Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 73 (view)
Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 4/22/2010 9:22:00 AM
I take exception to that Dad... Congress has a super majority and can pass legislation prohibiting the very thing you fear... but they won't... instead they'll start some sort of witchhunt and try to regain control in 2012. They had better be careful though, the last time they played this game, they lost 3-2 in identifying scandals and bribery.

In my opinion, if either or both houses change leadership, it won't be due to lobbying or corporate palm grease, it will be quite simply due to the current leaderships inability to do anything even when they hold all the marbles... Two years ago they claimed they couldn't do anything because they didn't have a super majority, and now that they have it they've done even less!
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 71 (view)
Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 4/19/2010 4:07:05 PM
Monty, I had a great response and my computer crashed, so I'll send this one instead

You raise an interesting point, that being a certain dollar specific amount of donations that trigger / indicate some sort of direct return is due. I think this should NEVER be the case. I don't care if you funnel 20 million legally into a campaign, there should never be a direct return on the investment, doing so is quite simply bribery. The system was set up to allow for political philosophies to be advanced through advertising / campaigning, and was never intended as a prerequisit for backscratching 101. Having said that, how does that tie in to being informed as to the issues and the posture assumed by the candidates on those issues? You have to question the intelligence and agenda of any person who spends tens of millions of dollars to get a job that in most cases pays a very low six figure annual salary. (And we wonder why the economy is phucked.)

Speaking strictly to the OP, all Americans should focus on the individual issues that are important to them, and align themselves with the candidate and party that most closely aligns with their personal political agenda. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I feel the only way to guarentee the solvency of our currency is to pass a balanced budget ammendment. I don't really even care if they pass a temorary, dedicated VAT to cover deficit reduction, let's just stop playing in the red for goodness sake!
With regard to the Health Care issue, I think it was much ado about NOTHING. I have no problem with providing care for the indigent, we've been doing it for years... I think the approach was 100% off base. We have a program in place to provide healthcare for lower income families, it's called Medicaid. Why in the world we needed a "new" program when all they had to do was raise the threshold of income qualifications for the system that currently exists is a total mystery to me.
Since I do consider myself to be informed, when the primary rolls around, I will be looking at the issues that I feel are most important, and will vote against any incumbent who went against what I feel the electorate sent him to Washington to do. When the general election rolls around, if my choices are the status quo and opposition, I'm going to have a hard time not selecting the opposition, at least I expect them not to support my agenda....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 68 (view)
Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 4/15/2010 9:06:04 AM
Not really. You even quoted the part where MG noted that those same supporters are needed for re-election. It is a neverending cycle for congressmen.

Right, I provided the quote to demonstrate he was off topic ... just as the above is.

The question is: was the person corrupt before they entered politics, or were they corrupted after entering politics? I believe it is the latter more often. Political success brings with it very seductive perks. On a similar note, star athletes often lose sight of why they got into the game after enough money has been thrown at them.

What does that have to do with knowing a politicians record before casting your vote? There is an expression "Every man has his price...." the burning question is why on earth would an informed electorate continue to vote for someone when they already know what that price is? (the OP was a general statement, has nothing to do with a specific candidate)

The implication here is that anyone who voted for Obama could not possibly have been an informed voter? My, what a big bias you have, grandma!

It's not implied, it's pretty clearly stated.... and thank you for noticing!

It is also a simplistic rationale. First of all, a politician has to begin a career in politics at some point. At the beginning, there is virtually no political record-- only ideas, platforms, promises, etc. Second, integrity can be measured in other ways than a person's history in political office. Third, in Obama's case, being from Chicago politics was seen as a setback. It would only make his case worse if he were a well entrenched Chicago politician. Of course, his opponents wanted to have it both ways-- a politician well entrenched in the corrupt Chicago scene as well as being horribly inexperienced in politics.

The simple answer is "baby steps" ... any other method is very simply a national endorsement of the Peter Principle...
I think you just offered up a confirmation that my position is correct. A person with absolutely no experience in elected office was propelled by being A. )"...well entrenched in the corrupt Chicago scene..." or B.)"... horribly inexperienced in politics." What exactly was the third option for supporting him? Was it the campaign speech about peace, love and harmony? Change we can believe in? Let's assume it was both of the above and that all who voted for him were actually well informed ... where is the peace? The love? The harmony? The change? Seems to me it's pretty much status quo inside the beltway, even more so now since he can't seem to lead his own party to water without bending the rules significantly.

Then there's Obama's challenger, McCain. Comparing his platform in 2000 versus 2008, it is difficult to figure out what McCain's "word" was-- and regarding 2008 stances, it was difficult to tell whether it was really his word or the pressure of the larger party machine close behind him that finally gave him the nomination.
An informed voter would have realized those two options could have been changed during the primary and would have done so. I don't accept the results of any decision as the correct one when that decision is based solely on the premise of "the lesser of two evils".

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 66 (view)
Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 4/14/2010 7:45:25 AM
With the American system of election financing, this cannot be really held to be true anymore. Look at how much it costs to get elected to any position in government there, then the salary you make afterwards. If you want to get re-elected, you need those people to back you again.

You're confusing the actual job with what it takes to get the job. Clearly campaign finance reform is necessary, but that's a different topic.

Also look at how many politicians (both sides) wind up in associated businesses, or connected to them, after their political careers.
Again,not the same thing ... this is a question of ethics and were it up to me there would be a limitation on future employment for any members of Congress. No one is shocked when corrupt people do corrupt things....

If they were to truly represent the people overall, then they would not be getting such support from so few people - who typically expect (and get) some return on their investment somehow. Those people do not give such amounts merely to support the democratic process....
Again you're addressing corruption and the lack of ethics.
What I'm intending to address is the vacated promise of "Change you can believe in..."
For years politicians have made promises, the only way you can determine if they are honest is to research their record, i.e.; informed.

Since the President has a very limited record, it wasn't really possible to determine if he was a man of his word or not ... kind of a huge gamble putting the reins of the most powerful office in the free world into the hands of someone who has fewer years in elected office than I do as owner of my car.....

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 64 (view)
Americans please I beg of you, vote informed
Posted: 4/11/2010 3:30:19 AM
I don't know Dad.... I've been staying away from the forums for the past year to give Obama a chance to prove himself. To be quite honest I see absolutely no difference between his policy applications and those of GWB.
The economy is in slightly worse shape, arguably a trend that began before he took office, the actual start of which is a topic for other threads.
Unemployment is at an all time high, again the origins fodder for another thread.
One thing I haven't seen is an actual change in leadership. The war continues, corporate "welfare" is at a level previously thought inconceivable. Congress is in gridlock, something that you would not expect with the Legislative and Executive branches controlled by the same party. I am not impressed with Obama's leadership, and think he'll likely go down in history as one of the least effective Presidents. Unless he manages to get Pelosi and Reid to stop all this bipartisan rhetoric I don't see the Blue Team holding the reins beyond the midterm election.
One thing people seem to forget is that Elected Officials are placed in office to represent the will of the people, so bipartisanship is not expected nor required. What I find disheartening is that those who don't toe their party line are not replaced. I am a conservative, if I don't feel that our Congressmen are representing my beliefs, I vote against them in the primary. Of course when we come to the general election I am going to vote the lesser of two evils, selecting the candidate whom if not willing to push my philosophy forward, will provide me with at least the assurance they won’t deliberately set it back 20 years … UNLESS I think changing the seating arrangement in DC will provide the clear message that they are sent to represent WE THE PEOPLE....
In short, I completely agree with the OP… Vote informed or for goodness sakes PLEASE don’t vote!
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 21 (view)
December Dinner Social 2~~Jacksonville~Brass Monkey~ Dec 5
Posted: 11/17/2009 9:03:16 AM
It's one of my first days back in town, so assuming I can get some bike riding in during the day, I may swing by there!
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 167 (view)
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 5/25/2009 10:40:32 AM
Maybe you should take down the straw man.
Every position you've espoused on this subject is made of straw!

The post is Coulter attacks single mothers, not Coulter attacks ALL single mothers.

I'm surprised you left out the argument that all single parents (in some capacity) must function as both mother AND father, so in addition to being a misogynist, you could argue she’s also a femme-Nazi! Or perhaps sexist in that her comparison made no allowances for effeminate single fathers.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
Corporate Welfare related with Bailout
Posted: 2/17/2009 5:18:17 PM
The thing that gets me is that for the past 8 years all I've heard on CNN and other Mainstream Media outlets is Corporate Welfare this, and Corporate Welfare that, and now that we're entrenched in the anti-corporate liberal love fest so many have been waiting for, the first piece of legislation, hands over a trillion dollars to corporations and banks ... yet not a single word from CNN or the Mainstream Media outlets resembling "Corporate Welfare" or any other synonym. Wonder why that is.....?????? Hmmmmmm?
Billions in taxpayer funds to corporations that make cars that we can't afford even if we wanted them, and banks that make loans to people who have no ability to pay them back, and absolutely no requirement that they do anything differently! The only thing that was stimulated by this package was my blood pressure!
The big three will STILL file bankruptcy; they just have the luxury of blowing through hundreds of billions in taxpayer money first. As for the banks, the smart thing to do would have been to buy up all the "weak" home loans, cut some to 50%, some to 25% and some to 0%.... the banks would have gotten their money back, the homeowners would have been able to keep their homes, and the money they saved would go back into the economy in a rush of retail purchases, (even new cars), and the influx of tax revenue would have been unprecedented. All this "stimulus" has done is give banks the assurance that they would be in business long enough to go through the foreclosure process, and the big three the ability to make their union payments for another 6 or 8 months.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 103 (view)
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 2/2/2009 7:53:35 AM

Funny how the paranoid can perceive that as an attack.

