patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

Meccos says

However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished?

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. If any court has ruled he did so, you'd be able to provide the ruling.

Vicente says

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.

do you really believe Billy Bob didnt have sexual relationship with Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Gennifer Flowers. He denied it of course.. late admitted he actual did have sexual relationship.

Vicente says

Meccos says

However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished?

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. If any court has ruled he did so, you'd be able to provide the ruling.

Vicente, would you argue that OJ did not commit murder? If he had, one would be able to provide a ruling showing that he did? Do you understand the difference between "committed" and "convicted?" Did you ever read the articles of impeachment? And why was Clinton's law license suspended/why did he resign his bar from the Supreme Court.

Dan8267 says

To have a stick up your ass about Clinton not offering himself up as a sacrifice to the Republicans says more about you than Clinton. It says you always hated Clinton and never wanted him to be president because he works for the other team.

Given the vast amounts of pure evil implemented by the Bush administration, what exactly have you said condemning that administration?

This is silly, and given your logical approach to fallacies commited by KarlRoveIsScum, beneath you. Whether one condemns or not anything with Bush neither explains, nor excuses, anything with Clinton. Clinton is not excused for ethical lapses BECAUSE of things that Bush did, etc. I voted for Clinton, twice. I don't expect you to believe that, but your claim that I hated him is just as unprovable. You seem to have missed the wider point that I am not even really condemning Clinton that much. I don't even dispute with you that Gingrich's actions may have been due to "politics." There should be zero doubt in the mind of anyone with a shred of objectivity about Clinton that good or bad, generally able to overlook due to other qualities or not, Clinton did not tell the truth under oath - AND paid professional and financial penalties for them. But that does not mean they did not happen (for Vicente: and just because he wasn't convicted by a jury doesn't mean they didn't happen, either - it is very odd of you, or ideological perhaps, to take such a technical approach for one aspect, while ignoring all of the other technicalities - certainly doesn't sound like someone who was once a "staunch" republican).

My only real contention is your claim that Gingrich impeached Clinton for doing the same thing he did (e.g., cheating on his wife, having an affair, etc.). It is a false analogy. The articles of impeachment themselves show that. Perhaps you should read them. You can attack Gingrich for so much real, unexagerated, un-false analogies, that using this one is unnecessary.

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

I also do not agree with Portman. His choice just shows lack of conviction.

Dan8267 says

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Agreed. You can't just take arbitrary questions unrelated to the presidents job and put the president under oath for it like"Mr. president, tell us, how many shits did you take this morning?" and then impeach him for giving the wrong answer. I am no expert, maybe there is a law that you cannot get blown by a govt employee in the white house and that is somehow grounds for impeachment, but personally I could care less about him getting a little personal stress-relief. Now if you excuse me, I have to take a brief hike in the Appalachian mountains.

FortWayne says

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

I also do not agree with Portman. His choice just shows lack of conviction.

I agree that we have far more important issues and I don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the government has always had the right to favor certain lifestyles over others, even though I don't agree with it. So I think the only fair solution is for government to get out of marriage completely and not favor any lifestyle and let it be a purely spiritual/religious affair backed by a church of your choice. For anything related to rights/financial status in their state couples should separately go on the record for a civil union, but there should be no federal implications.

Meccos says

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. It is not perjury to answer the question asked without volunteering more information.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/williamjclinton/

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.

Bill Clinton was asked an irrelevant question for the sole purpose of creating a political scandal to end his career and help republicans in the next election. That question should have been thrown out and would have if not for the pure political bullshit that the monkey trial impeachment was.

Nevertheless, Clinton correctly and truthfully answered the actual question asked. What he did not do was answer the question the Republicans meant to ask. He was under no obligation to do so, and the Fifth Amendment gives all persons, including the president, the right not to testify against himself. And even if Bill Clinton had shouted, "I got a blow job from that fatie Lewinsky!", it would have been completely irrelevant to the trial or to his job performance as president.

