55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:13 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
My preference would be for ALL unions to be civil ones, and marriage to be relegated to a religious ceremony with no real legal standing.


This is very much my preference as well.


Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:16 am
@old europe,
Quote:

Not my experience with gay or lesbian people. I think your description of a "gay community" that resists civil unions is not supported by reality.

I will say, however, that if people like you have no problem with legalizing civil unions that are absolutely identical to marriage in every aspect, then why do you insist on a different term? Alternatively, if you don't support civil unions that are absolutely identical to marriage in every aspect: what should be the difference, in your opinion?


Using the same term makes it difficult for them to keep up their sense of superiority.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:18 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

I will say, however, that if people like you have no problem with legalizing civil unions that are absolutely identical to marriage in every aspect, then why do you insist on a different term? Alternatively, if you don't support civil unions that are absolutely identical to marriage in every aspect: what should be the difference, in your opinion?


What legal structure do "people like you" in Germany offer on this question?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:22 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I think you are beating a dead horse. Most of the posters here have already acknowledged the acceptability (to them) of civil unions for homosexual couples.

The issue being disputed here is marriage or whether the society or government can make any distinction at all between the two .

Your riff on "feelings" is merely irrelevant. What if I got up one morning and asserted that my "feelings" would be hurt if I wasn't allowed to use a woman's rest room? Do you think that would or should get me anywhere?


george, i don't know why you keep returning to the "restroom" thing.

you want to kick the feelings of gays to the curb, but i wonder just how you would feel if another person compared your marriage to a toilet?



George wasn't comparing the feelings of gays to anything.

i disagree. if not, why use the restroom equation? at the very least, he was dismissing their feelings. he stated that cyclo's "riff" on feelings was irrelevant.

which is kinda odd, because so far your team really hasn't presented any reason to disallow gay marriage other than your feelings.


As there was no material reason of any kind to discriminate via race, we corrected the unjustifiabile restrictions.

and i don't see any material reason to disallow gay marriage. it's not going to hurt anyone. it will help quite a few.

I think if the militant pro-gay-marriage crowd was really interested in having its needs met, that would have already happened in most if not all states and we would be legally recognizing civil unions from other states. As long as the militants are gung ho to change a definition of marriage that has existed for all of recorded history, however, it will be much more difficult to solve the problem.

Laughing sorry, i have to laff a little here. it cracks me up that anything left of hard right gets catagorized as "the _ _ _ _ _ crowd."

OR

militant. militant how? like organizing and going out and publicly voicing their demand for fairness?

isn't that exactly what theses guys are doing ?
             http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/tea_party_protest_111.jpg

actually, some of them aren't even looking for fairness. they actually want to overthrow the federal government.

but the least of them want "the government out of our (their) business". at least that's what the guy's sign says. so, what "crowd" are they?


0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:24 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I think you are beating a dead horse. Most of the posters here have already acknowledged the acceptability (to them) of civil unions for homosexual couples.


I'm not sure that's really the case. I agree that for all practical purposes, civil unions equal to marriage would be completely acceptable. I also don't think it would prevent people from referring to those unions as "marriages".

I just question the reason for insisting on keeping those services separate and using different terms, based on sexual orientation.

georgeob1 wrote:
The issue being disputed here is marriage or whether the society or government can make any distinction at all between the two.


The question is why government should make a distinction between the two. You're arguing that as long as the government is providing the same service for everyone, a distinction based on sexuality would not be discrimination. The argument is essentially that "separate but equal" doesn't constitute discrimination.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:24 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
My preference would be for ALL unions to be civil ones, and marriage to be relegated to a religious ceremony with no real legal standing.


This is very much my preference as well.


like i said before, that's pretty much what we have now. no marriage license, no legal wedding or marriage.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:33 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
What legal structure do "people like you" in Germany offer on this question?


Do you want to discuss the situation in Germany, George? Or do you just want to tell me I should shut up and refrain from commenting on the situation in the United States?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:38 am
@old europe,
Quote:
Or do you just want to tell me I should shut up and refrain from commenting on the situation in the United States?


O'George is one of those jesuitical gentlemen who would not actually say what he was thinking in such a case . . .
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:39 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Segregated marriage was discriminatory as it restricted races to marrying those of their own race.


Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples restricts people to marrying those of the opposite sex.

Why do you think that is not discriminatory?


Foxfyre wrote:
As there was no material reason of any kind to discriminate via race, we corrected the unjustifiabile restrictions.


What do you think is a material reason to deny same sex couples to get married?
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:44 am
@Setanta,
I'm actually quite fond of George's deep reactionism.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:44 am
I don't know what the Hell kind of horseshit Fox is trying to peddle now, saying "we" corrected anything. Left to her kind, mixed race marriages would still be outlawed. Loving versus the Commonwealth of Virgina was decided by the Supreme Court, ending anti-miscegenation laws. It was precisely because "we" didn't do anything about anti-miscegenation laws that such a law was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

I suspect that someday, same sex marriage will be resolved in the same manner--although certainly not with the right-wing lunatic court we have now.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:45 am
@old europe,
The material reason is that society has determined the traditional family to be the best possible environment for raising kids. Society has determined that the traditional family overall within the general population produces more stable, peaceful, and affluent neighborhoods than do any other social groups, and therefore the traditional family is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. All social groups, not just the traditional families, benefit from that phenomenon. You cannot change the defintion of marriage without making it something entirely different from what it is. What it is has been judged to be a good thing. It does not cast any disparaging aspersions on any others, but it is an American value worthy of being preserved.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:48 am
What is Obama doing to help Americans accomplish and achieve that which in this speech he advocates they accomplish?
Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/obama-asu-speech-full-tex_n_203287.html
Below is the text of President Obama's remarks at the Arizona State University Commencement, as prepared for delivery.

Thank you, President Crow, for that generous introduction, and for your inspired leadership here at ASU. And I want to thank the entire ASU community for the honor of attaching my name to a scholarship program that will help open the doors of higher education to students from every background. That is the core mission of this school; it is a core mission of my presidency; and I hope this program will serve as a model for universities across this country.

Now, before I begin, I'd like to clear the air about that little controversy everyone was talking about a few weeks back. I have to tell you, I really thought it was much ado about nothing, although I think we all learned an important lesson. I learned to never again pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA bracket. And your university President and Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.

In all seriousness, I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven't yet achieved enough in my life. I come to embrace it; to heartily concur; to affirm that one's title, even a title like President, says very little about how well one's life has been led - and that no matter how much you've done, or how successful you've been, there's always more to do, more to learn, more to achieve.

And I want to say to you today, graduates, that despite having achieved a remarkable milestone, one that you and your families are rightfully proud of, you too cannot rest on your laurels. Your body of work is yet to come.
Now, some graduating classes have marched into this stadium in easy times - times of peace and stability when we call on our graduates to simply keep things going, and not screw it up. Other classes have received their diplomas in times of trial and upheaval, when the very foundations of our lives have been shaken, the old ideas and institutions have crumbled, and a new generation is called on to remake the world.

It should be clear by now the category into which all of you fall. For we gather here tonight in times of extraordinary difficulty, for the nation and the world. The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the result, in part, of greed and irresponsibility that rippled out from Wall Street and Washington, as we spent beyond our means and failed to make hard choices. We are engaged in two wars and a struggle against terrorism. The threats of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemic defy national boundaries and easy solutions.

For many of you, these challenges are felt in more personal terms. Perhaps you're still looking for a job - or struggling to figure out what career path makes sense in this economy. Maybe you've got student loans, or credit card debts, and are wondering how you'll ever pay them off. Maybe you've got a family to raise, and are wondering how you'll ensure that your kids have the same opportunities you've had to get an education and pursue their dreams.
In the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have dominated these recent years. Many of you have been taught to chase after the usual brass rings: being on this "who's who" list or that top 100 list; how much money you make and how big your corner office is; whether you have a fancy enough title or a nice enough car.
You can take that road - and it may work for some of you. But at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won't get you where you want to go; that in fact, the elevation of appearance over substance, celebrity over character, short-term gain over lasting achievement is precisely what your generation needs to help end.