Lets see... in the past two posts, you've insulted her appearance 4 times and insisted she required medical attention for your diagnosis ... I believe you prescribed a sandwich... must be that holistic medicine I've heard so much about.

She needs a sandwich!

You’ve attacked her personal appearance and basically declared mental instability as a result of your diagnosis … In neither post did you address the issue, only your opinion of her appearance.

Her overly ectomorphic frame matches her cerebrotonic attitude of looking down on those she doesn't approve of.

If one considers that an insult it's an indication of their own paranoia?

I would suggest she seeks a doctor about anorexia or some other illness that is eating away at her.
She doesn't need to see a Doctor, you've already diagnosed her illness...

However, I think like most anorexics,
she thinks it's everyone else in the world thats wrong and thinks she's in perfect health and has to maintain her mean, stubborn appearance to shield the insignificant feelings that drive her to hold outrageous positions.
Physician! Heal thyself!
If I was one to take things out of context, I could show that to be a text book example of paranoia. Fortunately I'm not, nor am I a Doctor, so you'll have to perform a self diagnosis, hopefully you'll prescribe yourself something from at least one of your favorite food groups.

The assertion that children with these issues are limited to single parent homes is NOT what she said, she is merely saying statistically the issues are significantly increased in children of single mothers, and that the moral lapse in society and the absence of promoting the nuclear family concept is to blame for the dramatic increase in the ratio of single mothers. It’s not a shell game, it’s merely connecting the dots. If you want to decrease the number of children with criminal tendencies, then treat the cause, not the symptoms. Selecting the demographic with the highest rate of offense and focusing attention on them seems like common sense to me, but then again I’ve always thought doing things to keep your children out of jail and off of drugs was far cheaper than bailing them out of jail and paying for drug rehab … maybe I need a sandwich too….
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 98 (view)
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 2/1/2009 7:52:03 AM
Attacking her physical appearance? So if she were say, Jessica Simpson-esque then her message would be more palatable, or would you advise her to put down the sandwich?

It’s still the same tired partisan schpill, attack the messenger by any means necessary; character, physical appearance, anything at all to divert attention from the actual message for which no reasonable defense can be offered…
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 96 (view)
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 1/31/2009 9:00:22 PM

These disturbing trends are equally as present in two-parent families. Blaming it on single mothers is the whitewash.

Personally I think the disturbing trend is the attempt to discredit anything someone says simply because they're not of a preapproved set of political convictions. Facts and statistics don't lie. Because Coulter used them for justification of her position doesn't mean she misrepresented them, and simply because we know children of two parent families that ended up with the same issues, doesn't mean she's wrong, but likely that the child was a product of a "different" yet similar dysfunctional family environment.
The truly disturbing trend is in the dismissal of the message based on the perception of the messenger without any regard for the actual message itself....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 77 (view)
Bush's Legacy
Posted: 1/28/2009 8:01:04 AM

I highly doubt it.

"The Bush"/"The Dubya"/"The High-Functioning Moron" ... hurt way too many people for that to ever happen. He ruined our economy and illegally invaded two sovereign countries ... causing thousands of deaths while he and his cronies sat back and got rich off of it.

Nope ... I think you're wrong. The historians/writers ... many who probably also lost their life savings and some loved ones in the process ... will also not depict it nicely, because it truly wasn't "nice".

His presidency was a failure and he left a trail of destruction behind that was unprecedented in the history of our country.

For THAT ... he will be remembered until the end of time.

Do you have a link that proves any of this?
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 436 (view)
Are women scared off by harleys
Posted: 1/28/2009 7:50:50 AM
No I don't want to bungee jump, and I did all the skydiving I care to do in my flashy OD greens 30 years ago.

I used to live in Ft. Lauderdale through the 90's and recognize there are places in South Florida where a motorcycle is not the best choice for primary transportation. I would no more consider riding a motorcycle in rush hour in Miami than I would consider wading in an alligator infested swamp with raw chicken stuffed in my underwear... Common sense needs to come into play in everything, and trying to apply it to motorcycle safety only is somewhat myopic, in that those same "dangers" can just as readily impact you as a pedestrian, bicyclist, or even in a 4 wheeled vehicle while on your way to bungee jump or skydive (and occasionally sitting in your favorite chair sitting in the living room watching TV). Yes I did ride my bike down there, made many trips to the Keys and (knock wood) never had an accident, and it wasn't because all of those things you fear didn't exist, it was because I, using common sense, recognized their existance and took steps to minimize their potential impact on me.

Now then, about Daytona and Bike Week... is anyone planning anything this year? Last year they'd planned something at the Iron Horse, but apparently I got there late and missed them all.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 434 (view)
Are women scared off by harleys
Posted: 1/28/2009 6:25:28 AM
For all the non "fraidy cats" (both men and women) is anyone planning any POF gatherings in Daytona for Bike Week? It's coming up very soon (Feburary 28th thru March 8th)
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 75 (view)
Bush's Legacy
Posted: 1/28/2009 5:56:39 AM
Again, perhaps in YOUR opinion... clearly my sentiments of your grasp of the issues is similar, I however see no benefit to attacking you or insulting your intelligence. Truly educated people recognize that opinions of these issues are individual assessments and have no problem with the notion that others have different experiences and therefore differing opinions. In my opinion, it's only the small minded pseudo intellectuals, clinging to the misguided notion that only their opinions and assessments can be correct and through attacks and insults attempt to "persuade" people to accept their opinions as the only true grasp of reality.

Bush, like Reagan and Clinton will be fondly remembered by some, and cursed by others. Once the emotional driven fallacies (both pro and anti-Bush) are finally put to bed, Bush will take his place somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 72 (view)
Bush's Legacy
Posted: 1/28/2009 5:23:07 AM

The thing is, some of your opinions seem contrary to what actually happened.

Perhaps in YOUR opinion... Is there a link that "proves" my opinion is not my opinion?
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 70 (view)
Bush's Legacy
Posted: 1/28/2009 4:53:02 AM
The OP is about our OPINIONS of Bush's legacy.... I need a link to prove it's my opinion?

I believe someone referred to him as a "high functioning moron" is there a link that proves that to be the case or is it only YOUR opinion that doesn't require the dreaded "link of proof"?

Emotion and the passion of those emotions is what drives polling numbers, not facts. Reagan was alleged to have gotten his high marks because the poll was conducted at the time of his death... Clinton got high marks initially, but this past year his popularity began to diminish... While Bush wont achieve marks as the greatest President of this generation, he certainly won't be the "worst" President of all time, at least in my opinion... Wait do I need a link for this?

How about this one:
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 65 (view)
Bush's Legacy
Posted: 1/27/2009 7:20:30 PM
Just as a partial list of the things I will remember GWB for...
1) He ended a more than decade long series of attacks on the US by Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
2) He governed over 7 years of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity.
3) He brought all Americans together in the wake of 9/11.
4) He executed post 9/11 policies that caused the most partisan rift in American History since the Civil War.
5) He put the interests of all Americans first, despite the objections of those in the UN that constantly hold their hand out for US aid.
6) He provided a lot of laughs from comedians who impersonated his misspeaks.
7) He never stooped to the level of his critics, rather than respond in kind to the vicious and largely unfounded allegations made against him, he never once launched a personal attack against the character of his most outrageous critics.
8) He exposed many members of congress for the hypocrites they are, and not by pointing anything out, but rather by allowing them to run unchecked on sound bytes all the while voting contrary to their espoused positions.
9) He exposed the bias in the media by simply doing the job he was elected to do and providing them with sufficient rope to hang themselves.
10) He failed to force the issue of regulation successfully against partisan opposition.
11) He failed to veto the initial stimulus package because of the absence of sufficient controls and stipulations concerning the use of the funds.
12) He failed to reign in wasteful government spending.
13) He failed to force the regulation of issues of campaign reform, term limitations, PAC funds and lobbying.
14) He succumbed to political pressure and made personnel changes despite the fact that no errors were made in the initial response of the Federal Govt. handling of Katrina. Pressure that actually created an over compensation resulting in tremendous wasteful spending.
15) He convinced ½ his critics that he is a complete imbecile, and the other ½ that he was the most evil political mastermind in the history of the world.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
Timeline of FEMA and Flood Control Under BushCo Management
Posted: 1/17/2009 9:25:36 AM
Three and a half years later and we're still discussing Katrina? Blaming Bush or anyone in the Federal Government for the botched evacuation of New Orleans is a demonstration of the lack of understanding of not just FEMA, but of the responsibilities of the various levels of government.

