| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Wasn't it just a few short weeks ago we were being told about the death of the Tea Party? As for the Koch Bros., they are way down the list of political operatives. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php No need to run in circles like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling. | ||
| Macbuell |
Garryb, you and the rest of your proggy friends should be scared about what happened to Cantor. What I think this means is two things ... 1) Conservatives at home are pissed and willing to show up at the polls to show it. Voter turnout with a lame duck D President and Pissed off republican base strongly favors the Republicans. 2) I think the general voting public, mostly independents but also some liberal leaning voters are moving to the right due to Obama and the Dems overall lack of leadership and consecutive screw ups. Also bad news for the Dems. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I hope there can be a new "true" conservative party, closer to a pragmatic libertarian. Social controllers on the right, if a gay couple wants to get married under secular law, it's none of your business. Let them. Social controllers on the left, if an owner of a business prefers not to make a cake for a gay couple, that isn't your business either. You aren't the thought police. Leave them be. And hopefully this new party can agree that selective abortion isn't OK. Not because we want to repress women, only because we don't want to murder women (and men) when they are defenseless in their mothers womb. It's only our business to the degree the rule of law needs to protect people to be free to make their own decisions regarding their own life. And agree that taking on debt that will be forced upon future generations is simple slavery, and is immoral and unjust. If you want a social program, the people that voted it in have to fund it completely. (Message edited by reepicheep on June 11, 2014) | ||
| Sifo |
Social controllers on the right, if a gay couple wants to get married under secular law, it's none of your business. Let them. I still see a problem here. Not much of a deal for me personally, but recognizing that there are serious religious objections to gay marriage, there is a problem. There is a very easy legal remedy to this though, but I have doubts that it will ever even get debated. The remedy is to eliminate tax incentives and other government benefits for ALL married couples. It really is that simple. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That would be fine also, and would also solve the problem. Though if the flying church of the spagetti monster wants to ordain ministers, and they want to marry a gay couple, then they would still be married and it would still be none of my business. You shouldn't be able to force a particular faith community to perform marriages they aren't comfortable with. But they shouldn't be forcing others not to perform marriages either. Unless there is some violation of a rule of law that protects freedom (like laws requiring an age of consent be reached before allowing marriage). The Christian institution of marriage should never have been the government definition of marriage in the first place. They are two very different things. | ||
| Hootowl |
"The Christian institution of marriage should never have been the government definition of marriage in the first place. " See my earlier rant about the government's involvement in marriage. I think it's a church state issue, and unconstitutional. | ||
| Macbuell |
The definition is Marriage isn't really the issue. The issue is, years ago, the Government instituted tax breaks around Marriage and Children thinking that those things were good for society. Now everyone wants those same benefits. Here's an idea ... get rid of the tax code and go with either a flat tax or a sales tax ... problem solved. Not speaking for myself but growing up Catholic, going to Catholic school through highschool, I know the mindset. Marriage is a sacrament and has been around for who knows how long and has been an important part of Christianity, Judaism, etc. The Governments problem wasn't using the definition of Marriage for the government definition of Marriage. It was using the term Marriage itself unless they meant to follow the religious definition. Many devout Christians don't like the sacrament of Marriage used to describe something they disagree with religiously. It's an insult to them. How come religious freedom and tolerance is insisted at every turn accept when Christians are insulted. Then it's, well tough ... you deal with it. Just take the term "marriage" out of the equation and call it civil unions. Most won't care at that point, except the truly bigoted and who cares what they think. | ||
| Aesquire |
