invite response« First « Previous Comments 44 - 83 of 147 Next » Last » Search these comments
no edward, I said what it means to me. Period. You dont get to choose my expressions. If it helps you deal with it, imagine expression choice to be how the word gay has been used to describe deviant sexual behavior between males by the liberals, while the conservatives were happy having gay mean happy etc etc etc etc....
Thanks for priming my next example of how conservatives in the US tend to be wrong and ironically against the very freedoms they claim to support.
Gay rights. Simply put, some conservatives are against gay marriage because they are basing their opinions from their conservative Christian beliefs. ( Note I said "conservative" Christian as it is unfair to claim ALL Christians think this way because I know for fact they certainly do not.
So for starters, and as clearly indicated, the US Constitution clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So in other words, the US government by means of the US Constitution cannot make any laws based on religious principle. As such, those conservative Christians whom are using their religious beliefs as a means to claim that Gay marriage is immoral have absolutely zero legitimate reason to have those concerns recognized on a legislative level.
In summary, since the Constitution also guarantees the rights to the effect that " All men are created equal", conservatives whom are against gay marriage are in turn also going against the very fundamentals of the US Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. And this is why Gay marriage will ultimately be found to be recognized as an official right on a national level.
As another commentator pointed out, this is yet another fundamental decision that conservatives have been against despite the inevitability that they will lose that argument, just as they have each and every one of the other rights-based decisions that have come down from the Supreme Court over the years.
Dan8267
2013 Jun 18, 4:31am
the fact is they were/are both privy to inside information on world events, and have both concluded that the current course of action is the most desirable.
Why their actions seem evil to you is due to your ignorance of the inside information. If you ever gain knowledge of the inside information, the odds are that you too would come to the conclusions that they both share.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
- Hermann Goering
It is not ignorance, but knowledge that causes me to differ from your opinion, Shrek.
Y
2013 Jun 18, 5:11am
There never will be a country whose government will fully and honestly disclose their foreign policy strategies. Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.
Do I need to go any further and explain why?
It is not ignorance, but knowledge that causes me to differ from your opinion, Shrek.
Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.
Making 560 million pages of documents a year classified doesn't meet my definition of "some".
Do I need to go any further and explain why?
Y
2013 Jun 18, 7:56am
sure...give it your best shot.
Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.
Making 560 million pages of documents a year classified doesn't meet my definition of "some".
Do I need to go any further and explain why?
Dan8267
2013 Jun 18, 8:01am
There never will be a country whose government will fully and honestly disclose their foreign policy strategies. Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.
Do I need to go any further and explain why?
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.
Y
2013 Jun 18, 8:06am
Before I can answer that you need to specify which god has never seen the level you refer to. And while your at it, prove that god exists, or your whole statement is irrelevant.
There never will be a country whose government will fully and honestly disclose their foreign policy strategies. Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.
Do I need to go any further and explain why?
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.
Dan8267
2013 Jun 18, 8:11am
Before I can answer that you need to specify which god has never seen the level you refer to. And while your at it, prove that god exists, or your whole statement is irrelevant.
I was being metaphoric. How dumb are you not to have picked up on that?
sure...give it your best shot.
Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.
Making 560 million pages of documents a year classified doesn't meet my definition of "some".
Do I need to go any further and explain why?
If I actually have to explain it I'm sure you won't understand anyway.
So "some" things that need to be held back are things like which oil executives met with Cheney to .formulate oil policy and what they discussed? Documents from 1917 released last year explaining how Germans made secret ink in 1914? The CIA reclassifiing their evaluation of whether North Korea would invade south Korea in 1950 (hint the correct answer was yes, but the CIA said no). Things like that are part of foreign policy strategy?
Probably in the high 90% range of classified documents are either cover your ass I don't want anyone checking up on me or it's classified because I have have the power. They have nothing whatsoever to do with national security or foreign policy.
marcus
2013 Jun 18, 12:17pm
end public paid schooling
Maybe you aren't so clear on what country you are living in.
Thomas Jefferson, on public Education:
"Bill for a more general diffusion of learning" (Jefferson, 549), was rejected. According to the bill those students with better abilities continued to higher education regardless of class, thereby allowing for the rise of qualified, natural leaders, which would accordingly nullify class rule.
Jefferson's rejected scheme was based on the principle that universal education results in a population of good citizens. The plan involved an educational progression that started with elementary school. These schools would be free to all children and be established within a day's ride of every citizen; however, attendance would not be compulsory. Subjects taught at elementary schools would include reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography. The six objectives of primary education according to Jewett (1997) were as follows:
--to give citizens the knowledge needed to conduct personal business
--to allow the citizen to calculate, express, and preserve ideas and accounts in writing
--to improve morals and faculties through reading
--to comprehend the citizen's duties to his neighbors and country
--to know rights and develop prudence in their administration
--to act with intelligence and faithfulness in social relations.The students demonstrating greater academic aptitude in elementary education then enrolled in higher grades at regional institutions. These schools provided professional preparation through instruction in sciences and languages. From these district schools, the most promising students could enroll in the university, which represented a combination of professional schools. The proposed university was visionary in that it included an elective system within a course of study, had no religious ties, substituted classical curriculum with practical subjects, and instituted a liberalization of disciplinary codes. According to Jefferson elementary education was more important than university learning because it was safer to have all the population enlightened rather than a select few as in Europe (Jewett, 1997). In Paris, as the U.S. Minister to France, Jefferson was appalled by the "ignorance, poverty, and oppression of the masses of people" (Peterson, 360).