I want to highlight two main problems with that old approach. First, it distracts you from what is truly important, and may lead you to compromise your values, principles and commitments. Think about it. It's in chasing titles and status - in worrying about the next election rather than the national interest and the interests of those they represent - that politicians so often lose their way in Washington. It was in pursuit of gaudy short-term profits, and the bonuses that come with them, that so many folks lost their way on Wall Street.

The leaders we revere, the businesses that last - they are not the result of narrow pursuit of popularity or personal advancement, but of devotion to some bigger purpose - the preservation of the Union or the determination to lift a country out of depression; the creation of a quality product or a commitment to your customers, your workers, your shareholders and your community.

The trappings of success may be a by-product of this larger mission, but they can't be the central thing.
Just ask Bernie Madoff.

The second problem with the old approach is that a relentless focus on the outward markers of success all too often leads to complacency. We too often let them serve as indications that we're doing well, even though something inside us tells us that we're not doing our best; that we are shrinking from, rather than rising to, the challenges of the age. And the thing is, in this new, hyper-competitive age, you cannot afford to be complacent.

That is true in whatever profession you choose. Professors might earn the distinction of tenure, but that doesn't guarantee that they'll keep putting in the long hours and late nights - and have the passion and drive - to be great educators. It's true in your personal life as well. Being a parent isn't just a matter of paying the bills and doing the bare minimum - it's not bringing a child into the world that matters, but the acts of love and sacrifice it takes to raise that child. It can happen to presidents too: Abraham Lincoln and Millard Fillmore had the very same title, but their tenure in office - and their legacy - could not be more different.

And that's not just true for individuals - it is also true for this nation. In recent years, in many ways, we've become enamored with our own success - lulled into complacency by our own achievements.

We've become accustomed to the title of "military super-power," forgetting the qualities that earned us that title - not just a build-up of arms, or accumulation of victories, but the Marshall Plan, the Peace Corps, our commitment to working with other nations to pursue the ideals of opportunity, equality and freedom that have made us who we are.
We've become accustomed to our economic dominance in the world, forgetting that it wasn't reckless deals and get-rich-quick schemes that got us there; but hard work and smart ideas -quality products and wise investments. So we started taking shortcuts. We started living on credit, instead of building up savings. We saw businesses focus more on rebranding and repackaging than innovating and developing new ideas and products that improve our lives.

All the while, the rest of the world has grown hungrier and more restless - in constant motion to build and discover - not content with where they are right now, determined to strive for more.

So graduates, it is now abundantly clear that we need to start doing things a little differently. In your own lives, you'll need to continuously adapt to a continuously changing economy: to have more than one job or career over the course of your life; to keep gaining new skills - possibly even new degrees; and to keep taking risks as new opportunities arise.

And as a nation, we'll need a fundamental change of perspective and attitude. It is clear that we need to build a new foundation - a stronger foundation - for our economy and our prosperity, rethinking how we educate our children, and care for our sick, and treat our environment.

Many of our current challenges are unprecedented. There are no standard remedies, or go-to fixes this time around.

That is why we are going to need your help. We'll need young people like you to step up. We need your daring and your enthusiasm and your energy.
And let me be clear, when I say "young," I'm not just referring to the date on your birth certificate. I'm talking about an approach to life - a quality of mind and heart.

A willingness to follow your passions, regardless of whether they lead to fortune and fame. A willingness to question conventional wisdom and rethink the old dogmas. A lack of regard for all the traditional markers of status and prestige - and a commitment instead to doing what is meaningful to you, what helps others, what makes a difference in this world.

That's the spirit that led a band of patriots not much older than you to take on an empire. It's what drove young pioneers west, and young women to reach for the ballot; what inspired a 30 year-old escaped slave to run an underground railroad to freedom, and a 26 year-old preacher to lead a bus boycott for justice. It's what led firefighters and police officers in the prime of their lives up the stairs of those burning towers; and young people across this country to drop what they were doing and come to the aid of a flooded New Orleans. It's what led two guys in a garage - named Hewlett and Packard - to form a company that would change the way we live and work; and what led scientists in laboratories, and novelists in coffee shops to labor in obscurity until they finally succeeded in changing the way we see the world.

That is the great American story: young people just like you, following their passions, determined to meet the times on their own terms. They weren't doing it for the money. Their titles weren't fancy - ex-slave, minister, student, citizen. But they changed the course of history - and so can you.

