patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

In the video, state Sen. Elbert Guillory says Democrats use social programs like welfare and food stamps to monopolize the black vote. He urges them to “please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the party of disappointment.”

Right on. Really helps your cause to mention the one talking point that caused Romney to totally lose the election because most Americans think statements like that are stupid.

edvard2 says

So in other words, the US government by means of the US Constitution cannot make
any laws based on religious principle.

nope, all law is based on a common code of conduct that matches the code of conduct dictated by followers of God. Your assertion is hose-shit. If you want to get all long-hair and start debating what is principle, what is religion, and what is marriage ... you can go on and on .... Dan, is world class at that stuff, hit him up..... but, since you must hear a gay issue, here's one. At no time in human history was it better for the survival of a tribe to look upon the queer, odd, defective and see it as common or healthy.

You skipped over the entire debate, that you lost, to go swimming in liberal talking point swamp of gay "rights"? Whatever.

You mention the USConst gaurentees some rights. Would that include the Bill of Rights? Would that include my right to walk down the street with a weapon?? Well, it turns out that cities, counties, and states are all able to abridge that very basic right. One that is spelled out expressly. Where as the right of a self-proclaimed male sodomite to wed to another self-proclaimed male sodomite is not mentioned. Why would the deviant desired "right" be any less difficult to abridge be any state, county, or city, than the 2nd Ammendment?

p.s. are you sure marriage is a right?

Bap33 says

self-proclaimed male sodomite

You don't want to live in a free country, you want to live in a patriarchal theocracy.

Do you need me to name a few such countries?

Bap33 says

p.s. are you sure marriage is a right?

While I disagree with Bap most of the time this is a valid point. There is no right to marriage as defined by the government, it is simply a government program. I am positive any bans will be struck down in the future and while I have no problems with that it has really nothing to do with civil rights if straight and gays can participate in the government programs of marriage while polygamists are prosecuted. The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

mell says

The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of
the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual
contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised. Like that oil tycoon in OK who may end up giving a couple of billion to his soon to be ex wife. I wonder if there was ever a time in history where a central authority wielded so much control on each and every family?? Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

lostand confused says

Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

They were set with a stone to the head, if you didn't follow traditions.

I think the Government should put families on the endangered species list, and protect them from the Sodomous Liberal lot.

lostand confused says

mell says

The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of

the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual

contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised. Like that oil tycoon in OK who may end up giving a couple of billion to his soon to be ex wife. I wonder if there was ever a time in history where a central authority wielded so much control on each and every family?? Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

Agreed. Not surprisingly, marriages are at historic lows right now.

Bap33 says

nope, all law is based on a common code of conduct that matches the code of conduct dictated by followers of God. Your assertion is hose-shit. If you want to get all long-hair and start debating what is principle, what is religion, and what is marriage ... you can go on and on ...

There is so much incredibly wrong with your statement that its ming boggling.
So what you are basically saying is that the US constitution is wrong. It indicates that you don't actually know what the constitution says, and as such why your side of the argument is totally wrong. How difficult is it to understand the part of the constitution indicating the separation of church and state? Do you understand that? The founding fathers were IMPLICIT on this one point- perhaps the single most important part of the constitution.

Don't even try to argue against this point because your are WRONG. As in there isn't any debate here because those are the facts. Period. Embarrassing and appalling that this is even a debate to start with as most elementary school children know this by heart.

lostand confused says

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised.

Too many voters disagree with you. Children are society's priority, not your selfish useless self. For every billionaire tycoon getting raked over the coals, there's thousands of deadbeats making bank who wouldn't buy their kids shoes unless a gun was held to their head.

CaptainShuddup says

lostand confused says

Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

They were set with a stone to the head, if you didn't follow traditions.

I think the Government should put families on the endangered species list, and protect them from the Sodomous Liberal lot.

What about the polygamist "conservative" and "liberal" lots? ;)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Vicente says

lostand confused says

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised.

