IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
<em>" Or is it that you're all for governmental involvement, so long as it enforces your world view?"</em>
That statement is true for everyone...
That statement is true for everyone...
Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?
- Thread starter Adam_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Eva, I'm glad to hear that you recognize that animal rights are a fallacy, and as such, a horse can't enter into a legal contract. However, the owner of an animal can enter into a contract for services of that animal....
Also, thank you for pointing out that I was mistaken about minors and marriage. Of course, with marriage in the eyes of the state being nothing but a contract, parents or guardians can represent the interest of children in a marital contract (or any other contract). While I personally don't feel that someone as young as 13 should be able to get married even with parental consent (and apparently Kansas recognizes that now too), this sounds like a case where the 9th and 10th amendments are actually recognized. That is a rarity in this day and age.
As for my belief system, I do believe in a minimalist government, but recognize that there is some role for government in creating an orderly society. In the case of marriage, the government recognizes that encouraging the creation of families helps bring order to society. Based on the mores of society, the laws related to marriage specify that it is between one man and one woman in most of the United States.
As for your last statement, I am single. All statements made on this topic are based on my belief system, not on what directly benefits me.
The one thing I don't understand about the entire gay marriage issue is why anyone directly impacted would want to change it. Doing so would be tantamount to giving up the best excuse in the world. (Honey, I'd love to get married, but it's against the law....)
Also, thank you for pointing out that I was mistaken about minors and marriage. Of course, with marriage in the eyes of the state being nothing but a contract, parents or guardians can represent the interest of children in a marital contract (or any other contract). While I personally don't feel that someone as young as 13 should be able to get married even with parental consent (and apparently Kansas recognizes that now too), this sounds like a case where the 9th and 10th amendments are actually recognized. That is a rarity in this day and age.
As for my belief system, I do believe in a minimalist government, but recognize that there is some role for government in creating an orderly society. In the case of marriage, the government recognizes that encouraging the creation of families helps bring order to society. Based on the mores of society, the laws related to marriage specify that it is between one man and one woman in most of the United States.
As for your last statement, I am single. All statements made on this topic are based on my belief system, not on what directly benefits me.
The one thing I don't understand about the entire gay marriage issue is why anyone directly impacted would want to change it. Doing so would be tantamount to giving up the best excuse in the world. (Honey, I'd love to get married, but it's against the law....)
Trooper_IHB
New member
<p><em>In the case of marriage, the government recognizes that encouraging the creation of families helps bring order to society.</em></p>
<p>In case you haven't been reading the news, we've been procreating like rabbits. (and always have, you just never knew it).</p>
<p>WINEX, we agree to disagree. Thank you for you comments.</p>
<p><em></em></p>
<p>In case you haven't been reading the news, we've been procreating like rabbits. (and always have, you just never knew it).</p>
<p>WINEX, we agree to disagree. Thank you for you comments.</p>
<p><em></em></p>
I wasn't referring to replenishing the population alone. But actually, western societies overall haven't been producing enough children to offset our aging populations. The population in the United States is still growing, but only because of immigration. Western Europe is in a state of decline. Russia is in even worse shape.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Winex,
I appreciate you explaining that your beliefs do not allow for gay marriage. While I disagree with those beliefs, I won't try to get you to change your mind, and will merely hope that time and experience will temper your views. (If my now 70+ year old Dad could come around a couple of years ago concluding that it was a simply a matter of fairness, there's hope to be had.) I would never dream of having the government tell a church what its doctrines must be, but where the government is involved, it must treat people equally. (See, U.S. Const. Art. XIV, sec. 1). And where a law conflicts the Constitution, the law must be stricken (or at least modified). That's why "the law says" argument doesn't fly with me. I would also add that "the law says" that you can't drive faster than 65 mph on most freeways, but I don't see a lot of non-law enforcement people putting in lots of time and effort to make sure that no one drives over the speed limit, which really can do lasting and permanent harm to innocent third parties.
In any event, given our differing beliefs, we'll just have to call it a day on this one.
On a lighter note (and this comment is not directed at Winex, but to the board at large), have you ever had life randomly hand you a mirror? I came across this yesterday and could not stop laughing. I half wonder if my husband didn't submit the idea to the author. I may sub out the cats for this.
<img alt="" src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png" />
I appreciate you explaining that your beliefs do not allow for gay marriage. While I disagree with those beliefs, I won't try to get you to change your mind, and will merely hope that time and experience will temper your views. (If my now 70+ year old Dad could come around a couple of years ago concluding that it was a simply a matter of fairness, there's hope to be had.) I would never dream of having the government tell a church what its doctrines must be, but where the government is involved, it must treat people equally. (See, U.S. Const. Art. XIV, sec. 1). And where a law conflicts the Constitution, the law must be stricken (or at least modified). That's why "the law says" argument doesn't fly with me. I would also add that "the law says" that you can't drive faster than 65 mph on most freeways, but I don't see a lot of non-law enforcement people putting in lots of time and effort to make sure that no one drives over the speed limit, which really can do lasting and permanent harm to innocent third parties.