With a degree from this university, you have everything you need to get started. Did you study business? Why not help our struggling non-profits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need. Nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. Education? Teach in a high-need school; give a chance to kids we can't afford to give up on - prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. Engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet.

Or you can make your mark in smaller, more individual ways. That's what so many of you have already done during your time here at ASU - tutoring children; registering voters; doing your own small part to fight hunger and homelessness, AIDS and cancer. I think one student said it best when she spoke about her senior engineering project building medical devices for people with disabilities in a village in Africa. Her professor showed a video of the folks they'd be helping, and she said, "When we saw the people on the videos, we began to feel a connection to them. It made us want to be successful for them."

That's a good motto for all of us - find someone to be successful for. Rise to their hopes and their needs. As you think about life after graduation, as you look in the mirror tonight, you may see somebody with no idea what to do with their life. But a troubled child might look at you and see a mentor. A homebound senior citizen might see a lifeline. The folks at your local homeless shelter might see a friend. None of them care how much money is in your bank account, or whether you're important at work, or famous around town - they just know that you're someone who cares, someone who makes a difference in their lives.

That is what building a body of work is all about - it's about the daily labor, the many individual acts, the choices large and small that add up to a lasting legacy. It's about not being satisfied with the latest achievement, the latest gold star - because one thing I know about a body of work is that it's never finished. It's cumulative; it deepens and expands with each day that you give your best, and give back, and contribute to the life of this nation. You may have set-backs, and you may have failures, but you're not done - not by a longshot.

Just look to history. Thomas Paine was a failed corset maker, a failed teacher, and a failed tax collector before he made his mark on history with a little book called Common Sense that helped ignite a revolution. Julia Child didn't publish her first cookbook until she was almost fifty, and Colonel Sanders didn't open up his first Kentucky Fried Chicken until he was in his sixties. Winston Churchill was dismissed as little more than a has-been, who enjoyed scotch just a bit too much, before he took over as Prime Minister and saw Great Britain through its finest hour. And no one thought a former football player stocking shelves at the local supermarket would return to the game he loved, become a Super Bowl MVP, and then come here to Arizona and lead your Cardinals to their first Super Bowl.

Each of them, at one point in their life, didn't have any title or much status to speak of. But they had a passion, a commitment to following that passion wherever it would lead, and to working hard every step along the way.

And that's not just how you'll ensure that your own life is well-lived. It's how you'll make a difference in the life of this nation. I talked earlier about the selfishness and irresponsibility on Wall Street and Washington that rippled out and led to the problems we face today. I talked about the focus on outward markers of success that can lead us astray.

But here's the thing, graduates: it works the other way around too. Acts of sacrifice and decency without regard to what's in it for you - those also create ripple effects - ones that lift up families and communities; that spread opportunity and boost our economy; that reach folks in the forgotten corners of the world who, in committed young people like you, see the true face of America: our strength, our goodness, the enduring power of our ideals.

I know starting your careers in troubled times is a challenge. But it is also a privilege.

Because it is moments like these that force us to try harder, to dig deeper, to discover gifts we never knew we had - to find the greatness that lies within each of us. So don't ever shy away from that endeavor. Don't ever stop adding to your body of work. I can promise that you will be the better for that continued effort, as will this nation that we all love.

Congratulations on your graduation, and Godspeed on the road ahead.


Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:53 am
@ican711nm,
Not much. But then I suspect that few actually heard it anyway. The kids' eyes were glazing over and I imagine few really listened to it from beginning to end. But it is typical (modern) liberalspeak--focus on everything that's wrong and ignore everything that works.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The material reason is that society has determined the traditional family to be the best possible environment for raising kids.

really? because i don't recall ever having been asked anything by anybody during that determination process. and i ain't no spring chicken, ya know.