Too many voters disagree with you. Children are society's priority, not your selfish useless self. For every billionaire tycoon getting raked over the coals, there's thousands of deadbeats making bank who wouldn't buy their kids shoes unless a gun was held to their head.

For millenia, folks have been managing to raise kids just fine. Back then they had many kids, not just 1 or two and humanity survived. You take the one or two bad cases and make a law for everybody-what is it they say-The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bap33 says

are you sure marriage is a right?

The Supreme Court of the United States says it is:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

finehoe says

are you sure marriage is a right?

The Supreme Court of the United States says it is:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Exactly. Regardless, this won't be a debate much longer once the Supreme court makes their decision anyway. Just a matter of time and yet more rights will be given to more Americans who deserved them all along. After that you can add another issue conservatives will have lost.

mell says

There is no right to marriage as defined by the government, it is simply a government program. I am positive any bans will be struck down in the future and while I have no problems with that it has really nothing to do with civil rights if straight and gays can participate in the government programs of marriage while polygamists are prosecuted. The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

I agree more or less with this. Although I don't think marriage is a govt "program" but I think that was just a poor choice of words.

Whether the govt goes along with gay "marriage" or only civil unions (with all the rights privelidges that are afforded married folks) is irrelevant in the long run, because they would have marriage ceremonies and consider themselves married anyway. This is a free country. Marriage is just a word, and nobody can stop gay couples from using this word when they so choose.

The freedoms of our country give Bap the right to hate gays. He has the right to believe that they are deviant perverts. He has the right to judge them in his mind until the cows come home. On some level, I may share some of his prejudice in this area. But I also know that these feelings are my problem. Just because I can't relate to being gay or wanting to marry a man, and even if I'm not sure that it's as good a way to raise kids as hetero marriage, this is all irrelevant.

It isn't the governments place to legislate against this type of thing. That's what freedom is about !

Bap thinks that when freedom allows behaviors that his religious/moral code dissagrees with, that the governemtn should enforce laws against these.

Automan Empire says

You don't want to live in a free country, you want to live in a patriarchal theocracy.

Do you need me to name a few such countries?

That's exactly right.

He wants to argue some kind of equivalence to safety rules such as those around carrying hand guns or I presume seat belts. The difference here is simply the result of legislation from the peoples democratically elected representatives.

The majority of people don't agree with you (Bap) on gay marriage. But they also don't agree with those who would ban hand guns all together.

You win some and you lose some. That's what freedom in a democracy is all about.

mell says

There is no right to marriage as defined by the government, it is simply a government program.

SCOTUS disagrees with you, and their opinion, not yours, is what counts.

True there's laws and then interpretation of the laws, and the arguments about rights or civil rights for gays are correct, because how can they be prevented from the rights and benefits that come with marriage, just because they are predisposed to to same sex coupling.

Bap33 says

nope, all law is based on a common code of conduct that matches the code of conduct dictated by followers of God.

1. Your God is false.
2. Sharia Law
3. The USA isn't a theocracy.
4. Your religion is dying.

Bap33 says

At no time in human history was it better for the survival of a tribe to look upon the queer, odd, defective and see it as common or healthy.

We don't live in a Stone Age tribe. What worked in the Stone Age, for example, rape and murder, does not work in the modern age.

Bap33 says

p.s. are you sure marriage is a right?

According to Loving v. Virginia (1967) it is. Furthermore, taxation policies cannot be discriminatory. That means if marriage affects taxes, gays get to legally marry. End of story.

Now, if you want to get rid of the legal recognition of marriage and all laws that contain the word marriage, then we can talk.

and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....

Dan8267 says

You need to go further and explain why that justifies torture, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping, and spying on all citizens to such a level never before seen by god.