In any event, given our differing beliefs, we'll just have to call it a day on this one.
On a lighter note (and this comment is not directed at Winex, but to the board at large), have you ever had life randomly hand you a mirror? I came across this yesterday and could not stop laughing. I half wonder if my husband didn't submit the idea to the author. I may sub out the cats for this.
<img alt="" src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png" />
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>Winex,</p>
<p>We agree on a lot, but your logic is faulty on this. </p>
<p><em>"In the case of marriage, the government recognizes that encouraging the creation of families helps bring order to society."</em> Show me where the 'government' recognized <em>that</em> prior to gay marriage being an issue facing the general population. You can't, because it wasn't even considered a possibilty that homosexuals would be brazen enough to be publically demonstrative until the sexual revolution of the 60's; they were a dirty secret we didn't talk about for most of the country's history. Your statement would be more accurate if you replace "government" with "social conservatives and homophobes". I'm all for families and a stable society. One man, one woman is the traditional approach but two men or two women would work just as well. It's not the sex of the parents, it's the quality that makes a good family. How many trailer parks are filled with single moms stuck with kids after their white trash dad just bailed? How are two men raising a happy and well behaved child worse than what you find in your average Wal-mart? Rosie O'donnell not withstanding, how many lesbian couples would be better parents than Brit & K-Fed?</p>
<p><em>"Based on the mores of society, the laws related to marriage specify that it is between one man and one woman in most of the United States."</em> Again, there were several states that didn't define marriage as any such thing prior to the 2004 elections, when that language was introduced via the ballot box initiatives. Not coincidentally, Bush carried states with those measures on the ballot. Efforts to redefine marriage after the fact won't hold up under judicial scrutiny, nor should they. Which leads us directly back to <em>Loving v. Virgina,</em> valid in one state is valid in all states.</p>
<p>Logically, you can't decry a restrictive gun law as an infringement of the created right to bear arms and not see a law barring same sex marriage as discrimination based on sex. And if you don't think of the second amendment as a created right but a natural one, then how can you logically deny that we have a natural right to marry?</p>
<p>We agree on a lot, but your logic is faulty on this. </p>
<p><em>"In the case of marriage, the government recognizes that encouraging the creation of families helps bring order to society."</em> Show me where the 'government' recognized <em>that</em> prior to gay marriage being an issue facing the general population. You can't, because it wasn't even considered a possibilty that homosexuals would be brazen enough to be publically demonstrative until the sexual revolution of the 60's; they were a dirty secret we didn't talk about for most of the country's history. Your statement would be more accurate if you replace "government" with "social conservatives and homophobes". I'm all for families and a stable society. One man, one woman is the traditional approach but two men or two women would work just as well. It's not the sex of the parents, it's the quality that makes a good family. How many trailer parks are filled with single moms stuck with kids after their white trash dad just bailed? How are two men raising a happy and well behaved child worse than what you find in your average Wal-mart? Rosie O'donnell not withstanding, how many lesbian couples would be better parents than Brit & K-Fed?</p>
<p><em>"Based on the mores of society, the laws related to marriage specify that it is between one man and one woman in most of the United States."</em> Again, there were several states that didn't define marriage as any such thing prior to the 2004 elections, when that language was introduced via the ballot box initiatives. Not coincidentally, Bush carried states with those measures on the ballot. Efforts to redefine marriage after the fact won't hold up under judicial scrutiny, nor should they. Which leads us directly back to <em>Loving v. Virgina,</em> valid in one state is valid in all states.</p>
<p>Logically, you can't decry a restrictive gun law as an infringement of the created right to bear arms and not see a law barring same sex marriage as discrimination based on sex. And if you don't think of the second amendment as a created right but a natural one, then how can you logically deny that we have a natural right to marry?</p>
Trooper_IHB
New member
Thanks Nude.
