patrick.net

And yet here I am still responding... You can't even reply to the specific implications of the law itself that I detailed. Why is it that you think small, non-profit corporations that people form for the purpose of political speech should not have any first amendment rights, but you are a-ok with large corporations that are wealthy enough to have PACs or own media to have first amendment rights? Do the large, wealthy corporations better represent the "collective?"

Paralithodes says

They may not be the majority of Republicans, but a Republican politician can be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

Now... What would happen to a Democrat today who ran for office but was openly pro-life and anti-gay marriage?

Answer that question honestly and you'll see which side is sliding more to the extreme than the other. It might not be what you thought it was.

This refers to what many moderates call "tolerance."

Pro-choice isn't about being for abortion, it's only about not being so against it that you believe in taking away the individual's choice.

Similarly being what you call pro-gay marriage isn't as much about thinking homosexuality and gays getting married is great, as it is about not imposing my preferences or beliefs on these people who have preferences I can not necessarily relate to.

So suggesting that since some republicans can have these (basically libertarian views) and be accepted, where as democrats having the opposite views ("pro-life" (ie wanting to outlaw abortion), and against giving gay couples marriage rights) are therfore more extreme, is ludicrous.

You assume that the two sides of these coins are equally extreme. Why? Just because they are opposite positions on issues ? Do you have any idea how silly that is?

Regardless of whether you agree with the following, you have to agree that if it is true, then your point is absurd.

I would hold that being tolerant regarding "choice" and regarding gay marriage are both moderate middle of the road points of view. Whereas the opposite views are more extreme (and are both associated primarily with fundamentalist religious crowd).

marcus says

I would hold that being pro-choice and tolerant of gay marriage are both moderate middle of the road points of view.

Sure. "Tolerant" of gay marriage means nothing less than having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" as a social construct. Anything less than that is intolerant.

OK and willing to vote for gay marriage in your state, but don't want the federal government defining the term "marriage"? Intolerant.

But fully supportive of the federal government passing laws making gay "marriage" fully equal under the law in all respects but without using the term "marriage" for the current time being? Still intolerant.

Yep, You are either 100% with more federal involvement in social issues beyond just ensuring equality under the law, or you are 100% against them... That's today's liberal "moderate"

Paralithodes says

Sure. "Tolerant" of gay marriage means nothing less than having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" as a social construct. Anything less than that is intolerant.

To not even particularly care about this issue (my position), is what I call tolerance. And what's more middle of the road then not caring about an issue ?

If gays can get married and have all that marriage legally entails, I don't mind at all. I could give a fuck. Yeah, that's what I call tolerance.

Only if you make me choose, for or against gay marriage, do I choose for. But then that's only because I'm not against it. I see no reason to deprive people of what I see as rights, that benefit them and harm nobody.

Maybe you can see why I frame it as tolerance.

marcus says

To not even particularly care about this issue (my position), is what I call tolerant.

If gays can get married and have all that it legally entails, I don't mind at all. I could give a fuck. Yeah, that's what I call tolerance.

Yeah, that's the really funny thing about the issue. You're actually more indifferent about it than I am. I actually support full equality under the law, even at the federal level, which need not step into the social argument of what it is actually called. I simply don't think the federal government should take the step of actually creating a federal definition of the term "marriage," not even because I object to a gay marriage being called a "marriage" (I don't) but because I object to more unnecessary federal intervention in divisive social issues.

And there's the rub... Many people who claim they want the federal government to stay out of social issues and NOT legislate them really mean the opposite: They specifically want the federal government to interject in an issue it's not involved with, and decree in their favor.

But clarifying or codifying the definition of marriage is only about preventing people from using the law to prevent gay marriage. IT's easy to argue that not doing this is a form of intervention in to social issues (that is at this point, since a lot of gays are asking for this symbolic, but also very real form of acceptance).

MY point was that your original argument that dems are more extreme than republicans was ridiculous.

marcus says

Regardless of whether you agree with the following, you have to agree that if it is true, then your point is absurd.