Only hypocritical republicans wanted Clinton's blow job proclaimed on the stand so they could trump up a sex scandal. And yes, those republicans were hypocrites because they all had their own sex scandals and they all proclaimed that in an age of terrorism, the president should not be questioned because national security is on the line. Image if we hadn't wasted time and resources on this monkey trial and instead spent that time and those resources on capturing Osama bid Laden before 9/11 happened.

Image, not only the thousands of American lives saved, but also the million of Iraqi lives saved, and the decline of terrorism in the world. But no, republicans always put their own political careers ahead of national interests. And that is exactly what makes them hypocrites.

Paralithodes says

Clinton is not excused for ethical lapses BECAUSE of things that Bush did, etc.

Whether or not Clinton behaved unethically or immorally is an entirely different question. The argument that Meccos made was that Bill Clinton committed perjury and should have been jailed for it.

I have no doubt that Clinton had many sexual escapades while married. I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even care that Newt had many sexual escapades while married except for the hypocrisy of attacking Clinton for the same thing and passing "family values" legislation.

But you know what, it says a lot when the only thing people can say bad about the Clinton administration years later is he got a blow job in the Oval Office and didn't tell everyone.

I wish we had a president and senators who were so good that the only thing we could complain about was their sex lives. The economy was great. There were no wars, no torture, no war on terror. Hell, I'd give the blow jobs to go back to those days.

Dan8267 says

I don't even care that Newt had many sexual escapades while married except for the hypocrisy of attacking Clinton for the same thing and passing "family values" legislation.

Well, we're at an impasse... My major disagreement was your argument above - that Gingrich impeached Clinton for the "same thing." I still disagree but in the scheme of things it's not that important I guess, as I do not disagree that Gingrich was a hypocrite in general. Have a nice day.

FortWayne says

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

It's funny how you have that completely backwards. Opposition to legal equality (or, if you prefer, Gay Rights) is a distraction to drive Pat Robertson's minions into voting against their own interests. Republicans sell war all over the world and ruinous deficits by saying they agree with your preacher. It's a Santorum stain on the Republican party.

mell says

I agree that we have far more important issues and I don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the government has always had the right to favor certain lifestyles over others, even though I don't agree with it.

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy. Favoring the marriages of opposite-sex couples, while denying the equal protection of the same laws to same-sex couples, is a civil rights issue, and nothing is gained by perpetuating that discrimination.

The importance is asymmetrical: the "divide and misrule" pattern starts out with division, "vote for us and we'll discriminate against people who aren't exactly like you," and they keep saying that to each group. As MLK Jr observed, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. For those whose power depends on division and misrule (e.g. warmongers etc.), the importance is the power to manipulate FortWayne's fear and Bop69's self-loathing, and turn them into votes against everyone's interest. For everyone else, the importance is the opposite, i.e. not being divided and misruled and manipulated.

curious2 says

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy. Favoring the marriages of opposite-sex couples, while denying the equal protection of the same laws to same-sex couples, is a civil rights issue, and nothing is gained by perpetuating that discrimination.

That is not discrimination. Society created a concept of marriage for procreation and identification of a father. It was to create a stable environment for families and for raising children.

But this is America so every single pervert out there thinks he has the right to jump into every single thing he/she wishes. Homosexuals, polygamists, zoophiliacs, etc... these people are not part of that and they should not be. You have to be normal to get married. If you are not normal you should get medical help, you shouldn't marry.

Marriage is simple (one man and one woman), simple rule, happens to work, and is easy to understand, leave it alone. Everything else does not apply.

curious2 says

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy. Favoring the marriages of opposite-sex couples, while denying the equal protection of the same laws to same-sex couples, is a civil rights issue, and nothing is gained by perpetuating that discrimination.