Reep, I agree we need a hardcore centrist liberation/libertarian movement. Govern less, govern better, most aspects of life are not govt. business. Just look at this Regimes abuses of power. Government interference in your life ( IMHO, feel free to have your own ) comes in 3 levels, None of your Business. None of your Damn Business. No wonder you want to take our guns. They really want to take your guns.... | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Isn't it more than just taxes/money though? Like wanting shared health benefits and death benefits, or if partner is in critical care or bad accident... or even in jail.. to be legally able get the same info that a married spouse would get? If Civil Unions could cover all the above, wouldn't that be fine? | ||
| Reepicheep |
It would work fine for me. The government would remove references to marriage, define all the previous laws as relating to civil unions, and the government institution of marriage would be a civil union. Churches could perform any rite they see fit and call it whatever they want, including christian marriage. You might even be able to get broad coalitions of religious groups to trademark the term "Christian Marriage" so that they can put constraints on people claiming to be it anyway. No different than me being able to claim that I am a professional engineer, when, while I am an engineer, I do not have a PE license. Power to the true conservatives! Less is more. | ||
| Sifo |
Just take the term "marriage" out of the equation and call it civil unions. Most won't care at that point, except the truly bigoted and who cares what they think. And you were so close to getting it right. It really doesn't matter what you call it. When the state is using general tax dollars to promote a lifestyle that some find objectionable on religious grounds, you have a problem. The label that is put on it doesn't matter. You have the correct solution though. Drop the tax benefit/responsibility from the union and you eliminate the problem. Then you can allow gay civil unions, gay marriage, what ever you like and it isn't being promoted with tax dollars taken from those who object. If a church chooses to recognize gay marriage, then fine. Don't like that? Find another church. If a church doesn't recognize gay marriage, then fine. Don't like that? Find another church. Learn to be tolerant of the church's choice. Same with the guy making wedding cakes, and the wedding photographers. | ||
| Aesquire |
Really we should just do a Group/Alt "marriage" thread for this one.... Civil Unions for the legal bits. Inheritances, property, visitation, ( Hospital & jail ) etc. All I ask is the consensus that we limit it to "Consenting Adults". I question if removing all legal incentives is proper. How about...no more tax paid by others incentives, but some tax savings incentives? The Purpose of human partnerships should be to preserve property & support offspring. Don't ya think? Religion would have nothing to do with it. Enjoy your Wiccan ceremony ( they rock ) or Catholic triple threat one. P.S. The "Catholic Triple Threat" ceremony is where you do the vows 3 times.... and A buddy married a Korean-American girl, from NYC.... after they eloped........ the families laid on the Big One with..... Well..... first the Young American Local Priest ( His Parent's ) did the ceremony in English, with Korean Translation. Then the Old Korean NYC Priest ( Her Parent's ) did it again in Korean. 9 times through the vows..... Plus the Civil ceremony when they eloped. I doubt any but Royalty has ever been so thoroughly married.  | ||
| Sifo |
On to a more pressing issue... Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood 'orchestrated'
| ||
| Reindog |
As the outrage over Obama's decision to prevent the first Jihadist State of ISIS (look it up yourself if you are too apathetic to follow the news), there is hope of a Conservative uprising in America. The odds are long as the MSM protects the Left and 47% of Americans would rather have "free" crumbs from the Federal Government than freedom and liberty. Let's get started....  | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Reindog |
Obama is going to be crucified by historians. | ||
| Aesquire |
The smart alec in me wants to respond "Why wait?" but That would be a Criminal act. Funny, but forbidden. Eventually, yes, Obama is going to be critically seen by history. The question I have is... Will it be the beginning of the end of the Regressive era, or the end of the Republic and the start of a thousand years of mass murder? Notice that the Soviet era lasted a century, and it's Red China counterpart is still in the mass murder business. Don't think so? Open a Christian Church. | ||
| Airbozo |
"The Purpose of human partnerships should be to preserve property & support offspring. Don't ya think? " No I don't. The purpose of human partnership is to provide strength, support and love to someone who means a great deal to you. A side benefit would be offspring, if you so choose, but that offspring should _never_ be more important than the initial relationship (which in and of itself would benefit the well being of that offspring). Humans are not normally single partner creatures. Religion created the notion of marriage and fidelity (which is abused by most faiths because they will be "forgiven"). "Obama is going to be crucified by historians." Only by historians with similar opinions to yours. Different people see things different ways. Something you feel may be bad for the country would be seen as a boon by another person. It all depends on who is writing the history book. | ||