No where on planet earth does any single agency or corporation exist with the ability to provide emergency RELIEF for tens of thousands of people in 15 minutes ... 1 hour ... 1 day ... or even 1 week. People, for whatever reason distort the actual rescue effort, effort that should have been dedicated to relief had so many tens of thousands not been completely failed by their state and local governments. Air rescue craft could (and should) have been utilized for the delivery of medical supplies and food and water had they not been busy pulling the 35,000 people off of roof tops that had been abandoned by Nagen while he was preoccupied with the closing on his new house in Houston for his family to live in during the disaster recovery period.

I don't have a lot of love for Bush, but let's try to use a little common sense here. The President of the United States is not in charge of any city police or fire departments, nor public transportation departments, it is the MAYOR and only the Mayor that is responsible for that abject failure. The Governor is in charge of the National Guard, and waiting until 12 hours before the hurricane to relinquish that control to the Federal Government with absolutely no standing orders for evacuation is again, quite simply abject failure, and if I had lost a loved one in Katrina, I would be filing a wrongful death suit against both the Mayor and Governor.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 40 (view)
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 1/17/2009 8:42:04 AM
I say that the media and society has created a monstrous idea that casual sex which results in single motherhood, is responsible. Making it more shameful to be found pregnant at 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even 18 would be better than the alternative of abortions and children raising children. The norm these days is when a girl is having sex, gets pregnant, she is rewarded with a monthly government check, food stamps, section 8 housing, and the opportunity to go and do it all over again. There is no deterrant for unwed mothers anymore. She hasn't found love in the home, so she decides to bring a baby into the world, hoping it will give her the life she's fantasized about her whole life. Of course, when the child interfers with her social life, the child gets pushed aside, and mom's needs are met before the childs. If it's lucky enough, a grandparent is around to step in and give it the attention it is not getting from it's mother. And so the cycle repeats itself. Children are not being taught to abstain from a mindset of always having pleasure on demand, regardless what it is.

I think if Caylee Anthony were available for comment, she would see things as Ms. Coulter does....

The photos show Casey Anthony smiling and posing with various people at an Orlando club in the US.
The pictures were taken on June 20 yet on July 15 she went to police and told them her two-year-old daughter Caylee had been missing since June 9.
Anthony, from Orlando, is being held in jail on charges of child neglect, making false official statements and obstructing a criminal investigation.
She has not been charged with her daughter's murder but is being held on a £250,000 bond as a person of interest.
Police say they fear Caylee has been murdered but they have not released details of any suspect.
In transcripts of a 911 call, Caylee's grandmother tells an operator she thought her own daughter's car had been used to transport a body.
"There's something wrong," Cindy Anthony told the dispatcher.
"I found my daughter's car today, and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."
In three 911 calls, she said she wanted to press charges against her daughter Casey, 22, for "grand theft", then in a second call she said she had someone in her home who needed to be arrested in relation to a missing toddler.
Casey Anthony claims her babysitter took the child and she did not report the girl missing for a month because she thought she could find the pair.

Looks like a text book example of what Ms. Coulter is telling us in her book. We have statistics and we have an actual application that proves her opinion ... still want to argue the point? (By the way, Casey was either 17 or 18 when she became pregnant with her now deceased daughter, and she has now been charged with her murder...)
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 32 (view)
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 1/16/2009 10:54:26 AM

Perhaps not. But, I can gaurantee you that a lifestyle of a man and woman living together outside of wedlock would cause Coulter to tear you down as much as she tears down all other lifestyles that don't fit her narrow minded view of the world.

Sure, she's an idiot, but she's basically correct about single motherhood. More often than not, single motherhood is not something that happens to you, but something you choose. Why should I have to pay for the bad decision making skills of single mothers?

Why is it that "progressive" people pigeon hole all who disagree with them as "narrow minded" or "idiots" isn't that the very antithesis of progressive thinking? When the Red team held power, dissent was promoted as true patriotism, yet now that the Blue team is in control the goal seems to be to squash all dissenting opinions… Where I come from that’s called hypocrisy.

I find Ann Coulter to be extremely abrasive, yet I agree with her perspective completely on many issues. HOWEVER, for the most part I do not approve of her delivery methods, but then again, if she promoted the left position rather than her own, then she could be one of the nicer people on Air America. I guess the goal is to eliminate the messenger, thereby eliminating the message…

Comrade Pelosi, Comrade Reid, Comrade Obama, welcome to Washington!
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 53 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 1/16/2009 10:12:25 AM
Here's a thought... advertising is a double edged sword. If you don't like the manner in which a corporation spends its advertising dollars, then simply boycott not just the product, but the media in which it is advertised in. If you dont like Hannity, then don't watch FOX or listen to his radio show. Advertisers are listening to their bottom line, not political rhetoric or left wing socialist hate speech.

My cable company has 118 channels on the extended package, I have 117 NOT -FOX options on TV and close to 30 strong signal AM and FM options, all but one of which is again, NOT -FOX ... I'm fairly certain you have similar options, as well as the ever popular OFF button.....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 56 (view)
How do you feel about Congress voting itself a raise?
Posted: 1/12/2009 6:24:52 AM
Some people can't see the forest for the trees.... we seem to get so hung up on percentage of income we miss the real impact, the one measured with this symbol $ as opposed to this one %.

Let's assume the 1% own 35% of the wealth.... they pay 90% of the income tax revenue. Isn't that more $$$$$ than the other 99% with a massive multiplier? Why is it they get all these tax breaks, perhaps it's because of the credits received for investment (investment is what creates both jobs AND wealth by the way....)

20% of $200,000,000 will always be significantly more than 30% of $50,000. Instead of focusing on the %, look at the real contribution, the actual $$$$$. Buffet may pay a lower rate than his assistant, but in real dollars he pays an amount equal to 8 times her annual salary. In case you weren't paying attention, had he paid ZERO, that's a potential for 8 "new" middle class jobs... Instead, his contribution was used to increase the salary of government workers. No where but government service is such obvious abject failure rewarded by pay increases.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
Obama taps another Clintonite - Panetta as Head of CIA...
Posted: 1/7/2009 4:21:46 AM
I find humor in the Administration naming Panetta without even consulting with the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee...

Personally I see it as a positive sign, not the actual selection, but rather the "I don't need your approval" approach Obama seems to have taken. It will end up crushing him politically, especially since he's previously picked moderates rather than uber liberals to fill his cabinet posts.

Other than Obama's address, does anyone see "change"?
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
Obama taps another Clintonite - Panetta as Head of CIA...
Posted: 1/6/2009 1:46:28 PM

Feinstein Furious Over Panetta Pick

Monday, January 5, 2009 7:22 PM

Sen. Diane Feinstein is reportedly fuming that Barack Obama picked Leon Panetta as his new CIA Director and never consulted with her.

Feinstein, the incoming chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, issued a sharp statement Monday that was a thinly veiled criticism of the pick. The statement made it clear that she had expected a career intelligence professional – unlike Panetta, who has no intelligence expertise whatsoever – to be leading the CIA.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director,’’ Feinstein said.

“I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Panetta could face tough questions at his nomination hearing about his background in intelligence.

A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, whose only military and intelligence experience is a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant.

The official told the Associated Press that Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House.

The source said Panetta was selected for his administrative, management and political skills that will allow him both to control and advocate for the agency.

The official added that Panetta will rely on the expertise of CIA officers to balance his lack of personal intelligence experience.

Veterans of the CIA were caught off guard by the selection.

"I'm at a loss," said Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA's counterterrorism center and 27-year veteran of the agency who now is managing director of Kroll, a security consulting company.

The lack of intelligence experience puts Panetta at "a tremendous disadvantage," Grenier told The Associated Press in an interview.

"Intelligence, by its very nature, is an esoteric world. And right now the agency is confronted with numerous pressing challenges overseas, and to have no background is a serious deficit. I don't say that he can't succeed. It may be that he can compensate for the obvious deficit."

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., ranking member of the committee, raised the specter of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in questioning Panetta's experience after reports surfaced that Obama had tapped the former congressman and White House chief of staff to head the CIA.

“Job number one at the CIA is to track down and stop terrorists," Bond said in a statement reported by The Hill Web site. "In a post-9-11 world, intelligence experience would seem to be a prerequisite for the job of CIA Director."

Bond said that he will refrain from judging Panetta immediately, but he warned Obama and Panetta that he "will be looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”

This better than reality TV!
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
Obama taps another Clintonite - Panetta as Head of CIA...
Posted: 1/6/2009 9:02:46 AM
Can you say "obtuse"?

Panetta is just another tired Washington insider face. This is the same game Clinton played and we all know Panetta was a representative since the first year of the Carter Administration all the way up till he went to work for Clinton. A guy leaves DC for a year and when he shows back up suddenly he's "new" and "fresh" and represents "change". Give me a break....