I beg to differ - marriage has always been an incentive by the government given out for those who match specific criteria. If ones religion forbids one to marry but one has a life partner they will be still "discriminated against" in your terms. Or, if one simply cannot find somebody who will marry them, they are being discriminated against as they lose out on those rights and benefits. Don't get me wrong, I think gays should have the right to become married but it
a) is not a civil rights issue
b) will not change anything in the unfairness you perceive, it just lets another group/form of partnership jump on the bandwagon of the governments family incentives
True fairness would be the government to not provide any incentives to people depending on their status, desire and ability to get married and have people create their own contracts honored by the courts and - if needed - the church of their choice. By your demands you'd have to honor polygamist marriages, e.g. of mormon or muslim faith and give out the same benefits. Personally I think none of that should be illegal, but if the government must incentivize it has to draw a line somewhere and that does not make it a civil rights issue.

FortWayne says

Society created a concept of marriage for procreation and identification of a father. It was to create a stable environment for families and for raising children.

Yet we allow menopausal women to get married. We allow infertile couples to get married. We allow couples that do not want to have children and agreed not to, to get married. None of these should be allowed if marriage is only for procreation.

Furthermore, recognizing homosexual marriage as equal under law does not in any way, shape, or form prevent marriage from fulfilling the cultural roles you claim are so damn important.

Finally, if marriage is just about one man and one woman having children, then there should be no marriage laws regarding:
- tax status
- social security benefits
- health care benefits
- hospital visitation rights
- power of attorney
- and the million of other things that you get from marriage

None of the above things have anything to do with impregnating a woman. Yet, they are included in marriage laws. To say that same-sex couples should not get any of the above legal statuses is discrimination, plain and simple. The argument that it's all about children does not apply to any of the above legal statuses.

FortWayne says

But this is America so every single pervert out there thinks he has the right to jump into every single thing he/she wishes. Homosexuals, polygamists, zoophiliacs, etc... these people are not part of that and they should not be. You have to be normal to get married. If you are not normal you should get medical help, you shouldn't marry.

The fact that you call homosexuals and polygamists "perverts" and abnormal indicates clear prejudices and is exactly why your arguments should carry no weight. The very term "pervert" is a subjective and arbitrary judgement call and has no place in the law.

Oh, and marriage has most certainly been defined as things other than one man and one woman. Many cultures throughout history and today have been polygamous. To argue that yours is superior without reason is simply cultural bias.

A mere two generations ago, marriage was defined as "one man and one woman of the same race". The arguments against same-sex marriage are no different than the arguments against interracial marriage. And you know what, it's the same people arguing against equality under law in both cases.

As for basing marriage on what your religion says... Here's what the Bible says marriage is:

curious2 says

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy.

The "government" - if you mean the Federal government - could provide equal benefits, equal tax status, etc., almost simply by changing a spot on tax forms to "spouse/partner" without making the person filling out the form choose which. It therefore enact policy while staying out of the issue that is the crux of the California case: whether a gay union or marriage is specifically referred to by the government as a "union" or a "marriage" despite no other practical difference in any respect whatsoever.

It may certainly be a "civil rights" issue as to whether same-sex partners receive the same rights, benefits, etc. It is not a "civil rights issue" when there is zero distinction between how a state treats gay and straight "marriages" in any respects other than simply whether one is called "marriage" or something else.

I prefer that the Federal government stay out of the social/cultural labeling issue of defining "marriage." I don't support it re-defining marriage, nor do I support it defining what traditional marriage. It could easily enact "equal" policy without venturing into the cultural fight.

One more thing... I really don't give a rat's ass what some Bronze Age culture defined marriage as. The Bronze Age sucked donkey balls. It was a vicious and cruel time full of tribalism, superstition, slavery, rape and pillage, and countless injustices.

There is absolutely no reason why the modern world should arrange its laws around Bronze Age values. We are morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to the Bronze Age. If we weren't, we'd all have died in a nuclear holocaust already.

Fuck the Bronze Age. The vast majority of things commonly practiced in that time are now illegal including: slavery, human sex trafficking, waring against the next village and raping their women and children, child brides, burning people alive, torture, forced starvation of prisoners, etc. Why would we base any laws on this culture?

