Free Republic

The concept of majority rule is only legitimate when it respects minority rights. I suggest that by passing the recent rule changes in the House of Rep, the Congressional majority has rejected minority rights and by doing so it has surrendered its legitimacy.

In that light, would the Republicans in Congress be justified if they repudiate the Democrats’ $1,000,000,000,000 pork barrel bill and renounce the validity of any Treasury Bonds that are floated to fund it? Would the threat that future Republican governments will not honor any debt incurred under the current rules get the rule change reversed?

What would that threat do to the value of those bonds? Even the Federal Courts can not order payment if a future Congress specifically dictates that no funds are to be appropriated for payment of those specific bonds. Such an announcement would put investors on notice that anyone who buys these bonds is giving a gift to the US Government, because it will not be paid back. That way people who lose their money on these bonds have no legitimate complaint because they were warned in advance.

Just a thought!

Appeasement of Al Qaeda

You're right. I believe he did it sanitize the historical record and hide the real reason for the 1999 bombardment of Yugoslavia - appeasement of al Qaeda. That attack which made NATO as a defensive alliance an obscenity and set precedence in the US for “Preemptive War” was done in a cowardly attempt at appeasement. Clinton was so frightened of Osama Bin Laden that he hoped to curry favor by providing American air support to help defeat the Christian Serbs.

Al- Qaeda forces were fighting along side the KLA to form an independent Islamic Republic in Europe. Clinton helped them. He wanted to demonstrate to Bin Ladin and the rest of the Islamic world that he and his new left friends in Europe were modern secularists with no allegiance to and no tolerance for outdated institutions like Christianity.

Instead of winning esteem, he earned their utter contempt and planted the idea that the west is too cowardly to fight for its cultural survival. This would be classic neo-liberalism; achieve short-term goals without regard for long-term consequences, while shifting the cost to others. The removed documents probably laying out those policies.

Hi all. Went back after reading some of the comments and read it again. As I read it, the article was about male HS, so lesbianism is irrelevant, but I didn’t get that it was about HIV per se - just high risk behavior in general. Unlike an inclination to take part in dangerous sports, drive fast cars or climb mount Everest the activity is an addiction because it involves less choice and is usually done far more often. Thus I would agree with “disorder”.

Back when AIDS first started and news reporters interviewed gay’s at bath houses asking them how many “partners” they had under the theory that public health officials could track those exposed to the new threat. The numbers were astronomical - hundreds of partners per week or sometimes per day. Just those numbers alone, even without AIDS are a public health nightmare for other STD or other infectious diseases. The article barely mentions the ancillary risks such as drug use that comes with the acceptance of a set of values this lifestyle demands or increased exposure to violent crime, so IMO the article greatly understates its case.

With all the high risk activity this addiction exposes its practitioners too, it is reasonable to ask why lifestyle fascists in cities like San Francisco or NY who try to outlaw smoking, transfats or foisgrat (high risk to ducks) don’t want to outlaw this one too. Are gays more deserving of freedom than the rest of us or less deserving of protection? Courts struck down sodomy laws based on privacy, but privacy doesn’t protect one who uses illegal drugs in their home. Both are matters of individual choice and both are equally legitimate targets for government public health regulation. Most left wing positions are fundamentally dependent on a lack of consistency when considering issues. That’s why they must endorse situational ethics.