Richardson, probably a pretty good guy certainly seems to have a good "game face" and considering all the good he's done, it would be a crying shame for his record to be tarnished over something as idiotic as this. Then again, Clinton tarnished his name over something a lot dumber and just as avoidable.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 5 (view)
Obama taps another Clintonite - Panetta as Head of CIA...
Posted: 1/6/2009 4:27:08 AM
Whats he under investigation for?

The Resko scandal.... Actually I didn't think it was all that big of a deal, a wealthy "friend" doing a favor for a not so wealthy friend, and then it turns out after the lot disection, Obama was instrumental in Resko getting millions in gov't contracts...

I actually don't have an issue with anyone Obama picks, as President it's his perogative to surround himself with a Cabinet that will do things his way. I just think its ironic that he pushed change so hard and then seems to have signed up every Democratic Washington insider from the Clinton Administration that is still alive and not in prison!
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 1 (view)
Obama taps another Clintonite - Panetta as Head of CIA...
Posted: 1/5/2009 1:36:30 PM

WASHINGTON – Two Democratic officials say President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA. Panetta was a surprise pick for the post, with no experience in the intelligence world. An Obama transition official and another Democrat disclosed his nomination on a condition of anonymity since it was not yet public.

Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime congressman from California.

He served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for the reversing course in the Iraq war.

Panetta currently directs with his wife Sylvia the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at California State University, Monterey Bay a university he helped establish on the site of the former U.S. Army base, Fort Ord.

This is beginning to look a lot like 1993... All we need now is a real estate scandal to follow Obama into the White House and... ooops nevermind....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 48 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 12/24/2008 4:58:16 AM

You enjoy hearing a chorus of propaganda. Keep listening, to the party line.

Remember The Economy is sound. It is a mental depression, result of misinformation from the liberal Media.

I have a different attitude, I want this practice to end. You are going to be supportive of Obama this practice.
If you are familiar with the book "1984", the premise is somewhat chicken little-esque in nature in that if something is proclaimed long enough, often enough and loud enough it becomes the truth. The stock market investors are no different than anyone else, and if you researched dates of doom and gloom sound bytes in coloration with stock market activity you'll see the nay sayers were claiming a horrible economic state for years, even while the market was making record gains, jobs were being created in record numbers and unemployment was at an all time low.
Money doesn’t “disappear” it exists in its previous form and amount to this day. The problem with the investment aspect of the economy was the cessation of new investment, i.e.; money simply stopped flowing from one crucial segment of the economy to the other in response to the media proclamation that all was lost…

As for press releases, of course I’m in favor of the White House telling us what they’re doing, while accepting that its human nature to shade things in a manner that is supportive of ones own agenda. Our job, as informed citizens, is to weed through the partisan rhetoric and decide for ourselves how the issue impacts us. Afterall, we have brains, it'd be a shame not to use them....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 119 (view)
You must do penance if you voted for Obama Abortion issue
Posted: 12/24/2008 4:30:22 AM
The peril of including the word abortion in a political discussion is the morality rationalization aspect becomes forefront...

Supporting the “right” to abortion but coloring it as though it is other than subornation of abortion is akin to being in favor of the death penalty but opposed to execution … it’s simply nonsensical.

Abortion, the act of abortion is the extrication of a fetus whether fully developed or "unviable". Rationalization of the procedural or developmental aspect does in no way diminish the act. Claiming a fetus in any stage is “unviable” because it cannot sustain itself outside the womb is a very shallow and misleading argument since no infant is born with the capability of sustaining itself.

This thread is pretty much worn out and there is little to offer that hasn’t already been covered ad nauseum. Some feel the Priest had the right to define the moral aspect of abortion subornation to his congregation in a manner that does not influence the election (based on the proclamation coming in a post election manner), and others feel that once an issue becomes politicized it is off limits for any religious organization to identify their support or opposition to the issue. I doubt anyone could add or rephrase anything that could sway an already entrenched opinion on the subject.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 47 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 12/23/2008 11:35:29 AM

I really don't care which party is in office. Propagada an Abuse of the office.
So we should eliminate the position of White House Press Secretary? You do realize it's been around since the 1920's, and traditionally has been filled by some sort of media correspondent almost without exception. As for the common sense aspect, why would you appoint someone to such a high (and influential) office if that person weren't on board with forwarding your agenda?

If Clinton had broken the law Ken Starr would have exposed it.
Starr did expose his criminal acts, and much like the Scooter Libby issue, there wasn't sufficient evidence to link him directly to the crime, merely criminal actions during the investigation.
As much as you dislike Bush and / or the conservative agenda, the issuance of press releases to media friendly sources are not criminal actions, definitely not anymore than they were for his predecessors...
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 46 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 12/23/2008 7:33:21 AM

I'm not aware of any past administration that didn't issue press releases or "talking points"

Talking points are not press releases. Clinton did not send talking points to right talkers only, or have conference calls with select groups.

Taking things out of context are we?
My post, in proper context was:
"I'm not aware of any past administration that didn't issue press releases or "talking points" to select segments of the media, specific sources that would get their agenda the most mileage, why is it only now considered a bad thing? Perhaps because we actually get to hear both sides of the story when a media unpopular administration is in power, as opposed to the previous arrangement of just one version … Now that the PEBO team is issuing press releases, will "talking points" go back to being considered a good thing? "

Purely from a common sense perspective, how would sending press releases to Conservative Talk Radio advance the liberal agenda of the Clinton Administration?

To begin, you don't know who the Clinton Administration selected as their "propaganda" outlet, but since we were made aware of news pretty much daily, it's safe to assume they did have some liberally biased outlet, and used it with tremendous frequency. How do you know he didn’t have conference calls with specific media outlets? Communication, particularly media manipulation, is paramount to political success; Hitler knew it and did it successfully, as did Kruchev, Kennedy, Castro and Reagan… Granted back in the technological stone age of the Clinton Administration we didn't have immediate access to the millions of instantaneous op-ed pieces we access now, but significant issues did manage to make their way into dinner table conversations across the nation, just as they had done under every administration since the advent of electronic communication. To insist that no other administration prior to the current one manipulated the press in any way is either disingenuous or completely naïve.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 38 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 12/21/2008 7:52:42 AM
I think its all part of that economic theory of trickle up... Advertisers pay according to the popularity of the show, which in turn generates more revenue for them. What some apparently want is to remove the choice aspect where we are forced to listen to things we don't want to hear, from people we don't want to listen to, and require advertisers to run their ads on stations nobody wants to tune in, in the interest of "fairness". Rather ironic that there are far more registered democrats than republicans, and even more "left" leaner’s than "right" yet the "left" talk shows tanked, and the "right" ones are making money hand over fist... Personally, I think it's the message. The Air America on air personalities by & large made their claim to fame in other medias, so it probably isn't an issue of the messenger. I think it was the venomous approach that did them in, and the over the top unrealistic attacks on the GOP while ignoring the problems within their own party. For all the issues I have with talk radio, the abandonment of core principals (conservatism) is not one of them.
The fairness doctrine will work, but I think after a biref period all we'll hear on radio is static all we'll see on TV is sitcoms.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 33 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 12/19/2008 4:55:02 AM

I researched the Hatch Act, and could not see where it made it illegal for the white house to distribute information to the media.

I didn't see the connection between the two either. The Hatch Act applies to non-policy makers, or career type civil servants, as opposed to elected officials and their political appointees. The Hatch Act has absolutely no bearing on the fairness doctrine, nor does it have any bearing on the White House staff to release press reports or "talking points".

I'm not aware of any past administration that didn't issue press releases or "talking points" to select segments of the media, specific sources that would get their agenda the most mileage, why is it only now considered a bad thing? Perhaps because we actually get to hear both sides of the story when a media unpopular administration is in power, as opposed to the previous arrangement of just one version … Now that the PEBO team is issuing press releases, will "talking points" go back to being considered a good thing?
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 18 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 12/17/2008 6:46:26 AM
which means every channel is going to sound just like Fox news....

That still cracks me up.

I find this a little disturbing, and here's why... When people receive unbiased and balanced information, they have a tendency to form their opinions based on facts. In these forum threads we see far more emotion than fact and the opinions espoused are based on the belief that certain things are indisputable fact, when in actuality they are nothing more than unfounded supposition, speculation, conjecture and allegations provided from sources that are biased ... in short, their "informed" opinions are based on the uninformed opinions of others. We have a large segment of the country that seems to have forgotten that we are a nation of free thinkers, not merely sheep who accept everything we see or hear as politically neutral. When you hear significantly negative information, one has a natural human tendency to become emotionally invested in opposing the leadership of the party identified as responsible for the negativity. When one hears only significantly positive information, conversely one becomes emotionally invested in defending that party leadership. When one receives actual information presented in a manner that eliminates as much personal bias as humanly possible, then and only then can one form an objective opinion.