Dan8267 says

The fact that you call homosexuals and polygamists "perverts" and abnormal indicates clear prejudices and is exactly why your arguments should carry no weight. The very term "pervert" is a subjective and arbitrary judgement call and has no place in the law.

But laws are made based on judgement. This is why we call certain people "judges". It is society made for the people, and people judge. We judge behavior, and if some of it we judge to be bad for society we don't allow it. Criminals we judge as people who should be in prison. Homosexuals we judge as people who should not marry.

Prejudices are not always bad things. Prejudices are survival traits we learned through evolution of mankind.

Dan8267 says

Fuck the Bronze Age. The vast majority of things commonly practiced in that time are now illegal including: slavery, human sex trafficking, waring against the next village and raping their women and children, child brides, burning people alive, torture, forced starvation of prisoners, etc. Why would we base any laws on this culture?

If we allow homosexuality type of lawlessness where everyone thinks they have a right to do as they please and you just might see sex trafficking return to legality. They were born this way! They have rights to sex traffic! Rapists were born that way too they can say, why discriminate on people who really want to share their love with everyone else!

FortWayne says

But laws are made based on judgement.

Judgement is not "prejudice". The word prejudice literally means to "pre-judge" as oppose to judging. What you are doing is pre-judging based on personal and completely arbitrary biases rather than judging evidence.

And yes, prejudice in the law is always a bad thing. Snap judgements might protect people in dangerous situations like encountering a hunter in the Stone Age, but snap judgements do not protect us from bad laws in the modern age.

FortWayne says

Criminals we judge as people who should be in prison.

In order to sentence a person to prison, the law requires a trial by jury to evaluate evidence. That's entirely different than saying "every black person must go to jail" or "every homosexual must not marry". The entire trial is specific to one particular individual, not to a blanket group.

FortWayne says

Homosexuals we judge as people who should not marry.

Homosexuals are people, you think should not be allowed to marry. I think they should. What makes your thought correct?

What makes my thought correct is the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. That carries a lot more weight than, "I find the idea of gay marriage icky and I'm afraid heterosexual couples won't value their marriage as much if gay people can get married".

Ultimately, this is about rights and equality under the law. As such, arbitrary personal opinions carry no weight no matter how strongly a person feels about those opinions. Remember, there are plenty of people, even today, who strongly feel that two people of different races or different religions should not be allowed to marry. Why would I give the anti-gay-marriage feelings any more weight than those feelings?

FortWayne says

If we allow homosexuality type of lawlessness where everyone thinks they have a right to do as they please and you just might see sex trafficking return to legality. They were born this way! They have rights to sex traffic! Rapists were born that way too they can say, why discriminate on people who really want to share their love with everyone else!

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

1. Homosexuality is not lawlessness by any criteria.

2. No one is making the argument that any person can do anything they want. We are making the argument that gender-specific laws are a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and such discrimination has no place in the modern world.

3. The argument "If we allow gay marriage, then we'll be opening the gates to bestiality, rape, and human trafficking" makes as much sense as the argument "If we allow interracial marriage, then we'll be opening the gates to bestiality, rape, and human trafficking". In fact, that argument was made back in the 1960s by racists. The argument was stupid and wrong then, and it's stupid and wrong now for the exact same reasons.

4. Rapist don't "share their love", they violently force their wills onto others. Two consenting adult men in a marriage aren't violently forcing their wills onto others.

Can you see how none of your arguments even remotely addresses reality or the real argument of the same-sex marriage movement, equality under law?

If equality under law, the single most important principle in our society, wasn't reason enough to support same-sex marriages, there's also this reason. All opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religious and cultural preferences that some people want to force onto everybody else. We should never, ever tolerate letting anyone use the law to force religion and culture onto the entire nation. Would any of the anti-gay-marriage people like it if Islamic culture and Sharia Law were forced onto them?

Dan8267 says

Judgement is not "prejudice". The word prejudice literally means to "pre-judge" as oppose to judging. What you are doing is pre-judging based on personal and completely arbitrary biases rather than judging evidence.