You must admit that it can be argued that the fundamentalist religious backed side of these issues is the more extreme side.

Besides, I'm sure you can find plenty of pro-life democrats in the south.

marcus says

But clarifying or codifying the definition of marriage is only about preventing people from using the law to prevent gay marriage. IT's easy to argue that not doing this is a form of intervention in to social issues (that is at this point, since a lot of gays are asking for this symbolic, but also very real form of acceptance).

No, clarifying or codifying the definition of the term "marriage" is only about making the federal government take a stance on a divisive social issue and construct when it doesn't have to. It is also specifically about giving the federal government even more power to interject into everyones' lives.

I don't think it's easy at all to argue that not creating a federal definition of marriage is actually the same as intervention. Where is the federal definition of marriage now?

If you can find one: A Constitutional federal law that specifically claims that "marriage" in general across the land (i.e., not defined in the specific scope of a very narrow application in some obscure regulation) is defined as x, y, z, then sure, I could buy that argument.

You see, there are plenty of Republicans or Conservatives who support gay "marriage" (including the term) in their states, support full, equal rights for gays in federal law, but for whom having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" is an issue that ultimately is not about gay marriage at all, but about the federal government grabbing ever more expansive power. Agree or disagree with that argument, that's the perspective.

But regardless, anyone now who claims they are for gay marriage but it should be left up to the states (President Obama's last public position on the issue) is "hateful," "intolerant," etc.

No, marcus, your position is not more "moderate" or "tolerant."

marcus says

MY point was that your original argument that dems are more extreme than republicans was ridiculous.

More or less is relative... The Reps have moved to the right, and the Dems have moved to the left. Anyone who claims that only one side has moved further is either not paying attention or is blinded by their own bias. But regardless, on these two issues, a national level Rep politician could be on either side, a Dem: Not so much allowance for contrary views. Is that not true?

marcus says

You must admit that it can be argued that the fundamentalist religious backed side of these issues is the more extreme side.

10 years ago, 5 years ago - absolutely. Today: They've got some very serious competition. An all or nothing position is not more or less extreme just because it's on the other side.

marcus says

Besides, I'm sure you can find plenty of pro-life democrats in the south.

Likewise, there are plenty of pro-choice and pro-gay marriage republicans (and gasp, even "conservatives" and even some who are "religious") all over the place. I am talking about our elected representatives or leaders of the respective parties. Are there really plenty of pro-life Dems serving in the government or at notable lead in the party?

Paralithodes says

And there's the rub... Many people who claim they want the federal government to stay out of social issues and NOT legislate them really mean the opposite: They specifically want the federal government to interject in an issue it's not involved with, and decree in their favor.

Incorrect, the supremacy clause exists to allow federal statute to supercede any state statute.

Advocating for a federal definition of marriage (one way or another, either prohibiting gay marriage or allowing it) is really advocation for a universal law to be applied across each state.

And they can keep on hating, but so long as they look to the federal government for the solution to every problem of human existence, they're going to be disappointed. The federal government is never going to provide social justice or equality no matter how hard it tries.

Paralithodes says

I don't think it's easy at all to argue that not creating a federal definition of marriage is actually the same as intervention. Where is the federal definition of marriage now?

What if the federal government had NOT given women the vote? What if the federal government had not inserted itself into public school integration questions? Yes, every so often, when public opinion gets to a certain place on an issue, not intervening is (maybe not the same as intervening) might as well be an implicit form of meddling to prevent the natural (good) progress that is inevitable.

Paralithodes says

The Reps have moved to the right, and the Dems have moved to the left.

This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

The truth is that both have been moving to the right for decades.

Only a blind insane person could disagree with this:

The typical republican in today's govt is far to the right of the typical republican in 1975. Most honest republicans will acknowledge that Bob Dole, even Ronald Reagan would be labelled Rinos today if they did not march more in step with the hard right. Although I will acknowledge that also the definition of conservative has changed a lot since then! In 1975, taxes being too low, was not a "conservative" position.