When you research the balance aspect of network and cable news media outlets, you find that those accusing FOX News of bias are significantly lacking in supporting statistical data. Likewise, those promoting CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and others as neutral are also lacking in statistical support for their statement of "unbiased fact".
There are numerous studies by, and media studies at collegiate levels demonstrating statistical data that all outlets are left leaning, merely that FOX leans less left than the rest, and yes, by a significant margin, which creates the incorrect assumption that they are biased.
A lot of people, and I can't imagine why any intelligent person would do this, categorize Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as reporters when in fact they are not. They are paid specifically for their personal conservative interpretation of current events in the news, known as "news information programming" and while not nearly as funny, they are no more tasked with nor responsible for being any more impartial than Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or the entire cast of SNL.

For this reason alone, I think the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” will have an effect that is significantly different than what is widely anticipated, and frankly, other than the censorship aspect of it, I have absolutely no problem with a hardwired guarantee that all of us receive the same fair and balanced news reporting possible. Back in the day, this used to be considered "journalistic integrity" and in my opinion, has been absent from the mainstream media since 1960...
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 11/30/2008 6:39:30 AM
I'd love to see it come back... That would put an end to Keith and Chris and whatever it is running up and down their legs... There is no true media source for conservative ideaology other than talk radio, and we already know its not a viable outlet for liberal ideaology.
One thing I think the left fails to consider in pressing for this, is that all the other news programs are going to have to adjust their reporting, moving not just to the center, but providing equal time for each position, which means every channel is going to sound just like Fox news....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 59 (view)
You must do penance if you voted for Obama Abortion issue
Posted: 11/29/2008 10:03:23 AM
Before I get back on topic, allow me to clarify the difference between the colonization of North America and the drafting of the documents which control our political and social spectrum.
To begin, we (the country now known as the United States of America) were settled by Christians. This is indisputable fact, yet for some reason, those ignorant (or simply in denial) of that indisputable fact always point to the founding fathers as other than pious Christians as some sort of evidence that there was no Judeo-Christian influence into the drafting of our constitution and subsequent bill of rights. One does not have to be of any particular religion to recognize the benefit of utilizing religious tenets as a sound basis for the cornerstone of social behavior, and while I don't see any reason to debate the individual religious ideology of the founding fathers, no rational person could discount the overwhelming influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

The priest who exhorted his parishioners to do penance if they voted for Obama was pushing his own agenda--which, in my opinion, has no foundational footing in the lives of American voters. My vote is mine alone. It cannot be dictated by a religious leader--or by anone.
I think you're missing a couple of points. 1.) The good Padre issued his edict AFTER the election, and there was nothing he said that deviated from the moral proclamation of the Church he ministers for, and to the parishioners he ministers to. 2.) His opinion, did not offer a means of time travel to go back in time and vote for anyone at all, merely identified that promoting abortion was a sin, and supporting anyone who favored sin, as identified by the Catholic Church, required atonement.
I agree with very few issues of the Catholic Church, but recognize as with me, the members of the church have free will and are not compelled by anything other than their own conscious as a means to resolve such an obvious conflict of faith...
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 56 (view)
You must do penance if you voted for Obama Abortion issue
Posted: 11/29/2008 7:25:22 AM
Good Morning Miss Brandi!

Why are you assuming that I have disdain for anything religious? I don't CARE what/who/where people worship, and I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy or the claim that because I'm calling out the hypocrites. The people who claim to be religious when their actions say otherwise. The people who are more worried about beating others over the head with the words of their supreme being of choice than actually following them. Like the woman I know who is RC and attends church faithfully every Sunday... yet had 8 children with 7 different fathers... and told my children at the age of 3 and 5 that they're going to hell because their mother is an athiest. She might feel she has a "right" to do that in the name of Jesus, but doing so infringes on my family's right to walk down the street without some moron with an overactive sex drive and fake morals taking potshots at us.
It seems you're wanting to imply that all Christians stand on the street and preach, that all of religious women have children from multiple fathers... So if you're wondering where I got the notion you have disdain for all things religious, you need only read your own paragraph above. Quite simply, rather than identifying someone as "some moron with an overactive sex drive and fake morals" you refer to them as Christian and imply it's an accurate stereotype.
I've never read the Canadian constitution, I've only read ours, and we have the right to freedom of speech as well as the right to freedom of religion.

Tell me Tim, if my "religion" stated that I needed to go stand outside every Christian place of worship and insult them constantly for hours a day would you uphold my freedom of speech or would you stick up for the people who have the right to walk down the street and into their place of worship without someone screaming in their face?
You seem to want to do the former now, and if you were here, you would have every right to. Have you not been watching the news when Prop 8 failed in CA? It's EXACTLY what happened here!

Then this employee of the church should not use his position of authority within that church to further his personal agenda. The fact is, he is trying to shame and belittle his followers into doing what he wants... going so far as to order a punishment for it. You don't see this as a problem?
The problem is that he or she would be espousing their opinions, I'm sure you would have no objection if they were preaching a sermon that followed your political philosophy. The specific occurrence began AFTER the election, and it isn't the first time Religious leaders have called their parishioners to task for not observing the basic morality promoted by their specific brand of religion.

I didn't go to a private school either Tim, I went to a government funded public school in a town of 2000 people. Did your public school also take time to observe the religious rites of the Jewish students? The Muslim students? Wasn't it, then, a form of forcing Christianity on all students?
I think you missed the part where I said if you didn't want to participate in the prayer or the pledge of allegiance you were required to remain silent... The only way to assure the observation all religious beliefs is segregation ... we tried it here and it doesn't work. Perhaps it might work in Canada; you should run it by your representatives and see what happens. Likely you'll be considered by them as the same as the street preachers you have such contempt for...

You're also making the assumption that your country was founded on Christian tenets, it wasn't. So telling others that they should just shut up and put up and let Christians do as they will is dishonest.
I don’t know where you learned of US history but our country was founded on Christian tenets. The first settlers came here to worship free from persecution, they were not shipped here because they were atheists or agnostics, but because their particular brand of religion was not recognized as legitimate by the church of England ... then, about 150 years later, some 6 generations, the "founding fathers" decided to draft documents that prevented the government promotion of one religion over another. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights do NOT prevent any type of religion, to the contrary they worded the documents whereby all beliefs and non beliefs could be accepted and protected equally. The constitution does not provide for a national religion (i.e.: a theocracy), as a requirement of public office, and that’s pretty much the only "separation of church & state". Recognizing the varied religious backgrounds of the colonial representatives as well as the varied beliefs of their constituents, as we would expect all intelligent people to do, they avoided inserting reference to doctrine specific to any denomination or religion. Basically, they had the wisdom to agree on one thing, that there was a God, and in him we trust, and that answered the need to address religion in the documents.

Religious people have the right to preach.. they can preach in church, at home, on private property, during public functions specifically for that purpose. I don't have the choice to live in a city where solicitations such as these are illegal (as a matter of fact, I'm sure that most don't).
So, the right to worship should exist so long as their beliefs are restricted to specific buildings / areas and at specific times of the day? I recognize you don't see any similarity in your position to there’s, you want them to stop imposing their will on you, by imposing your own on them.... It's simply one flavor of “hypocrisy” over another if you ask me.

Simply saying that you have a right to stand wherever you want, saying whatever you want is not fair to those who have a right to live their lives minding their own business without interference.
The problem with freedom of speech is that it is on occasion offensive to some. Would you prefer the right be abolished? To apply such a movement fairly it would be an end to public discourse.

BTW, I don't do things in public that could be offensive to people of faith because, honestly, I have the common sense to realize that my beliefs are my own and I don't get to subject a random person on the street to it.
Ahhhh but you do. Your beliefs inspire you keep them personal to avoid ridicule; theirs apparently inspire them to make their beliefs public, despite the probability of public ridicule. Is your belief more worthy of rights than theirs? You are free to stand on the corner and preach of the absence of God if you so choose ... rather than observe your right to do so, you seem to prefer to eliminate theirs in order to achieve your agenda of acceptable tolerance...

Who is telling people of faith that they can't display personal items in their own workspace? Nobody.... they're saying that the government can't sponsor (using taxpayer money) displays promoting any one religion over the others. I'm sure anyone waiting in line at a government office who isn't a Christian would appreciate a 10 foot display of the ten commandments any more than Christians would appreciate a 10 foot "Jebus is the Debil" display in a courthouse where the judge is staunchly anti-Christian. The government should not be in the business of personal faith in ANY capacity.
Actually a lot of US employers have policies that prevent any display of faith on company property, I was in a "pre-meeting" once when an employee was asked to remove a crucifix lapel pin prior to meeting with the client. Even Wal-Mart has a policy preventing their greeters from saying "Merry Christmas", but are directed to say "Happy Holidays".
As for the Ten Commandments, the laws of every western nation is based on them, seems rather ignorant to deny Judeo-Christian influence on this or any other similar nation.