And yes, prejudice in the law is always a bad thing. Snap judgements might protect people in dangerous situations like encountering a hunter in the Stone Age, but snap judgements do not protect us from bad laws in the modern age.

Well Dan, my judgement or prejudging as you call comes from me knowing that we all make our choices in life. If these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them. And that type of behavior by me and many who feel the same way about the issue, feel is inappropriate and should be discouraged through law.

And 52% of voters agreed on prop 8. So I'm not in the minority.

Dan8267 says

1. Homosexuality is not lawlessness by any criteria.

2. No one is making the argument that any person can do anything they want. We are making the argument that gender-specific laws are a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and such discrimination has no place in the modern world.

I know what you are saying Dan. However, knowing how we humans tend to be I feel this is a slippery slope to anarchy. Today we allow homosexuality, tomorrow it will be polygamy or something worse. It's why I don't want that line moving, because that line will move more toward lawlessness and victimization. It's how Rome fell.

Dan8267 says

If equality under law, the single most important principle in our society, wasn't reason enough to support same-sex marriages, there's also this reason.

Yes I think it is about equality under law, but not equality in every single way. You know the sign in Disneyland "You have to be this tall to go on this ride." I think that idea applies to every aspect in life.

Dan8267 says

but I can for people with common sense who believe in equality under law, you know, liberals. Equality under law means that every person has the same rights, no person has any privileges, and people are treated the same by the law and the courts.

Umm, it's liberals that support affirmative action. I wouldn't call that "equality".

Dan8267 says

We should never, ever tolerate letting anyone use the law to force religion and culture onto the entire nation.

I think of the socialism being forced onto us by liberals to be a form of culture.

Dan8267 says

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. It is not perjury to answer the question asked without volunteering more information

Just because you are found not guilty of something doesnt mean you didnt commit the crime.

FortWayne says

Prejudices are survival traits we learned through evolution of mankind.

LOL - I'm surprised FortWayne even acknowledges evolution.

Alas his other beliefs (e.g. ranting that his television has been taken over by black people, and now against marriage equality) reflect paranoia, irrational fear and loathing.

FortWayne, have you tried adjusting the brightness on your TV, or turning the thing off and reading a book? For you, I would suggest reading Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, written by John Boswell, who chaired the history department at Yale. Among other things, he notes that the rising Roman republic and early empire had same-sex marriage. History shows that Rome fell after becoming Christian, which resulted in same-sex marriage being prohibited.

FortWayne's paranoia and ignorance and proud prejudice reflect the people who have taken over the Republican party, and why they lost in 2012. Contrary to O'Reilly and Romnesia's remarks about 47% of people wanting stuff, Obama won by 40 points among Asians, Latinos, and people who don't go to church at least once a week. (Obama won by 50 points among gay voters, and more than 80 points among African American voters.) While Republicans campaigned on declaring America a Christian nation, the Senate got its first Buddhist and the House got its first Hindu, both Democrats. As long as FortWayne's ignorance and paranoia remain the voice of the Republican party, most American voters have no real choice, and there is no chance of repealing Obamacare for example.

FortWayne says

these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them

So, by extension, you could choose to find the same sex attractive--just turn it on or off like a switch? Riiiiiight.

Philistine says

FortWayne says

these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them

So, by extension, you could choose to find the same sex attractive--just turn it on or off like a switch?

The only logical explanation for FortWayne's comment is he finds both sexes equally (un)attractive, so he demands government must instruct him which one(s) to choose. That differs from Bop69, whose comments show a very strong preference that he cannot accept but has no choice about:

curious2 says

While Republicans campaigned on declaring America a Christian nation, the Senate got its first Buddhist and the House got its first Hindu, both Democrats. As long as FortWayne's ignorance and paranoia remain the voice of the Republican party,

Had Buddhist or Hindus been any better than Christians, surely we would have seen Democracy and Freedom rise in the Asia generations ago... well it didnt since they are Alien concepts in their Asian culture. Asians never could create what a small group of new settlers from Northern Europe actually did in North American. Be proud of it.