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>For those who care about such things, Obama gave a remarkably frank speech on race, which can be found <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?ei=5087&em=&en=06a539b9d149224f&ex=1205985600&pagewanted=all">here</a>. </p>
<p>If he follows it up with a concrete plan, as opposed to more of the same failed federal spending programs, he might even get my vote. In the big picture, making monumental progress in erasing the racial divide will do more good for this country than his social programs can do harm considering the economy will not allow tax dollars to become the primary agent in addressing any changes.</p>
<p>On a purely political note, he just killed any chance Hillary has of winning; she is the living embodiment of a white politician using other people's misery to promote their candidacy, promising everything and delivering nothing but the status quo. She might as well just drop out now.</p>
<p>If he follows it up with a concrete plan, as opposed to more of the same failed federal spending programs, he might even get my vote. In the big picture, making monumental progress in erasing the racial divide will do more good for this country than his social programs can do harm considering the economy will not allow tax dollars to become the primary agent in addressing any changes.</p>
<p>On a purely political note, he just killed any chance Hillary has of winning; she is the living embodiment of a white politician using other people's misery to promote their candidacy, promising everything and delivering nothing but the status quo. She might as well just drop out now.</p>
lendingmaestro_IHB
New member
That was pretty good.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Whoa. Did I accidentally make <em>Irish </em>coffee for breakfast?
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>Eva,</p>
<p>If that rocked you, then you might want to take a deep breath before clicking on the following link. <a href="http://www.art.com/asp/View_HighZoomResPop.asp?apn=12046109&imgloc=7-767-Z000ZS5B.jpg&imgwidth=687&imgheight=873">I've had some version of this poster on my walls for more than 25 years</a>. </p>
<p>If that rocked you, then you might want to take a deep breath before clicking on the following link. <a href="http://www.art.com/asp/View_HighZoomResPop.asp?apn=12046109&imgloc=7-767-Z000ZS5B.jpg&imgwidth=687&imgheight=873">I've had some version of this poster on my walls for more than 25 years</a>. </p>
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>Winex,</p>
<p>Reverend Wright isn't running for President so his rhetoric doesn't hold any more weight on the Democratic side than that of James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or Ralph Reed on the Republican side. His sermons are incendiary by design, he can afford to be on the edge of the political spectrum because he has no direct power to make change, and his racism has been exposed for everyone to see. Pat Robertson claims God talks to him directly every night on cable television, that the Illuminati are secretely running the world, and that a tsunami was going to hit us fine folks in the Pacific Northwest. Should I not vote for conservative candidates because their preachers are loopy?</p>
<p>I always do my homework, Winex. If I don't know something, I'll ask. When it comes to politics, operate under the assumption that I am fully informed.</p>
<p>Reverend Wright isn't running for President so his rhetoric doesn't hold any more weight on the Democratic side than that of James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or Ralph Reed on the Republican side. His sermons are incendiary by design, he can afford to be on the edge of the political spectrum because he has no direct power to make change, and his racism has been exposed for everyone to see. Pat Robertson claims God talks to him directly every night on cable television, that the Illuminati are secretely running the world, and that a tsunami was going to hit us fine folks in the Pacific Northwest. Should I not vote for conservative candidates because their preachers are loopy?</p>
<p>I always do my homework, Winex. If I don't know something, I'll ask. When it comes to politics, operate under the assumption that I am fully informed.</p>
>Reverend Wright isn't running for President so his rhetoric doesn't hold any more weight on the Democratic side than that of James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or Ralph Reed on the Republican side.
Then what do you think of Obama's supposed surprise about Reverend Wright's material? Either Obama is being less than honest with people on the subject, or he is too clueless to be in a position of responsibility.
Then what do you think of Obama's supposed surprise about Reverend Wright's material? Either Obama is being less than honest with people on the subject, or he is too clueless to be in a position of responsibility.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Who is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html">John Hagee</a>?
Eva, if you can find somewhere that I have made a positive comment about John McCain, I will retract that statement. But having lived in Arizona, and having made the mistake of voting for him in 1986, I don't think you will be able to find me saying anything about John McCain.
Now back to Obama....
Now back to Obama....
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Oooook, then...
If the point isn't to indirectly prop up McCain, then what is the point? Whoever the Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, and all the other 3rd party candidates aren't going to get elected, and I pretty much figure that you would rather slit your wrist rather than have a President Hillary, so I am confused.
Also, I never said that you made any positive comment about McCain. Not sure where you got that from. Then again, it's not the first time you have attributed arguments to me that I haven't made. <em>**Shrugs shoulders**</em>
If the point isn't to indirectly prop up McCain, then what is the point? Whoever the Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, and all the other 3rd party candidates aren't going to get elected, and I pretty much figure that you would rather slit your wrist rather than have a President Hillary, so I am confused.
Also, I never said that you made any positive comment about McCain. Not sure where you got that from. Then again, it's not the first time you have attributed arguments to me that I haven't made. <em>**Shrugs shoulders**</em>
" If the point isn't to indirectly prop up McCain, then what is the point?"
"Then again, it's not the first time you have attributed arguments to me that I haven't made."
Hmmm, this certainly sounds like a case of the kettle calling the pot black to me.
In any event, I simply believe that people need to know just how dangerous Obama is.
"Then again, it's not the first time you have attributed arguments to me that I haven't made."