My parents did not have the choice to live where they did, and it was NOT a private school. It was a government run school in a remote area where people from 3 surrounding towns sent their children because it was the only schooling available. I "tolerated" the nuns making snide remarks at people like me, I tolerated corporal punishment by the nuns, I even tolerated being left out of activities outside school because I was different.
Yet, just as you claim they did, you promote intolerance of those different than you, seems to me if they had smacked you a little harder you might have understood that different does in no way mean you need to be singled out for your beliefs and have your rights stripped away because someone doesn’t like to sing along with your particular favorite song....

This is what happens when a certain religion has a stranglehold on the secular aspects of a given society. The rights of the minority are trampled on for the appeasement of the majority, who delight in it because it makes them feel special, important and better than everyone else. It's sickening.
Pray tell what religion is it that has a stranglehold on society? Please name a single religious issue required of all of its citizenry... The sickening part is that a lot of people espouse this without giving any thought as to precisely what Judeo-Christian tenets their government forces them to observe or endure. (That being NONE, as the legality of abortion would seem to be a testament to...)
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 43 (view)
You must do penance if you voted for Obama Abortion issue
Posted: 11/28/2008 6:20:05 AM

I'm not slinging mud at people of faith, I'm slinging mud at the hypocrites who use God as an excuse to stick their noses in other people's affairs.
As opposed to the hypocrites who use their disdain of anything religious as an excuse to attack the positions of those with faith… Using God as an excuse to support or tear down an opinion is exactly the same.
I understand where you’re going, but the approach to your end is no different than that of the fanatical religious zealots you hold such contempt for….

It isn't the ministers job to push his/her own personal political agenda on his parishioners, ESPECIALLY when it comes to threatening them with additional penance and/or excommunication. I advocate loss of tax exemption status for his parish, and not the RC church as a whole.
Let’s consider this…. To begin, the minister is not “the church”, he or she is merely an employee of the church. I agree the pulpit should not be used in telling people who to vote for, but it is specifically designed to identify issues of moral consciousness. I’m not aware of any minister that does not pepper his sermons with lessons of religious morality….

You're completely misrepresenting the facts Tim, and you know it. There is nobody stopping your children from praying in schools.. the option to have the schools lead prayers as part of the curriculum was. Tell me Tim, if the only public school in your area was a run by Muslims and they led Muslim prayers in the morning, at recess, and lunch times with a school led hour of prayer in the afternoon wouldn't you be at least a little upset that your religion was, in effect, ignored while someone else's version of the truth took precedence... that your children were taught Muslim holy songs in music class or were made to take part in Muslim religious ceremonies on Muslim holy days?
I didn’t go to private school, I went to public schools back when school prayer as well as the pledge of allegiance was part of the daily routine. It was not part of the curriculum; it was not something for which we received a grade, nor something we were forced to participate in. If we didn’t want to actively pray or say the pledge of allegiance, then we were to remain silent, i.e.; observing the rights of others, or what I like to call ”tolerance”. If I’d grown up in a country founded on Muslim religious tenets, then I hope I would feel EXACTLY as I do now.

Then either equal footing and government subsidized funding of all other beliefs... or, since that's extremely complicated, no one group should be allowed to use public property to set up displays to influence the rest of the population.. right?
Government funding, comes from taxpayers, a combination of dollars collected from all citizens, not just one sect. While I do not agree in using tax dollars in celebration of any religious holiday, I do not recognize the “states” authority to tell people what they can and cannot display in the work place. If the government steps in and proclaims a crucifix as objectionable and orders its removal because it offends some, then you have to remove all similar objects such as trophies, photographs, pet rocks, diploma’s and awards, pez dispensers, etc., because as graven images, they are offensive to Christians and Jews.

Tim, I have the right to live in my own home and not have to deal with people knocking on my door trying to preach at me. A Jehovah's Witnesses "right" to preach does not supercede my right to not be bothered by these people... as a matter of fact, this imagined right does not come into play at all. The right to walk down the street in relative peace and quiet should not be ignored by people who wish to scream "Jesus Saves" in the faces of others. That's the problem. Their "rights" end when they try to use those "rights" to impose on the rights of others. And I think it's quite disgusting that they're using their religion as an excuse to do exactly that.
Of course you do! You have the right to not answer the door, to post a sign that specifically states no soliciting, or even to live in a community (like I do) where such solicitation is illegal, and solicitors seldom make it beyond half a dozen homes before they are carted off by the police. As for walking down the street and coming under assault by street corner preachers, that’s a horse of a different color. They have the right to preach, and you have the right to ignore. Simply because you find it distasteful or inconvenient does not remove their right to practice their religion as they see fit. As you so adeptly pointed out, your “rights” end when you try to impose your personal feelings on others, denying them their rights… I doubt you’ll ever see it the way you actually portray it, but you are advocating the removal of their rights to religion AND free speech because you find it offensive, do you support the removal of your rights to both as well if others find it offensive?

I come from a place where the Catholic Church had a hand in every aspect of society. I was forced (although of another religion) through my school to attend Mass as part of the curriculum with the threat of losing part of my grade for refusing to do so. I, and others not of the Catholic faith, were not included in school activities like sports or academic teams, and were ostracized for being different. My aunt was literally spit on for being SA when she moved there after her marriage to my uncle... after the town priest made a sermon talking about the evils of having someone from that church living "amongst us". The problem with what this minister is doing ( as it was in my hometown), is that this is not the church quietly seeing to it's own affairs, it's the church using fear and intimidation to influence secular affairs.
Kinda like the good and gentile Reverend Wright? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
So your parents chose to live in a place and send you to a private school where religion was part of the curriculum, how is that an affront to your rights? Your position seems suggest that everyone’s way of life and personal belief structure needs to conform to YOUR standards and expectations, while you are not required to make any adjustments or demonstrate any tolerance for theirs. I think that’s called “Pretty Pretty Princess” syndrome … I’m sorry, but if ever there was a text book demonstration of blatant hypocrisy, it’s contained in the position you espouse in your post…..
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 15 (view)
Bush pardons 14, commutes 2 sentences
Posted: 11/27/2008 11:21:35 AM

Ken Starr should be the standard. It is the level we desire from Government. Root out wrong doing and Perjury.

What was Jeff Gannon, a gay male escort, doing in the White House 200 times? Many over night....

Lets have some sworn affidavits......

I bet there would be some perjury about oral sex....

I have no issue with investigating any reasonable allegations of wrong doing by ANY administration. I would think that the person making the determination as to what is actually "reasonable" is above the petty partisan bickering that exists inside the beltway (and within these threads).
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 30 (view)
You must do penance if you voted for Obama Abortion issue
Posted: 11/26/2008 11:51:39 AM
Nobody is imposing anything on Christians... telling someone to "live and let live" (just like in the bible) is NOT an imposition. I am honestly sick and tired of people justifying their inability to allow others to live in the way they want by thrusting their version of a supreme creator as "proof" that what they're doing is right.

Preach politics from the altar, lose your tax exempt status...

And btw, nobody is telling Christians that they can't say, pray to, or how celebrate their faith. That's outright fearmongering. I think they should just give the same consideration to others who don't believe the way they do. And I'm not going to stop pointing out the hypocrisy whenever I see it.

"You can't tell US to stop telling YOU what to do!" Pffft...

Brandi Brandi Brandi...
Your first paragraph is similar to my position, except you sling mud at the concept of faith. I don't know that there is or is not a God, as a simple point of fact, no one else does either. To belittle their position because they believe in a supreme creator is a form of hypocrisy. You want them to allow you to live and let live, yet you sling alll manner of snide comments their way. The Pee Wee Herman version of rebuttal "I know you are but what am I? " only works on Saturday Morning Cartoon shows...

I completely agree, no building should ever try to influence political posturing of its inhabitants. If you mean the Minister of the Church, that's a different story. As a minister, he has an obligation to his parishioners to provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, something they seek him out specifically to do. If you consider that Minister as a citizen, whose first amendment rights of free speech are protected under the constitution, then that's a whole other can of worms. Reverend Wright preached a highly politicized sermon, do you advocate the loss of tax exempt status for his church, or is it just the more traditional political opinions you want silenced?

As for your third paragraph, you're WAY inaccurate in your representation of fact. Many Christians want their children to be able to pray in school. That option was removed because it infringed on the rights of non-Christians. Christians started a movement for private schools and home schooling, and asked that they be given tax credit because they don't want to force their children to endure the joke that public education has become since 1977, and the party of "live and let live" said quite simply no, you must accept OUR values and OUR curriculum.

And to turn your words around, the insistence of those that are not of the Christian faith (or any other religion) that they cannot engage in their beliefs on public property, property also paid for by their tax dollars as well as those opposed to them, well I think you’ll have to agree …“ I think they should just give the same consideration to others who don't believe the way they do. And I'm not going to stop pointing out the hypocrisy whenever I see it.

"You can't tell US to stop telling YOU what to do!" Pffft...