Likewise, there are far less "liberals" in the democratic party today than there were in 1975. Even you seem to define a liberal, only by what right wing social issue positions they reject.

Look no further than talk radio and fox news, and all the number of retards out there who claim that Fox is no more biased than CBS, PBS, or CNN, to understand where things are at.

control point says

Incorrect, the supremacy clause exists to allow federal statute to supercede any state statute.

Sure... Where in the Constitution does it provide Congress the authorization to define a social construct such as "marriage?"

control point says

Advocating for a federal definition of marriage (one way or another, either prohibiting gay marriage or allowing it) is really advocation for a universal law to be applied across each state.

The distinction is between the rights, and interjection for pushing a social construct (the social definition of a term). Nuance. One could be completely for the former (including a universal law across the land providing the rights), yet not supportive of the latter. One could be completely supportive of gay "marriage" accross the entire country, yet still not want a particular federal intervention in defining a social construct (beyond the rights) for other specific reasons unrelated to gay marriage itself. I know... intolerant and hatful...

marcus says

This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

AKA Libertarians

Paralithodes says

The distinction is between the rights, and interjection for pushing a social construct (the social definition of a term). Nuance. One could be completely for the former (including a universal law across the land providing the rights), yet not supportive of the latter. One could be completely supportive of gay "marriage" accross the entire country, yet still not want a particular federal intervention in defining a social construct (beyond the rights) for other specific reasons unrelated to gay marriage itself. I know... intolerant and hatful...

Very good Paralithodes I went to school on this thread.

Ironic that the very group pushing for individual rights, are the ones vilified by those pushing the collective, in the name of individual "victims".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRXcaWVr_uI

marcus says

What if the federal government had NOT given women the vote? What if the federal government had not inserted itself into public school integration questions?

Once again... We're not talking about providing or denying any rights... Not you and me at least - we are on the same page. And certainly the federal government DID insert itself into issues like integration before... It was the states that defied the federal government on issues like slavery, NOT the federal government that lead the way.

Do you really believe that validity for a "marriage" should come from the federal government? Do you really think that the Federal government providing completely equal rights to gays in all respects including what is typically under the construct of marriage, but without defining "marriage" itself (meaning that it does not define what it is, and does not define what it isnt) is literally the same as denying someone the right to vote, or denying someone the right to use the same water fountain?

marcus says

This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

The truth is that both have been moving to the right for decades.

Only a blind insane person could disagree with this:

Yes of course, "only a blind insane person." Typical Patnet type response.... There can be no reasonable discussion or disagrement... Every issue is totally black and white.

marcus says

The typical republican in today's govt is far to the right of the typical republican in 1975.

Probably so.

marcus says

Likewise, there are far less "liberals" in the democratic party today than there were in 1975.

Really? Let's go farther back.

How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?
How would FDR, or LaGuardia do in today's Democratic party re. public sector unions, etc.?

The examples are endless....

marcus says
Even you seem to define a liberal, only by what right wing social issue positions they reject.

Do I? I'm not sure where you would get that idea from. I'm pretty sure I define them in terms of economic issues as well. Phrasing it in terms of "what right wing social issue positions they reject" is an interesting and particularly partisan way of phrasing it by the way... Are you able to discuss issues without name calling, extreme bias, etc?

indigenous says

Ironic that the very group pushing for individual rights, are the ones vilified by those pushing the collective, in the name of individual "victims".

The ends (and the end) justify the means.

Paralithodes says

How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?

If the top rate was 90% as it was back then, then I'm sure he would do fine.

Some "conservatives" at that time were against lowering taxes then because of the risk of deficits, which we had fought to overcome (WW2 deficits).

I guess we can both agree that a lot has changed. But I find it fascinating that with the exception of certain social issues, the interests of the wealthy and corporations are now practically the one and only definition of "conservative."