Today we are just watering down Democracy and Freedom...

thomaswong.1986 says

a small group of new settlers from Northern Europe actually did in North America....

create a republic with "no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof...." Unfortunately in recent years the Republican party has attempted to hijack that republic in the name of one particular religion, which is the opposite of what the founders wrote. BTW, the founders wrote a government structure with three co-equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The role of the courts, since Marbury v Madison, is to enforce the constitutional guarantees that, since the 1860s, have included the equal protection of the laws even at the state level. Republicans have been crusading on a platform to return - not to the 19th century as some claim, nor even to the 18th, but to some time prior to the Enlightenment, either the Crusades or possibly the Bronze Age.

If you feel that "liberal" policy, or Obamacare (which isn't even liberal), has eroded freedom, blame FortWayne and Bop69. Here is why: imagine an area with only two gas stations, right next to each other, both charging approximately the same prices. Now imagine one of them doubles its prices. What do you expect the other station to do, increase or decrease prices? Almost certainly it will increase prices, perhaps slightly less than its neighbor. The result is that all customers of both stations become worse off. FortWayne and Bop69 have demanded the Republican party impose theocracy upon us all, and for most voters that price is too high. Democrats have responded by raising prices too, in the form of Obamacare, even though most voters never wanted that policy. To the extent that Obamacare reduces democracy and freedom, you can blame Bop69 and FortWayne.

curious2 says

" Unfortunately in recent years the Republican party has attempted to hijack that republic in the name of one particular religion, which is the opposite of what the founders wrote.

Our founders were well versed in the Western tradition, and Christianity is part of that which creates the backbone of our Democracy and Freedoms... not Eastern mysticism. And most certainly per many of our founders writings it was not to limit influence upon government policy. No Govt cannot influence Religion, but Religion can influence Govt. And plenty of our founders have written so.

As for your gas station example. The answer lays with one being the substitute for the other, so neither have pricing power to increase revenues. If A raises prices, than demand will shift to B. Revenues for A will drop while Revenues for B will increase. To say otherwise ignores all economic theories.

thomaswong.1986 says

To say otherwise ignores all economic theories.

You seem to have missed the point of the gas station example. The Republicans essentially raised their prices to an unacceptable level, which is why they lost. Imagining themselves to be 'the party of God' (a literal translation of Hezballah), they fooled themselves into believing they could crusade for whatever Bop69 and FortWayne wanted regardless of what most voters might want. In raising their prices that way, Republicans allowed Democrats to raise prices also, i.e. to impose an unpopular policy (Obamacare). Most voters chose the lesser of two evils, in order to reject the worse of two evils, and hence Republicans were rejected.

Incredibly, even after losing, Republicans seem unable to grasp that they did anything wrong. It isn't my job to save them, so if they want to keep losing with the same policies, so be it. Or, as they would say, Amen.

curious2 says

The Republicans essentially raised their prices to an unacceptable level, which is why they lost. Imagining themselves to be 'the party of God' (a literal translation of Hezballah), they believed they could crusade for whatever Bop69 and FortWayne wanted regardless of what most voters might want. I

Our philosophy has not changed for the past 200-300 years.. so the idea of the GOP is "the party of God" is wrong. They are the party of our western tradition... the fabric of what makes democracy and freedom work.

thomaswong.1986 says

Our philosophy has not changed for the past 200-300 years.. so the idea of the GOP is "the party of God" is wrong. They are the party of our western tradition..

Abortion was legal for most of American history, but Republicans in 2012 campaigned on amending the Constitution to ban it, claiming that rape and incest pregnancies are "part of God's plan." Of course, if Republican candidates actually had an omnipotent god on their side, they wouldn't have needed more than $1 billion in campaign spending - which turned out not even to be enough. Thomas, I'm not going to waste time trying to talk sense to Republicans, if you're so deluded just stay loyal to what you're doing: losing.

curious2 says

Abortion was legal for most of American history, but Republicans in 2012 campaigned on amending the Constitution to ban it, claiming that rape and incest pregnancies are "part of God's plan."