For the record, the Catholic Church is only telling CATHOLICS how to deal with their deviation from church tenet, they are NOT telling you what you need to do if you feel you need divine intervention to forgive your election day transgressions ... so clearly you DO have an issue with allowing Christians the right to deal with their issues of faith as they see fit....
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 62 (view)
Obama vs McCain on taxes & truth about the war
Posted: 11/26/2008 10:55:56 AM

Republicans threated 57 filibusters in 2007 alone
Threatened.... that's not the same as actually filibustering. Without a Super Majority there is always a "threat" of filibuster. Pelosi and Reid could "threaten" to invoke cloture, but for some reason they never do it...
If ever there was a classic case of straw man being promoted by the left, this is it!
"We can't pass liberal legislation because the minority MIGHT filibuster and rather than calling their bluff, we choose to keep the legislation we were elected specifically to pass, off the floor until you give us a Super Majority!"
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 14 (view)
Bush pardons 14, commutes 2 sentences
Posted: 11/26/2008 10:30:12 AM

If the GOP can spend $7.2 million over six months having Ken Starr investigate a Bl*wj*b, I am sure we can find the money and time to look into rendition.
Point of fact: Ken Starr was not 'hired" by the GOP, he was appointed by Congress through an independent judicial council. His appointment came when the OIC term of Robert Fiske, appointed by the Clinton Administration to investigate Clinton, expired.

Contrary to what some seem to think, the concept of OIC has been around for quite some time (not to be confused with the Office of Special Prosecutor). The key investigations conducted by the OIC include:
Independent Counsel Arthur Christy relating to allegations of illegal drug use of Jimmy Carter's aide Hamilton Jordan, 1978

Independent Counsel Leon Silverman relating to Raymond Donovan, 1981-84

Independent Counsel Jacob A. Stein relating to Edwin Meese III, 1984

Independent Counsel Whitney North Seymour, Jr. relating to Michael Deaver, 1981-89

Independent Counsel Alexia Morrison relating to Theodore Olson, 1986-88

Independent Counsels Arlin Adams and Larry Thompson relating to Samuel Pierce and others associated with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1988-98

Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh relating to the Iran-Contra affair, 1986-93

Independent Counsels Joseph DiGenova and Michael Zeldin relating to improper search of passport records, 1992-95

Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz relating to charges of corruption against Mike Espy, 1994-2001

Independent Counsel David Barrett relating to Henry Cisneros payments controversy, 1995-2006

Independent Counsel Curtis Emery von Kann relating to Eli J. Segal, 1996-98

Independent Counsels Kenneth Starr, and Robert Ray relating to the suicide of Vince Foster, the Whitewater scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, and later the Lewinsky scandal, 1994-2001

It should be noted that the infamous Starr report actually exonerated Clinton from everything except perjury in his testimony related to sexual misconduct / abuse of power / office, yet for some reason he's still vilified by the left for doing EXACTLY what Congress hired him to do. Ironic that some classify the Starr investigations as nothing more than a witch hunt, yet seem almost incensed that not everyone is on board with the notion that similar partisan allegations against the Bush Administration be investigated. Amazing how a simple search for truth can be characterized by hypocrites when the scandal involves a member of the home team….
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
You must do penance if you voted for Obama Abortion issue
Posted: 11/26/2008 7:25:50 AM
I guess either I'm not following the intent of the thread, or we've gotten back into the usual partisan bashing aspect...
Religion teaches that man does not have the right to destroy something created by God as a measure of "convenience". Some seem to feel that it's merely a personal choice to remove a parasitic mass of unviable tissue.
Personally I am against abortion, but since God gave me common sense in lieu of the ability to give birth, I find myself forced to accept the notion that if it is a sin, then the penance and retribution for that sin rests solely on the shoulders of anyone who chooses to have an abortion, and those who perform it. It is not for me to judge, nor dictate my perception of morality on the issue.

What I can offer is the observation that yet again the party of "tolerance" seems to be completely intolerant of any opposing perspective, specifically any reference to the influences of Christianity on the subject. It seems liberals are given the freedom of choice to rise above the narrow-mindedness of religion, yet haven't quite grasped the tenet of their own philosophy of live & let live. In short, they spend their entire day berating Christians for trying to impose their beliefs, all the while doing precisely the same thing by forcing Christians to accept the imposition of theirs. Judging by the number of issues ruled on by the Supreme Court, God is losing ground almost daily, but the left won’t be happy until mentioning God, Christianity, or even a public display of anything biblical is criminalized … so much for “tolerance” …
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 11 (view)
Bush pardons 14, commutes 2 sentences
Posted: 11/26/2008 6:03:38 AM
I'm pretty sure the President can pardon anyone for anything, including himself. There was talk of Clinton issuing himself a pardon…

November 19, 2008

Constitutional Scholar; Jonathan Turley

Historically, presidents have issued pardons to undo unjust or overlong sentences, or as an expression of mercy.

Until recent decades, it was the norm for presidents to issue hundreds of individual commutations and pardons each year.

But the president can also grant a preemptive "blanket pardon" before charges are even filed for any crime or injustice.

"The classic pardon is for an identifiable individual. Here, {with a blanket pardon} you are talking about potentially thousands of people involved in illegal activities," explained Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School.

A pardon of this variety, Turley said, "would allow a president to engage in massive illegality {during his presidency} and then generally pardon the world for any involvement in the unlawful activity."

Previous blanket pardons have occurred most frequently after insurrections or wars. In founding father, Alexander Hamilton's words, "to restore the tranquility of the commonwealth."

President Andrew Johnson had pardoned the soldiers of the Confederacy and President Jimmy Carter issued a broad amnesty for Vietnam War-era draft dodgers. These amnesties permitted large numbers of troops to return to a normal life.

However, "preemptive pardons" have "less justification" in individual cases as the criminal justice system is deprived of its responsibility to investigate criminal wrongdoing. The victims are also denied the sense of closure that only criminal prosecutions can bring. And the general public loses the opportunity to examine the evidence before it.

And some presidential pardons have frequently been controversial.

Carter's Vietnam pardon, issued on his first day in the White House, reopened old wounds while it healed others. Ronald Reagan pardoned the FBI agents convicted for conducting illegal break-ins in the investigation of the radical Weather Underground.

Most famously, President Gerald Ford probably lost his 1976 presidential election because of his preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon, two years earlier.


The growing talk in Washington today is that President Bush may be considering an unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration, and specifically in Bush´s brutal interrogation policies.

As we speak, advisors to President-Elect Obama are pressing ahead with possible plans for a "nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush".

The Obama plan, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington and the plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but it would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed.

Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems that Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.

The proposed commission, similar to a previous Democratic proposal, would examine a broad scope of activities, including various possible illegal actions, but with a focus on detainee detention, torture and extraordinary "rendition". (The practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations.)

The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House, widely rejected by experienced interrogators, that "abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool". Other areas of wrong-doing by the Bush Administration would also be considered, but detainee torture and the interrogation issues would be the first priority.

A common view among those involved with the talks is that any early effort to prosecute Bush administration officials would likely devolve quickly into ugly and fruitless partisan warfare.

Another view is that even if Obama decided he had the appetite for it, prosecutions in this arena are problematic at best. A series of memos from the Bush Justice Department had approved the harsh interrogation tactics and Congress had changed the War Crimes Act in 2006, making prosecutions of individuals involved in interrogations more difficult.

On the other hand, a commission empowered by Congress would have the authority to compel witnesses to testify and even to grant immunity in exchange for information. Should a particularly ugly picture emerge, the option of prosecutions would still theoretically be on the table for later consideration.

"People have called for criminal investigations," one person familiar with the talks stated as the plans got under way. Another person participating in the talks confirmed that some people felt strongly that the commission would just amount to a "pile of bullxxxt" and that "Bush officials should be immediately prosecuted to the full extent of the law".


Further complicating the Obama team's planning is uncertainty about what President Bush might do.

On the one hand, a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the interrogations could be viewed by the public as a tacit admission of colossal guilt. This, after years of Bush´s public denial, which would do nothing to help the president´s already tarnished legacy.

Yet, "if" the current administration fears an investigation will follow Bush out the door in January, they may not want to leave his aides and officials exposed to potentially revealing criminal proceedings. Bush might seek to frame a blanket pardon as a preemptive strike against partisan retribution.


Constitutional scholars say a pardon of this kind would be an unprecedented move. The prospective pardon of not just individuals but entire categories of people, perhaps numbering in the thousands, for carrying out the president's orders which the White House has specifically argued all along were legal.

As with Professor Turley, those scholars agree however, that "Article II of the Constitution" also gives Bush much latitude: "The president can do with the pardoning power whatever he wants," explained University of Wisconsin Law School professor Stanley Kutler. "It is complete and plenary unto itself."

A blanket pardon from Bush could cover, for example, anyone who participated in, had knowledge of, or received information about Bush's programs during the so-called war on terror. Not only are there potentially too many people to name without risking missing somebody, some of the names are presumably classified.