As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the social issues is to get the Christianists on board so that they stand a chance of winning elections.

Chalk it up to demographics ?

marcus says

As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the social issues is to get the
Christianists on board so that they stand a chance of winning elections.

Chalk it up to demographics ?

Yup, that's the strategy, but even that strategy has not worked in the last 2 general elections.

marcus says

Paralithodes says

How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?

If the top rate was 90% as it was back then, then I'm sure he would do fine.

From what I understand, Kennedy's often taken out of context. The right believes that he meant "cut taxes for rich people", when he discussed rising tides. I believe he was actually focused on the demand side of the curve, and middle to low income workers.

The co-opting of christians for the benefit of wealthy elites technically should never work as jesus had absolutely no love for the connected wealthy and money changers. In the end, it cost him his life. He did mention something to the effect how it will be easier to fit camel through the eye of the needle than for a rich person to get into heaven. Now we can debate literal/symbolic meaning of this, but it's nonetheless ironic how christianity has been coopted by the wealthy elites in united states to completely invert the message. But then again, so has buddhism with concepts of "mindfulness, paying attentiong and being present in the moment."

Arguing over which party is best is like arguing about which slaver beats you less. They clearly both suck, are clearly both owned by the wealthy, and neither represent the people in any sense.

There's one problem with America. We have completely lost control of our government.

Quigley says

We have completely lost control of our government.

Yes because clearly we are standing in lines for bread, being herded up for concentration camps, and beaten with hoses for say Obama is not our Exalted Leader. Truly this is just like Soviet Russia!

Claiming both sides are corrupted and all government is bad, is just a page the GOTP fringes ripped from Glibertopainism.

I say everyone should vote for the person they never heard of on every ballot this year.

There's way too much interest and money being spent on informing and educating everyone on who to vote for or who NOT to vote for. I say vote for the unknown. If he was important enough to be ignored by the media and too small to even register in the political noise then that is probably the best candidate for any post.

Vicente says

Quigley says

We have completely lost control of our government.

Yes because clearly we are standing in lines for bread, being herded up for concentration camps, and beaten with hoses for say Obama is not our Exalted Leader. Truly this is just like Soviet Russia!

Claiming both sides are corrupted and all government is bad, is just a page the GOTP fringes ripped from Glibertopainism.

Just because they've stolen away control doesn't mean they want to make that fact obvious! That wouldn't be nearly Machiavellian enough to hold on to power. If they made it so obvious that EVERY dipshit in America could clearly see it, they'd lose power again.
On an aside, I'm glad you're not in charge Vicente, if those are the first things you could think of doing to the people.

CaptainShuddup says

Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most.

No sense of humor about themselves, or anything else.

I believe my anger is properly placed. I direct it at the dems, because, if we all know that the republicans are the evil within, then the dems are the ultimate failrue for not ever offering anything of value as a counter.

Why else do you thi.nk it is that all the dem voter can ever do is bash palin and bush, joke about benghazi, and scream racism at any of the few remaining rational folk amongst us that point out all of ppaca/heritagefoundationcare failing?

If they had a point worth making, or a candidate worth backing, they would have done it by now, no?

The republicans are evil and worthless, and the dems are even more so

Bitcoins' point is well taken.

I have only slightly higher regard for Rs than Ds.

The lesson of the ages that most do not get is that conflict is caused, ALWAYS.
It is caused by those who benefit from conflict. Defense contractors, banks, politicians (most deified politicians, were deified because of war).

In this particular flavor of conflict it is politicians and lobbyists.

The back and forth between Ds and Rs is a waste of time.

Politicians ONLY care about reelection period. They get this by contributions. Until the citizens blow through this ether and TAKE responsibility for their current situation NOTHING will change, if not already too late.

How about we gang up on the I's then?
Fresh meat!

indigenous says

The back and forth between Ds and Rs is a waste of time.

SoftShell says

How about we gang up on the I's then?

Fresh meat!

How about the politicians?