Free Republic

Maybe you should consider that many are unhappy due to the efforts of people like you in your character assassination as well as attempts to deny their pursuit of happiness as far as a "lifestyle" is concerned.

A "free" country should theoretically account for various types of relationships found throughout the world's cultures and religions. The fact that the majority of American citizens follow a specific religion should not have legal bearing on those citizens who believe something else. When a majority rule passes legislation reflecting religious opinion, it's not exactly a free country anymore.

Just think, in a hundred years what might happen should a large influx of Muslim immigrants become the majority and start forcing their religious beliefs down your throat!

The bill of rights along with the separation of church and state was designed to prevent these clashes and allow everyone their own space to live their own lives as they pleased, more or less.

Seems to me that much of the conservative/liberal struggle these days is between those who wish to force their religious beliefs onto the entire population through legislation -vs- those who still believe in the original intent of the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Just because one person wants to live a certain way does not mean you are compelled to follow. This is supposed to be a free country. Is it?

You have got to see this. Some of the posts are nuts, but, there are a couple ideas that may not be all that out of line.

http://www.datalounge.com/data lounge/forums/index.html?threa d=789346&stack=2,2:thread, 1:thread

I know I would certainly think twice about buying a CD that wont play on the computer. Considering that the stereo/computer in my house are now integral and I no longer even have a CD player hooked up to it besides the one built into the computer (except in the car), and feed the output of the computer into my stereo system. I do download music but I also own over 300 CD's, over half of which I have bought in the last few years...you mean the record companies want me to return to the days when I had to shuffle through mounds of CD's just to play a song, which I've now become accustomed the convenience of just clicking on what I want to hear in the order I want to hear it? This new "format" sounds alot like the digital equivalant of selling new CD's with a pre-embedded gash through the data layer. Bad move. Obviously promotional copies to radio stations wont have this technology considering that most of them have converted to computer playback of music (which relies on the ability to encode the CD's into a compressed digital format on a computer). They wouldn't be happy if they had to step back technology and start shuffling CD-carts or tape carts (an analog tape that functions much like an 8-track, but is of higher sound quality and holds one song or promo per tape). Very messy in comparison to newer technology in use today. At the very least they're just making the process of encoding music on my compter for playback more time consuming...anyone that is used to using the computer for playback like me will figure out how to use the analog input on the back of the computer...which as long as the DAC/ADC converters are of reasonable quality (most are) will still result in a "dub" which by nearly anyone would be indecernable from the original. There is just NO WAY I will go back to those cumbersome days where I constantly was digging through CD's all the time...and have to spend needless time programming a sequence of music into a multi-disc player not to mention the fact that it takes 10-20 seconds between songs while the thing loads the CD's in and out. I don't think so! My sister has a CD-mp3 deck in her car and likes the fact she can put on only the songs she likes...up to ten hours of it on one disk (equivalant to a ten disc changer) and not have to deal with all those CD's in the car or constantly be skipping through songs on CD's she doesnt like.

Those charts need to be more consistant (between top and bottom charts) to be of any real value. AKA-the top chart does not show the number of deaths for most of the diseases listed on the bottom chart...also, the top chart lists deaths in a general category of "cancer" while the bottom chart singles out breast cancer only. Those charts used in conjunction with each other are meaningless. Parkinsons is not listed on the top chart. Also, heart disease is most commonly an attribute of old age and for most is already manageable via medication until that point. HIV has already shown mutations that are resistant to some of the "maintainance" drugs available currently. Also...what effect on public health care (and consider the cost) of keeping virtually millions of people 20 or so years from now on these expensive medications. An extra billion a year now for research may be a drop in the bucket compared to the strain on the healthcare system 20 or more years from now as these people (most now working and covered under private health plans) get older and seek government assited/funded health care.

Those who try to associate HIV/AIDS with the gay community and pull that political crap out regarding the funding of research for a cure read on: I have a heterosexual second cousin and his wife who about ten years ago adopted a 6-month old baby. A year later the baby was diagnosed with HIV. Two years after that their baby died. We were all devastated. I also had a heterosexual uncle, married to his wife with two children for over 30 years, he was 55 years old, died of AIDS just this past fall...traced most likely to a tranfusion he received roughly 20 years ago. We were devastated again. Teens/young people of all sexual orientation are getting this disease in alarming numbers. They are teens and are more likely to screw around, especially before they have found a stable relationship. This is reality and it must be dealt with in a realistic manner. Concepts of abstenance are certainly productive, but will not protect those who have not been led to develop a sense of self control or already have and can spread it. There are other countries around the world that are facing virtual decimation of their people and country by this disease. I stand behind president Bush in his not wanting our country to someday be facing the same fate. HIV/AIDS is killing us all. Trying to politicize the issue simply because the gay community has been hardest hit (thus also supporting the notion of a cure) will accomplish nothing more than more families of all types having to continue enduring the needless loss of loved ones.