There are, in fact, some constitutional scholars who believe a pardon might actually facilitate more complete participation in a fact-finding commission, by removing the threat of looming liability. "Holding people accountable is certainly nice, but in terms of healing the country and moving forward, so is actually getting a clear picture of what happened and letting the public make an informed decision," said Kermit Roosevelt at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "If we had a pardon followed by something like a truth and reconciliation commission, that might not be such a bad outcome." (Roosevelt also represents a detainee held at Guantánamo.)

The politics of a blanket pardon could so blemish Bush's legacy that some doubt he would go so far. "A pardon is an admission of guilt," noted Donald Kettl, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Bush has argued for years that his programs were perfectly legal. With a pardon, Kettl said, Bush is essentially saying, "Gee, maybe we did do something wrong."

As with Presidents Johnson and Carter, it is not entirely unprecedented for a past president to grant a blanket pardon based on a category of behavior. Even the first US President, George Washington, pardoned all of the participants in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion.

But past blanket pardons were designed to foster reconciliation, handed out to categories of individuals who acted on their own conscience, rather than the president's own allegedly illegal orders. "This would be a different deal completely," explained Kettl. "It would be anticipating that people thought the official policy of the administration was wrong."

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 8 (view)
Car Crash Kills Pennsylvania State Senator
Posted: 11/26/2008 5:22:38 AM
I'm not sure how it works with State Senators, but with US Senators, the Governor appoints someone to take their seat. I would think the same process would apply, but it depends on the particular State’s constitution...

Numerous times State and US Congressmen have been elected posthumously, as have Governors... in the case of the Governor, most times the Lt. Governor assumes first chair.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 448 (view)
Prop 8 in california (state constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman)
Posted: 11/22/2008 8:19:02 AM

you have tolerance for everything EXCEPT anyone who holds a different perspective on issues or a contrasting set of moral values.

Tim I respect your views, however, since when is it someone right or "duty" to fight the good fight for the worlds moral values? I neither want or need you to fight for my moral values. Personally that is what I see as the problem in this thread and others similar threads here. The religious zelots (sp and I'm not calling you and SL names here, but I am lumping you two in this catagory) seem to want to decide what is bad for everyone else, and it usually has nothing to do with their personal lives. Give it a rest will ya.
"this is all personal opinion and proof does not need to be posted along with the opinion."
Harlie, I have no idea what thread your reading, but since I have absolutely no opposition to Gay Marriage, and so stated numerous times, clearly it hasn't been this one.
I don't condone the imposition of any specific set of moral values onto anyone else; we all have our own individual moral compasses. What frosts my cheerios is the insistence by progressives that everyone must subscribe to their mindset of "tolerance" and when they turn around and deny homosexuals the "right" to marry, they blame the religious right for the total absence of majority support for the issue. It's hypocrisy on a level previously reserved for Jimmy Swaggart and Jesse Jackson!
What you and others seem to fail to consider is that anyone telling "me" that I must accept their values (or lack there of) is absolutely no different than Jerry Falwell telling you that you have to accept his. Neither extreme should be able to dictate!
While I have no opposition to gay marriage, it seems the majority of people in CA, (a sufficient number from the left, right and center), did. Should we impose our moral compass on them, or accept that they have decided on their own “true north”?
If you don’t like a conservative taking a libertarian position on any issue, and that same conservative offering opinion as to what sort of problems could manifest themselves should the government overstep its mandate (“of the people, by the people, and for the people”) by dictating what the people “really want” then I suggest you consider turning your attention to other threads, ones that you find less controversial.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 435 (view)
Prop 8 in california (state constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman)
Posted: 11/21/2008 6:26:29 AM

and Tim ~ I think you have built a tall fence ~ and for the convinince of your understand of things ~ place people on one side or the other. ~ in so doing you , annoy and label ~ Too much idealogy!
I built the fence?!?!?!?! As for annoying, it's only annoying when it strikes a nerve...

I assure you ~~ it wasn't liberals alone that put Obama is office. ~ I assure you as well ~ you'll find few things liberal about my thoughts ~ yet I favor the more progressive party ~ due to the many conflicting idealolgy that just don't wash with the GOP.
I can assure you that given the demographics, it was almost exclusively liberals that put him into office. Considering that party affiliation of the registered electorate is 67% Liberal and Moderate voters (Democratic 42% & Independent 25% ), and recognizing that his tally falls a full 15% short of getting all “moderate” votes, common sense (and some basic math) dictates it was primarily the Liberal vote that put him into office. (The term Liberal includes those who accept the correct categorization and those, who shall remain nameless, in denial.)
You seem to want to portray yourself as above the fray and while I admire the constraint in temperament, I have yet to see you take a “non-liberal” position on any of the issues we discuss in these threads. (Something nearly everyone would agree as necessary to accurately proclaim ones self as a “moderate”.) When an allegation of GOP misconduct is insinuated or suspected, as with the vast majority of the insipid blue jersey moderates, you leap off that “tall fence” always on the left, and with rabid fashion begin propagating those myths as though they were indisputable fact. Likewise when an allegation of Liberal misconduct is actually proven, you again leap off that “tall fence” always on the left, into a steaming pile of “vast GOP conspiracy” and with like rabid fashion begin defending the indefensible using whatever manner of slings and arrows necessary to silence the opposition.
In short, you can call yourself a moderate, or even an ice cream truck if you like, doesn’t make it accurate.
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 432 (view)
Prop 8 in california (state constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman)
Posted: 11/21/2008 2:28:10 AM
People people people... all this toxic abhorrence between each other and yet at the end of each and every day the situation remains the same. The good (and mostly liberal) people of California voted against proposition 8. Unless you want to re-write history, no amount of contempt for what appears to be the majority position isn't going to change.

Tim ~ don't start none and there won't be none!

You told us once you was voting for Obama ~ SO ~ is you is or is you ain't?
I find it ironic that the left slanted analysis that the 52+% majority voted against Proposition 8 was a mistake, yet the same majority translates to a clear mandate when applied to the Presidential election. Even you have to agree it’s as inconsistent as anything could be. Granted two separate issues, but the "progressive" masses seeking change on the same day, on the same ballot, cannot have suddenly been converted to small minded bigots merely by skipping to the next line on the ballot.

Actually I said MANY times that I was going to vote for Obama. Not for any of the reasons you voted for him though, but precisely the opposite. McCain is not a conservative, never was, never will be. Many, perhaps you included, mistakenly believe that merely because legislation is a GOP initiative it’s automatically bad for the country. Common sense dictates that it is not, and a close perusal of the Congressional Record demonstrates that nearly all "hot button" issues have had overwhelming bi-partisan support. Of all the issues debated in these threads, not a single liberal has acknowledged that without at least some Democratic support, nothing, allow me to say that again NOTHING could have made it to the President’s desk from the floor of the House or Senate since 2004 without bi-partisan support. It is unfortunate for the masses that the mainstream media focused on the disingenuous partisan diatribe contained in sound bytes without reporting the conflict between words and deeds of democratic leadership, even those of the President Elect. I find a sad irony in knowing that the party claiming bi-partisanship is needed is so anxious to condemn the GOP that they need only innuendo and supposition to proclaim themselves judge, jury and executioner, yet refuse to acknowledge the existence of indisputable government documented proof that they have been mislead by the media and their own party’s leadership on all issues classified as partisan.
Having Obama in office will give the country the time and opportunity to heal, but mark my words, until the current Congressional leadership begins conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the actual wishes of the electorate instead of telling them what they want to hear while voting contrary to those espoused positions, the partisan rift of the past 5 years will pale in comparison to the next 2...
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 419 (view)
Prop 8 in california (state constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman)
Posted: 11/20/2008 5:46:19 AM
Lot's of compelling argument for making a case of gay marriage being an issue of Civil Rights, I'm still however not convinced that it's the strongest approach. Their right to marry exists, but the right to marry whom or what they want is the key issue, and while dismissed by some as a ridiculous straw man type argument, the insistence that everyone should be able to marry because of love and not because of procreation is indeed a slippery slope that has to be considered (even though it shouldn't). There will be people filing suit to marry their pets, houses, favorite chairs, cars, and any other inanimate object imaginable. Perhaps opening the door to this type of insanity is a necessary "evil" to accomplish the task of eliminating discrimination of those not interested in a traditional "nuclear family" lifestyle. We’ll soon see if it is.

Just as an aside, for the “progressive” types posting here, it seems you have tolerance for everything EXCEPT anyone who holds a different perspective on issues or a contrasting set of moral values. To me it’s a very telling attribute, that tolerance is not applied universally, but rather in a selfish or self serving manner. While some would paint that as blatant hypocrisy, I think it’s merely an indication that the self proclaimed “enlightened” and “progressive” are every bit as narrow minded and shallow as they proclaim those who hold opinions that oppose their own ... now that I think about it, I suppose it is a glaring example of blatant hypocrisy.

As a conservative (and a smart ass) I couldn’t let this one pass…
One thing I recently read is this: the majority does not always act in the best interest of all people. I believe that this is the case with Prop 8.
Isn’t the tally against Prop 8 pretty close to the same % of popular vote Obama got in the election? Hmmmmmm…..
Show ALL Forums