Hmmm, this certainly sounds like a case of the kettle calling the pot black to me.
In any event, I simply believe that people need to know just how dangerous Obama is.
Trooper_IHB
New member
WINEX, I think people like <em>you</em> are dangerous.
WINEX,
I don't really know what world you live in, but Obama clearly and honestly talked about race no other politician would even dare to raise, when was the last time you and a group of multi racial friends sat and talked about stereotypes and the latest Mexican joke? Granted Obama's speech was politically strategic but lets face it, will Hilary even dare to raise the issue after all the divisive crap that Bill brought up? Obama is trying his darnedest to avoid the race card, ignoring the Rev jackson and al sharptons, and laying it as it is, all races retreating to their corners and complaining about other races/sexual orirentation/age/disabled making their life's miserable. If you truly believe that gays should not get married, go start a picket line somewhere or a coalition against gay marriage, woalk up to a gay person and say you are destroying our marriage institution (50% divorce rate is still good respectable, right?)
The constitution in this country in most cases have been hijacked and spun for political gains and financial gains, laws have been stricken and changed as society changes, same reason why civil rights came about, women's right to vote, the flip is frivolous lawsuits by evildoers using the ADA to sue business owners for having a sink leveled too high... sue for reverse discrimination. Obama is right, all the laws in the world will not help if they are not enforced, we have an illegal immigration problem in this country because business owners are not punished enough for hiring illegals, its a supply and demand issue, nobody hires, nobody will come... When Obama said that all the white resentment towards illegals is parallel to black resentment against whites, it is true, we are always looking for somebody to blame, especially other races, white ppl don;t hurt white ppl? get real....
You voted for the govt you have today, either vote to change it, or stop complaining, as I wrote b4 in my long rant sometime ago on this thread, there are so many issues that are socially driven, no law can change attitudes and prejudices, that is what OBAMA is trying point out, come together, be your brother's keeper, create a more just and united society where everybody benfits fromthe fruits, instead of hiding at our corners with our 'own' ppl and blame others for our misfortunes, I am a foreigner with a legit greencard in this country in case you are wondering, and it fumes me when illegals get to get amnesty, but I can look beyond that point because they too are looking for a better life which is taken for granted in this country, laws are laws, its useless if its not enforced, and all the constitution you spout will not change a thing until somebody like Ron Paul or a uniter like Obama, or anti-corp like Nader can get to office and enlighten all the country again on its founding fathers and what this country is based on, so keep voting the 2 parties, and I will see you continue to complain.
I don't really know what world you live in, but Obama clearly and honestly talked about race no other politician would even dare to raise, when was the last time you and a group of multi racial friends sat and talked about stereotypes and the latest Mexican joke? Granted Obama's speech was politically strategic but lets face it, will Hilary even dare to raise the issue after all the divisive crap that Bill brought up? Obama is trying his darnedest to avoid the race card, ignoring the Rev jackson and al sharptons, and laying it as it is, all races retreating to their corners and complaining about other races/sexual orirentation/age/disabled making their life's miserable. If you truly believe that gays should not get married, go start a picket line somewhere or a coalition against gay marriage, woalk up to a gay person and say you are destroying our marriage institution (50% divorce rate is still good respectable, right?)
The constitution in this country in most cases have been hijacked and spun for political gains and financial gains, laws have been stricken and changed as society changes, same reason why civil rights came about, women's right to vote, the flip is frivolous lawsuits by evildoers using the ADA to sue business owners for having a sink leveled too high... sue for reverse discrimination. Obama is right, all the laws in the world will not help if they are not enforced, we have an illegal immigration problem in this country because business owners are not punished enough for hiring illegals, its a supply and demand issue, nobody hires, nobody will come... When Obama said that all the white resentment towards illegals is parallel to black resentment against whites, it is true, we are always looking for somebody to blame, especially other races, white ppl don;t hurt white ppl? get real....
You voted for the govt you have today, either vote to change it, or stop complaining, as I wrote b4 in my long rant sometime ago on this thread, there are so many issues that are socially driven, no law can change attitudes and prejudices, that is what OBAMA is trying point out, come together, be your brother's keeper, create a more just and united society where everybody benfits fromthe fruits, instead of hiding at our corners with our 'own' ppl and blame others for our misfortunes, I am a foreigner with a legit greencard in this country in case you are wondering, and it fumes me when illegals get to get amnesty, but I can look beyond that point because they too are looking for a better life which is taken for granted in this country, laws are laws, its useless if its not enforced, and all the constitution you spout will not change a thing until somebody like Ron Paul or a uniter like Obama, or anti-corp like Nader can get to office and enlighten all the country again on its founding fathers and what this country is based on, so keep voting the 2 parties, and I will see you continue to complain.