(no subject)

It's been a while, hasn't it?

I haven't even had a chance to write in my own journal for a few weeks! Pardon the gaps between postings. Remember: you can all make posts in here too! Feel free to post questions to the community at large to start a debate.

Today's Question: YESTERDAY, AN AIR MARSHAL KILLED A MAN who was thought to have been carrying a bomb in his carry-on bag. After detonation of the bag, it was found that he was not, in fact, carrying a bomb, but was having a psychotic fit. Between four and six shots were fired.

This is a two part question.

1: Do you think air marshals should have the right to shoot a man while a plane is grounded? Should there be different ways of subduing a suspected terrorist - besides shooting at them?

2: This man was having a psychotic fit brought on by lack of medication to control his bipolar disorder. If air marshals were made aware of people with mental disorders (bipolar, depression, Downs syndrome, etc) on their flight, do you think such instances could be avoided?

Collapse )

(no subject)

I don't know who has been keping track of the Terri Shiavo case, but I would like to know everbodies opinions on it.

Basic Run Down: Terri Shiavo fell and received major brain damage in 1990. She has been bed-ridden ever since. Her husband wants the hospital to remove her feeding tube and allow her to starve to death. her family insists that she is not in a vegatative state and beleives that removing the tube will result in unknown pain and torture.

Her husband has since taken a new girlfriend and has had two children with her. He claims that Terri told him that she would rather be put to death instead of living this kind of life. There is no proof of that statement. He is also listed as the benefactor in her life insurance plan, so money is also a factor in this.

Her family beleives that Terri is not in a vegatative state and responds to them, even though some docotrs tell them that it is pure reflex. However, Terri does breath and use slep cycles. Her family has ignored all doctoral advice regarding her condition, and still beleive that there is hope for her.

My Opinions: I beleive that if the doctors insist that she is, and has been, in a vegatative state, then she is. However, if they wanted to kill her, removing her feeding tube would be the worst way to die (starvation). What if she is lucid somewhere within her mind, and realizes that she is starving to death? Wouldn't that be horrible? I think that, until all options are extinguished, she should remain alive. If all options are extinquished, I think a less painful route should be used, such as the way vets put animals to sleep. Maybe they could use a mix of sleping tablets and alcohol to put her down, if there is no other way. She would fall peacefully to sleep and never wake up.

Anybody else have a valid opinion on this matter?

FYI: yesterday, the court deemed it illegal to remove her feeding tube as a form of death.

(no subject)

Since I have not updated this community in a while, I will add another question for everybody to answer.

The death penalty is both a boon and downfall to our society.

We use the saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Now, in Connecticut, there is a man on death row. He was supposed to be put to death a few weks ago, but it was held off because of appeals made by the killers family. However, the man, Mr. Ross, wanted to die.

There is a great article HERE.

Do you think that this man should have been put to death when he asked to be? Or do you think the family intervention was a good idea?

What about the idea of "Death Row Syndrome?" Here is a relevant article on death row syndrome.

Collapse )

Feel free to discuss and debate.

(no subject)

There is a small debate going on about how the White House wants to ban a certain type of tea used in a religious ceremony because it is considered hallucinogenic.

The article is here

Do think that the actions taken are appropriate? Or perhaps they are interferring in a religious ceremony?

What do you think?

What should be done about this situation?

Discuss and Debate.

(no subject)

There are two very famous websites now circulating through web users.

Sorry Everybody and its European counterpart Apologies Accepted .

These websites are based around the liberal agenda, and even though I am a liberal, I find these websites to be really out there, in terms of making a statement or movement towards the cause of getting more liberals in power.

Do you think these websites could have any effect on the conservative agenda, or are they just harming the liberal agenda with silly messages? Could there be a more effective way to deal with this issue?

Respond with how you see fit. This is an open discussion.

(no subject)

In response to the recent election...

-Bush won, according to the media. This is a projected win. Until all votes are counted, the election is just a prediction.

-There have been numerous reports of voting fraud, meaning that votes were miscounted or not counted at all (I could list websites for proof, if anybody is interested).

-Kerry stepped down (I prefer the term stepping down, which infers that you can step back up) yet his speech was not law-binding. If Kerry finds out he does, indeed, win the election, he can still accept the presidency.

-Many liberals are thinking about a civil war, similar to that of the 1800's. This is because of the aforementioned voting fraud.

-Many liberals are also thinking of seceding from the Union, and legally, they can, if they can put into place a leader.

What are your personal views on these thoughts? Do you think that people are over-reacting? Or do you think that these revolutionary thoughts are typical after a big upset for the liberals?

Collapse )

I am very interested in what the conservatives in the group have to say about this. Do you beleive there is anything horrible in the future? Or do you beleive that this is all talk, no action?

This can be held as a debate or a discussion of your views -- it is up to you.

(no subject)


If you watched or listened to the Presidential Debates, what is your opinion?

Did Bush portray himself as a worthy candidate? Did Kerry?

Think Objectively: If you were a voter who was split on who to vote for, who would you chose?

Collapse )

(no subject)

Now, Senator Lieberman made an interesting point while I was watching the news.

He said that alot of people will not vote for Bush because they know his stances and disagree with them. However, these same people will not vote for Kerry because they do not know his stances.

In your opinion, does Kerry make his stances well known or not? What about Bush?

My Opinion: I disagree strongly with many of Bush's politics and policies and I feel that, as of now, I am "voting for the lesser of two evils" (pardon the cliche`). I sense that Kerry is the lesser evil in this situation, yet I hardly know of his political stances without researching them. I beleive that if Kerry made his stances more evident and publicly known, he would get a greater advance in the polls.
Can't stand the light.

Application process...

After doing some thinking about the whole point of the application process... I've decided to not have one.

Let's face it: applications processes are fun and everything, if you're into ego-boosting yourself for being better than everyone else. But for our purposes, we don't need them.

If you don't cut it, you won't get accepted. And if you get accepted and end up being a moron, you get banned.

Having said that, feel free to post whatever you want. If we don't want you to have access, we'll remove it. It's that simple. :)

I'm a computer security specialist for a fortune 1000 company. We're not like the stupid little children who run the other communities and can't find a way to modify the ACLs. :)

No stupid fucking arbitrary rules in this community. This is survival of the fittest. Now, who's got the balls to compete?
Can't stand the light.

Progress update...

We've got some plans for this community in the upcoming days. We're going to be putting together the ubiquitous questionnaire for this community and setting some rules for voting priviledges. We're also going to be fleshing out our purpose a little bit more. While it's truly elite to have a community for the sake of having one, it's even more elite to have a purpose. (*gasp*!)

If anyone has any ideas, feel free to comment to this post.