By 1818, Jefferson acquired partial passage of his Bill, as the Legislature approved a $45,000 expenditure for elementary education of the poor and another $15,000 to support the development of a university. Jefferson eventually established the University of Virginia, but did not see the passage of universal education at the public expense. However, Jefferson is recognized as the first advocate of free education in common schools supported by local taxation (Jewett, 1997).
It may not be as intuitively obvious to everyone as it is to some of us, but public education is an investment in the people. One that helps us to be a productive country, and that helps many people to eventually make a good or at least decent income (thereby paying a lot of taxes).
The country gets back more from public education that what it pays for it. I don't claim that I have put forth proof of this, but I believe that if one honestly thinks about it, it's obvious.
Modern liberalism is a different animal whose rise is in part a reactionary mismanagement of the rational rejection of America's nut job right wing. The GOP houses the nut job right wing; the nut job right wing houses almost if not all racists in this country.
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.â€
It may not be as intuitively obvious to everyone as it is to some of us, but public education is an investment in the people. One that helps us to be a productive country, and that helps many people to eventually make a good or at least decent income (thereby paying a lot of taxes).
education was all fine and wonderful pre-60s. After that it was about how evil science was in making war, rise of machines and evil corporations and it was better to teach poetry to create a better rounded individual.. who will save the world and give us peace. Yep.. thats how US education system ended by the 60s.
you do recall the whole 60s protest movement ... so, many Americans abandoned STEM there after for some 3 decades ? Its just laughable how you Libs all of sudden today decided to call Education and "Investment" ....
Where the fuck were you 30 years ago ?
marcus
2013 Jun 18, 6:58pm
After that it was about how evil science was in making war, rise of machines and evil corporations and it was better to teach poetry to create a better rounded individual.. who will save the world and give us peace. Yep.. thats how US education system ended by the 60s.
you do recall the whole 60s protest movement ... so, many Americans abandoned STEM there after for some 3 decades ? Its just laughable how you Libs all of sudden today decided to call Education and "Investment" ....
Where the fuck were you 30 years ago ?
Wtf ?
If you could put together a coherent thought or two here I would be happy to respond. I'll try anyway.
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.
Its just laughable how you Libs all of sudden today decided to call Education and "Investment" ....
All of a sudden ? Please don't drink in excess and comment on here. You embarrass yourself and your ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson and most Americans with even an ounce of common sense have always understood that public education is an investment. This is something that is self evident and goes without saying. What's changed now, that makes you have an issue with it ?
Should I guess ?
Thomas you are one moronic wing nut, and a pitiful excuse for an American.
PeopleUnited
2013 Jun 18, 11:31pm
Marcus,
Thomas may be a moronic wingnut, like you, but you both are excellent examples of Americans. Give respect here it is due.
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.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Jun 19, 1:32am
He was a Republican then Democrat then a Republican.
It's fun to see the rationalization of the mentally impaired.
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.â€
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.
Bap33
2013 Jun 19, 2:00am
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?
Automan Empire
2013 Jun 19, 2:17am
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?
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.
lostand confused
2013 Jun 19, 2:38am
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 .
Tenpoundbass
2013 Jun 19, 2:48am
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.
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.
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.
Vicente
2013 Jun 19, 2:55am
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.
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."
lostand confused
2013 Jun 19, 3:01am
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.
finehoe
2013 Jun 19, 3:43am
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
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.
marcus
2013 Jun 19, 4:10am
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.
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.
finehoe
2013 Jun 19, 4:16am
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.
marcus
2013 Jun 19, 4:37am
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.
Dan8267
2013 Jun 19, 6:43am
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.
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.
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.
Y
2013 Jun 19, 7:27am
and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....
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.
Dan8267
2013 Jun 19, 7:32am
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?
Y
2013 Jun 19, 8:02am
I am 'successfully' trolling.
Look at the thread topic.
Look at what your discussing.
me +1, you 0.
Case Closed
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?
Y
2013 Jun 19, 8:05am
oh, and as an aside, a 'hard core atheist' does not invoke the name of 'god', even in metaphors.
Now the case is closed.
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?
Y
2013 Jun 19, 8:07am
you sound like Bigsby...always piling on after the fact...
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.
Dan8267
2013 Jun 19, 8:08am
I am 'successfully' trolling.
Did you reach orgasm?
me +1, you 0.
By your score count. It takes a lot more than you making a fool of yourself to get my goat.
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?
Vicente
2013 Jun 19, 8:23am
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
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 83 of 147 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/06/13-5
#politics