SoftShell says

and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

I am 'successfully' trolling.
Look at the thread topic.
Look at what your discussing.
me +1, you 0.
Case Closed

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

oh, and as an aside, a 'hard core atheist' does not invoke the name of 'god', even in metaphors.
Now the case is closed.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

you sound like Bigsby...always piling on after the fact...

sbh says

Dan8267 says

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

We make up as much a 8-10% of the population.

SoftShell says

I am 'successfully' trolling.

Did you reach orgasm?

SoftShell says

me +1, you 0.

By your score count. It takes a lot more than you making a fool of yourself to get my goat.

sbh says

Dan8267 says

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

We make up as much a 8-10% of the population.

You talking atheists or trolls?

lostand confused says

For millenia, folks have been managing to raise kids just fine. Back then they had many kids, not just 1 or two and humanity survived. You take the one or two bad cases and make a law for everybody-what is it they say-The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

BACK THEN, you had a bunch of kids because most of them would die before getting old enough to be given a name. That's a fact. Every country that has sufficient medical care to reduce child mortality sees dropping birth rates. Mexico, Africa, every flipping one of the places that people used to point to as breeding factories for poor people, has birth rates now approaching replacement value not growth.

Another fact for you, every historical society finds some mechanism to look after their children. In a great many of them, it's by putting constraints on the men through religious, social, or civil law pressure. Women have had their own constraints that historically put the children first. There is no greater social crime for a woman, than to abandon her children.

Whatever self-centered island delusions you have, the rest of the universe has other ideas.

"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more zygotes. This may be the purpose of the universe." - Heinlein

Vicente says

BACK THEN, you had a bunch of kids because most of them would die before
getting old enough to be given a name. That's a fact. Every country that has
sufficient medical care to reduce child mortality sees dropping birth rates.
Mexico, Africa, every flipping one of the places that people used to point to as
breeding factories for poor people, has birth rates now approaching replacement
value not growth.

Another fact for you, every historical society finds some mechanism to look
after their children. In a great many of them, it's by putting constraints on
the men through religious or social pressure.

Whatever self-centered island delusions you have, the rest of the universe
has other ideas.

Yes some kids died back then , but not as you make it out to be. My mom was born at home along with her 4 sisters. One did not make it to adulthood. Her uncle had 7 kids that made it to adulthood out of 9.

Men mostly took care of their kids, families, villages and countries. Men were always the first line of defense and gave their lives to protect their families and did most of the hard work-which was physical mostly. You have read too much feminist garbage literature and your mind has decided to accept that garbage as fact.

Kids don't need all this stuff. As a parent, you can make a million dollars a month and still want to live frugally and teach your kids how to live frugally, the meaning of money, work ethics and such. However the American and most western governments do not allow that and will take your money under threat of prison and give it to them -no questions asked. You cannot discipline them, you cannot teach them and you cannot question your children's mother if she is using that money to buy boob implants.

No wonder this country is so messed up-personal responsibility is all but gone and anyone who wants people to be responsible for their choices and teach their kids that, is branded selfish or misogynist or some such stupid feminist made up name.

lostand confused says

Yes some kids died back then , but not as you make it out to be. My mom was born at home along with her 4 sisters. One did not make it to adulthood. Her uncle had 7 kids that made it to adulthood out of 9.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

In Boston 1841-1854, 61% of poor children died before age 5.

My dad likes to visit old cemetaries sorting out family history, in the older ones it's very common to see a man flanked by 2 or even 3 wives, and small stones for children.

Vicente says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

In Boston 1841-1854, 61% of poor children died before age 5.

My dad likes to visit old cemetaries sorting out family history, in the older
ones it's very common to see a man flanked by 2 or even 3 wives, and small
stones for children.

Yes. but that has got nothing to do with forcing men to pay obscene amounts under threat of jail and having govt control of all families.

marcus says

My guess is that you are a product of our public school system, which is a proof that even back in the day, we could have done better.

