart for a decade or 2. This scenario was put to me by that reliable source. I however think that that would not happen in other countries, only because we have so many other options to protest our government available. I responded to his scenarion with this: "In some places, the people vote, and 1 or 2 groups are very upset with their party not making it by a very little amount. In America, the people vote and say 'We want him as president!' and the Electoral College says 'No!'" A little simplified, perhaps, but that's the best way to put it...

Now, TID, the scene in Africa is not likely, IMO, to repeat itself in the United States for the exact reasons you have already mentioned. And anyway, I left out (I don't know why I keep doing this) this simply fact: the winning Parties will, at their discretion, take on the losing candidate's platform as closely as possible as long as it doesn't contradict with their own. Like, for example going back to the Democratic-Republican-Green thing, if the election turns out to bne D vs. R, then the Democratic candiate will adopt the platform of the losing Green candidate. This won't be mandatory completely but shall it suffice that it be required to take on at least 40% of the platform?

I don't know if that made sense. I hope you understood it.

In Australia, voting is compulsory. If you're eligible to vote (ie. a citizen and over 18), you can be fined for not voting unless you can prove that it was absolutely impossible for you to access a polling booth, even by internet or post. This means that candidates don't need to convince people to vote, but can spend their time and money on their own public appearances. In Australia, there's also a lot less fear-mongering about other candidates for Prime Minister. I guess I wanted to know if you agree that voting should be compulsory or not. While some might argue that coercing people financially to vote isn't democratic, I personally hold that compulsory voting is more democratic because it means you get the opinions of the entire voting public, even those who don't care and cast in donkey votes.

I also think political studies should be compulsory in school up to year 9, but that's another thing entirely...

In terms of schooling in the U.S, Social Studies course syllabuses set by states often include political studies, at least how the system works, and usually current events.

- government/ public schools: fees are not compulsory, but families have the option of donating money to the school. These schools are not supposed to be selective (with at least two exeptions in this state) and receive a majority of their funding from the government.

- religious schools: Catholic, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim etc. They receive funding through fees, government grants, and affiliated religious organisations ie. Catholic schools get funded from Catholic organisations and, indirectly, the Vatican.

- private schools: These receive a majority of their funding from families of students who attend, as well as private donors. They can also apply for government grants and (frustratingly) often receive them if they have a certain quota of students from lower socio-economic brackets.

I studied politics last year and really, really wanted to study it this year, but unfortunately it clashed with my favourite subject so I had to drop it. If I get into university, I'll most likely study international politics or relations or something like that.

Public school gets $3000 from the government, $2000 school fees and $500 donations from non-fee-paying families= $5500 for the year, whereas a Private School gets $15000 school fees, $2500 from the government and $1500 donations= $19000 for the year.

a form of government where a select group of people rule.

I was thinking a government based off of our current one, the most obvious difference would be the elimination of the cabinet and president and the installation of a 'council'- type group. They would be elected nationally, there would still be senators/representatives and whatnot.

Basically a Representative Democratic Oligarchy.

I am afraid that the oligarchy would become too powerful. Who checks their decisions? Oops, re-reading here...umm...so keep our government and change the executive branch...interesting. How many in the select group? A representative from every state? Based on population of an area? How would the election process work? Details please...

The council would act as a single person, each council member would have equal power. Combined, they would have the power of a single executive. There would be a Messenger, chosen by the council members, that would be the one who communicated the Council's decisions to the public. he would be the figurative president. Actually, only 6 out of the 7 Executives would have equal power. Do i need to explain more?

Taxes. Taxes, taxes, and taxes. Whether you're wealthy or poor, you don't want somebody telling you what to do, so you try to worm your way out of paying taxes. A president/prime minister/head of state who raises taxes is instantly disliked. People do not like being taxed.

1. What do you suppose the people will do if taxes are raised?

2. Do you think that taxes should be raised?

It's my first question, and my first post, but I'm honestly interested to see what all you people out there think about something that most people hate.

And we should have some say into what happens with the money. The Cy-Fair school district just finished a $9 millon football/basketball stadium, which also can be used for graduation, a big ** waste of money if you ask me.

I think that we should abandon most Taxes that go into public programs like school. You could get a better education for your children (like private school) when you drop school taxes. It could boost the economy, and improve living standards. This doesn't apply to all taxes, though. Some are neccesary.

Am i getting off topic?

But, what I mean is that Schools shouldn't be run by the government, or at least not the national government. Sure, our current system makes it easier to move kids around from school to school (if you can call it easy) but I think it would be better. The people should support the school they are sending their kids to directly, instead of supporting the school district through taxes. We might as well eliminate teh prospect of 'free education', since you pay the schools whether or not you are using their services. If you want your kid's school to have more money, then you donate. It would be like a private school, each thing costing money. There would be a base charge, like a bundle- Math, Science, English, History, and atletics would be like a base fee (paying the teacher, paying for textbooks, desks, and the building). You would pay extra for electives, like band (paying for the conductor, instruments, and chairs/risers) or Shop (paying for the Instructor, the machines. Our school charges for everything else like wood. want a block of wood? 5 bucks) or maybe art (paying for teacher, paint, paintbrushes, tables, etc.)

Do I need to explain more?

Okay, this might be bad for me in the long run, but I'd like to pull up another topic- church & state. What are your views on the current definition of Separation of Church and State.

? since when has the president been involved in this? I have never heard him say anything vilating.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)