Republicans in general campaigned on this? It is in the GOP platform? A couple of Republicans said stupid things as you allude to above, but many Republicans condemned them for those comments and rejected them. Do you deny this? However, the Democrats did a great job selling it as if it were the entire party's platform, which you seem to continue to sell. Is the entire platform of the Democratic party such that it would be more desirable and effective for women to urinate on potential rapists because they are too emotional (unstable) to carry guns? Can't talk sense to those Democrats, when they all believe that, right? Meanwhile, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, etc., invoke "God" fairly frequently relative to today's times.

FortWayne says

Well Dan, my judgement or prejudging as you call comes from me knowing that we all make our choices in life. If these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them.

I'll believe that homosexuality is a choice when you prove it by making that choice. Show me that you can choose to enjoy being fucked in the ass by another guy while blowing a third, and I will gladly agree with you that homosexuality is a choice.

Since I cannot imagine choosing to enjoy gay sex, unless I see you do it, I don't believe it's a choice.

FortWayne says

And 52% of voters agreed on prop 8. So I'm not in the minority.

If 52% of the voters agreed that blacks should be slaved, would that be a good case for slavery? Rights trump majority rule.

FortWayne says

However, knowing how we humans tend to be I feel this is a slippery slope to anarchy. Today we allow homosexuality, tomorrow it will be polygamy or something worse. It's why I don't want that line moving, because that line will move more toward lawlessness and victimization. It's how Rome fell.

1. Homosexuality is not a slippery slope -- must r-e-s-i-s-t m-a-k-i-n-g j-o-k-e soooo hard-not-to...

2. Polygamy should be legal. Just because the one particular Bronze Age religion you like promoted monogamy, doesn't mean that our secular state should follow that particular religion's culture. There are plenty of religions including Islam, the fast growing religion in the world and in the U.S., that promote polygamous marriages. If you don't want Islamic cultures determining U.S. laws, then don't promote having Christian cultures determining U.S. laws.

3. Polygamy outside of marriage is already legal and damn common. Less than 1% of women are virgins when they get married. In fact, few people over 22 are virgins. You're already at the bottom of that slippery slope. Hell, 33% of Newt Gingrich's marriages are "open".

4. Polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. In fact, recognizing same-sex marriage encourages monogamy. If you are really against polygamy, you should want gay men, the most promiscuous group, to settle down into monogamous relationships.

5. The argument that legally recognized same-sex marriages will be a slippery-slope to polygamy and bestiality is the same dumb argument that interracial marriages will be a slippery-slope to polygamy and bestiality. That argument was wrong in the 1960s and its wrong today for the exact same reasons.

6. There is nothing lawless about polygamous societies. If anything, societies with polygamous marriages are more laden down with laws and restrictions. Just look at the countries and societies where polygamous marriages existed throughout history. They are the least free and most lawful, i.e. full of laws, societies in the world. In such societies the laws regulates far more behaviors than the law does in our society.

7. Rome did not fall because of polygamous marriages or its decadence. Rome fell because of its warfare industry. Every Roman empire, except Hadrian, expanded the Roman empire using military force. Rome fell because it expanded too far, was too militaristic, and outsourced its military to mercenaries. Hmmmm, what does that remind you of? Oh yes, the U.S. today. Yes, the U.S. is much like Rome before the fall, but it's because of Blackwater, not Neil Patrick Harrison.

If the U.S. falls, it won't be because of gay men getting married and adopting children. It will be because our dickless mercenaries and chicken-hawk presidents pissed off the entire rest of the world, drained our treasury, and created the breading ground for insurrection and terrorism. Don't blame the gays for that.

I hope now that I've gone through every concern of yours, you'll realize how silly it is to be afraid of gay marriage like it's going to incur the wrath of the gods and frogs will rain down from the sky. That simply isn't reality.