Back in the 1960s the Liberals abandoned education system and pretty much everything else infavor of dropping out and doing their thing. Science Technology and Medicine was all part of the establishment system they hated. All of our advancements since didnt come from Libs .. no it was from those who believed in free enterprise and freedom.

So dont bother talking to others about how much liberals are pro-education. They turned their back on education years ago.

marcus says

Thomas you are one moronic wing nut, and a pitiful excuse for an American.

The truth stings... we havent forgotten the BS from decades past..

Vaticanus says

As far as public education being an investment, it sure is. And often it is a worthy investment, often it is a waste. When you see the growing ranks of unemployed and underemployed it is obvious that higher Ed has often become a gross misallocation of resources.

Its become meal ticket for the unions. higher taxes and legalizing gambling in CA was supposed to fix, everything... sorry ! not enough we need more ! yes, its a big sucking machines draining resources..

lostand confused says

Yes. but that has got nothing to do with forcing men to pay obscene amounts under threat of jail and having govt control of all families.

That's true. Just another tool of government intrusion and taking away personal liberty, but then again, if people decide to get officially married, then they really should know that this could be coming their way.

Vicente says

Children are society's priority, not your selfish useless self.

and from this the view the Tribe's view of deviant coupling can be found. And the value of reproduction, and the value of a strong normal family, are why taxation systems should support reproduction. Good point Vincent.

thomaswong.1986 says

Back in the 1960s the Liberals abandoned education system and pretty much everything else infavor of dropping out and doing their thing.

Good stuff. "I knew a hippie once....

Let me quote.

Vicente says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

thomaswong.1986 says

The truth stings... we havent forgotten the BS from decades past..

YEah yeah, I know,. There was also that one hippie who spit on a returning soldier.

You fail to comprehend two things. One - you can't generalize a couple individuals, or even thousands of 17 to 22 years olds to an entire half of the political spectrum.

But also, Dwight Eisenhower, an icon of conservativism in the days of the hippies, advocated and implemented policies that would make him a rogue communist in today's GOP.

So your emotional hangups about "my team versus your team" are totally irrelevant.

Bap33 says

Good point Vincent.

I saw that coming.

marcus says

Good stuff. "I knew a hippie once....

Let me quote

Once ?

edvard2 says

How difficult is it to understand the part of the constitution indicating the
separation of church and state?

the words I say are in the USConst are in there exactly as I said ... I have a right to bare arms.

the words you say are in the USConst are not in there - anywhere as you said ... that lingo aint there. Know what is?? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that WE are ENDOWED by our CREATOR with certian unalienable RIGHTS" ..... it takes some scuzzy ACLU type lawyers to not understand that simple stuff.

Bill of rights is easy to read and understand. Rights are there for all, placed by God. Marriage is far from a right. Not even close. You have no right to demand that a cake baker make you a cake ... unless you can play the race - or - sexual deviant card. Silly progressive liberals.

Tyrants use the SCOTUS to erode the soul of America.

thomaswong.1986 says

Once ?

Just making the point. Is your hatered of the boogeyman "liberals" totally tied to your feelings about hippies from 45 yers ago ?

You're more messed up than I imagined.

marcus says

Bap33 says

Good point Vincent.

I saw that coming.

well .... without more people the Tribe dies. In a way, your vocation came about due to the Tribe wanting to survive, and made education valuable ... much like procreation. Can you see what I'm saying?

marcus says

But also, Dwight Eisenhower, an icon of conservativism in the days of the hippies, advocated and implemented policies that would make him a rogue communist in today's GOP.

So your emotional hangups about "my team versus your team" are more than irrelevant.

Eisenhower's policies such as ? strange, i thought you libs were about forward and change.. not about going back.... you cant mean that a republican policies of the 1950s were all that forward thinking ?

marcus says

Just making the point. Is your hatered of the boogeyman "liberals" totally tied to your feelings about hippies from 45 yers ago ?

You're more messed up than I imagined.

Perhaps you should fast forward to California of the 1970s and decay that the drug culture of the left created.