It does not cast any disparaging aspersions on any others, but it is an American value worthy of being preserved.

i don't know how you can say this. it's a denial of a very basic freedom guaranteed by the constitution that gets waved around so much around here. it's a denial of a very basic civil right to people who pay the same taxes as you and i do. it's a denial of personal happiness to our fellow citizens who deserve it every bit as much as you and i.

discrimination against a fellow american citizen based on prejudice is not an american value. that kinda thing has made it's way into law before, but it doesn't stand as a tradition. vis a vis jim crow

consider this for just a moment, foxy. why did it require a sufferage movement for women to gain the vote? i mean, women had never voted. it was a tradition, and an american value that the man did all of the thinking and voting.

do you consider susan b. and the girls "militants"?

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:09 pm
OE wrote
Quote:
Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples restricts people to marrying those of the opposite sex.

Why do you think that is not discriminatory?


I forgot to address this. It is purposefully discriminatory to achieve a given purpose, but it does not discriminate between people in its application. Every man, woman, and child is subject to the exact same requirement in the exact same way regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or sociopolitical status. And it is in no way unfair or unjust or unreasonable any more than are the requirements that persons must be unmarried, be of a certain age, and must not be closely related in order to qualify for the license or that persons may legally be married to only one other person. There is a reasonable purpose for each one of those requirements.

When you apply for a drivers' license you are required to meet certain requirements of age, vision, physical ability, pass a written test and road test, etc. Those who cannot or do not wish to qualify for the license under such restrictions probably dislike the law, but each point of the law discriminates for a valid purpose. It is nondiscriminatory in that everybody is subject to it in exactly the same way.

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:16 pm
@Foxfyre,
After your above response, Foxfyre, I think the old times should come back quick and only men should be allowed to vote: some women probably will dislike that, but it's an old tradition since America's earliest days ...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:20 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

OE wrote
Quote:
Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples restricts people to marrying those of the opposite sex.

Why do you think that is not discriminatory?


I forgot to address this. It is purposefully discriminatory to achieve a given purpose, but it does not discriminate between people in its application. Every man, woman, and child is subject to the exact same requirement in the exact same way regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or sociopolitical status. And it is in no way unfair or unjust or unreasonable any more than are the requirements that persons must be unmarried, be of a certain age, and must not be closely related in order to qualify for the license or that persons may legally be married to only one other person. There is a reasonable purpose for each one of those requirements.


The purpose of other requirements is to prevent violating the rights of another person. Unlike forced marriage or underage marriage, same sex marriage between consenting adults doesn't seem to violate anybody's rights.

Also, if marriage is purposefully discriminatory towards procreation, then people should also be barred from getting married out of convenience, without any intent to have children, or in case at least one partner is infertile or too old to have children.

If marriage is purposefully discriminatory towards providing children an ideal environment to grow up, then why are there no requirements in place for biological parents that e.g. foster parents have to meet?
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:"
Quote:
Hey JM. Welcome back. I've missed you. I was afraid the numbnuts had run you off as they have so many others.

By PC I was thinking more in the sense of traditional American values that have been declared un-PC and are no longer acceptable. Such as Miss California being accused of being a bigot and a gay-basher because she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. A pro-life person is accused of wanting to enslave women. If you are pro-enforcement of immigration laws, you're racist. Etc. etc. It is Big Brother thought/mind control with consequences for those who are not properly "trained" so that they conform. It becomes dangerous when there are those who assume authority to enforce it in material ways or those who presume to give a mandate to enforce it to judges in the court or other people in positions of power.


Yeah. Well, I'm back up here in Jersey getting the garden ready-- putt'n in the Jersey tomatoes! Strangely enough it is hard to get fresh Jersey tomatoes even here in South Jersey (Just saw an ACME produce display for Jersey tomatoes grown in hot houses... please.)

But just like the rarity of 'free range' jersey tomats I think the founders would be saddened by liberal reaction to Carrie Prejean's thoughts on same sex marriage, mainly because of liberal parsimony RE tolerance of other's opinions. Looking at the videos I saw Judge Perez Hilton ask this lovely woman her opinion, she took him at his word and gave it. From the liberal reaction to her answer the only mistake she made was not Obamaizing her answer and polling the audience as to what they wanted her to say before supplying her response. Perhaps we could coin the term for this: Obamafuscation. (For a really good definition and explanation of this see Dan Henninger’s Wonderland column at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105013014171063.html for those that can’t bring it up I will post it on request).

The Fathers recognized the importance of and respected minority positions. To do otherwise invites and, IMO, guarantees tyranny. As far as I'm concerned we are extremely close to this result. The tea parties are promoted as venues for concerned citizens Re Huge deficits and an ever increasing economic Big Brotherism, but the real danger, as you and other MACs here and out there know, is a Congressional repeat of Britain’s Parliamentary over reach--King George was the least of the colonist's problems.

You are certainly correct in pointing out my going on a tangent when replying to your post. But you are kind in recognizing the relationship between the two posts. Sometimes I start off on a subject and then the piece seems to write itself--look here, I was just listening to the TV show "Dept Of Park and Rec's" (with Amy Poehler of SNL fame) and heard a phrase that would be perfect for a new bureaucracy in Obama’s Administration: The Department of Homeland Obscurity or The Federal Administration of Obfuscation.

But, yes, why has this liberal mindset taken hold or was the public always like this? Is this why the original senate was appointed to include more educated and or more economically successful so called grownups? I always thought that the Fathers were myopic by only allowing the propertied to vote, but, again, despite my brief indulgence in chronological snobbery, time has proved them right--again (Liberals will attack me here but it really is important to have those participating in our Republic to have some skin in the game"hint: if you don't pay taxes you should have little to say about fiscal policy).The Founders made a big deal out of economics. Reading many of their definitions of the "Pursuit of Happiness" reveals their emphasis of personal economic freedom, both success and failure, that is the bedrock of ideological freedom and the “equal” ness of men. The equality they really meant regarded opportunity and not access to others wealth with the ultimate communistic/socialistic goals we see pursued by the present Admin. I would like to admonish the Fathers here for not so specifying, but, in their defense, they really thought this was a no brainer.

As to those of liberal/progressive opinions affect on my posting, yes it does affect my posting but more so are demands on my time (just like everyone else that posts here). I like to think my posts are more concentrated and therefore more valuable, but this is probably a rationalization, but it works for me. I find value in all posts but concentrate on those that back up arguments with fact based reasoning. As you know the irascible John Adams noted the same characteristic in facts. Clear facts are so precious and rare in science but in politics they are exceptionally so. How else are we to make correct or low risk decisions?

Quote:
The most intolerant people in our society now are those who demand tolerance of others.


This is sad and true. I have, like everyone on this thread, formed opinions of others without truly knowing them (I think this a natural defensive evolutionary mechanism--better to be dead wrong than dead) but I must constantly force myself to listen and to examine them as regards their actions and words towards myself and my kin. There are really two nice things about true free speech. The first allows us the advantage of evolutionary algorithms--the better memes (ideas) float to the top and are propagated. The second is found in the Samuel Clemmens /Ben Franklin exclamation "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.", thus once bad ideas and ideology are exposed they can be subjected to Justice Louis D. Brandeis' "Sunshine" and subsequently eliminated. But then we have those in Congress who would misuse the reconciliation process to push through health care there by avoiding debate on the issue. Obviously, they are trying to avoid all the sunlight of voter scrutiny, which informs us that even they know the public will reject it eventually.
Republicans should not vote for this without debate else they will be forever relegated to fighting an increasingly more difficult battle to prevent always increasing costs. Plus they will share the blame and will never be able to differentiate themselves from Democrats (see 2006 Congressional election results).

Now is the time to be the party of No!, since the question, properly phrased, is: Shall we indulge, once more, in Fiscal irresponsibilty?

JM


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:36 pm
@old europe,
Okay guys--Walter and OE-- I've been asnwering question after question. I think I've already provided all the answers you have asked and are now starting over with the same questions. So I'll ignore the straw man Walter threw in there, and will refer you both to my previous answers.

Now would you demonstrate good will and answer some questions yourselves?

What is the purpose of marriage? Why is it in the interest of the state to regulate it?

What advantage do you see in changing the definition of marriage rather than passing laws that would provide benefits and protections for those who don't qualify for marriage or do not wish to marry?

Why is it so important to you that the USA change the definition of marriage when Germany obviously has not? Why didn't Germany change the definition of marriage?

Do you think that changing the definition of marriage in the USA could set a precedent that will encourage efforts to change other criteria regulating the marriage contract? Why or why not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 03:23:17