| Pwnzor |
A side benefit would be offspring, if you so choose, but that offspring should _never_ be more important than the initial relationship That is a seriously f'd up philosophy. Once a child comes into the picture, ALL else is secondary at best. When you undertake to CREATE a life, you are 100% responsible for every aspect of that life. NOTHING else matters as much, if at all. | ||
| Reindog |
Glad you posted, Airbozo. Your postings about Obama are eagerly awaited. | ||
| Hootowl |
The VAST majority of women, if they had to choose between their husbands and their children, would choose their children 11 times out of 10. Ask any woman with children. You're a bit out of touch with reality on this point Terry. | ||
| Airbozo |
I am not saying that the kids don't matter, but I am saying that a strong foundation must exist for those kids to mature into strong and healthy adults. I can't count how many of my friends put their kids above each other and now the kids are paying the ultimate price. But hey, now they have 2 mommies and 2 daddies... To show that the love of your spouse is important above all else, teaches important lessons about the human relationship. It also shows that the parental units can not be broken down and attacked (which 99% of all kids try to do). "The VAST majority of women, if they had to choose between their husbands and their children, would choose their children 11 times out of 10. Ask any woman with children." I would argue they have some pretty poor husbands then (I jest, I jest), but that is not what I was trying to get at. Sure, given the choice to save the wife or kids from drowning, yes the kids would be saved first, but that does not mean I put the kids first. Sacrificing the wife to save the kids still supports my belief of putting my spouse first. We would BOTH want them to survive. My intention by that statement means that you take care of the needs and wants of your spouse first and then the kids. Sometimes it is a mutual need and want. Just like putting on your oxygen mask first in a plane. You have to make sure the adult and/or caregiver is healthy in order to take care of the kids. That is my intent of that statement. A strong parental unit raises strong smart kids. "Glad you posted, Airbozo. Your postings about Obama are eagerly awaited." My feelings for all politicians are the same. I feel no different about Obama than I do Bush. They are all tools of different masters that serve their own intentions and do not have the best interest of the common American citizen anywhere on their radar. I also feel the people whining about Obama and his misdeeds are louder than the Bush whiners ever were. Even though I may not like either one of them, I respect that they are/were Commander In Chief and behave accordingly. It's also funny to hear both sides proclaim (XXXXX) is not my president! Kind of funny because if you are an American citizen then whoever was elected is indeed your president. You don't have to like it though and that is fine. | ||
| Court |
>>>>I am not saying that the kids don't matter, but I am saying that a strong foundation must exist for those kids to mature into strong and healthy adults. You are either not a parent or perhaps a poor one. I know of one young black kid who was raised by a single mother in a broken home and did fine. History . . . as Democrats rapidly begin getting as far from this guy as they can . . . will be crucifying him in about equal number I'd guess. | ||
| Sifo |
Give 'em both barrels Joe!  | ||
| Court |
Ooooops He knows all the players . . . knows and understands everything about the region and is thrilled with the way they use logic and the system, rather than guns, to bring about change, But . . .wait . . isn't this the area that's begin overrun today and the insurgents are already lining up claiming "dibs" on the equipment and supplies the Americans . . the only fighting force to "leave on a schedule" will be leaving behind. Yeah . . we need better experts. Next thing you know he'll be lecturing us about WSBK performance ! ! ! | ||
| Airbozo |
"You are either not a parent or perhaps a poor one. I know of one young black kid who was raised by a single mother in a broken home and did fine." I was raised by a single mother in a broken home never knowing my father or his name and I did just fine as well. I would have to argue though, that I (and the black kid you refer to) are exceptions to the rule and not the normal outcome. My point is that putting your kids needs and desires above that of your spouse (IMO) is the wrong thing in most cases (again, there are exceptions to the rule). Most of the times those needs and desires are the same, but not always. I am not talking about stupid shit that would hurt the kids. That is not what this is about. If your kids want something and your spouse feels they should not have it (for whatever reason) do you side with the kids or support your spouse? I've seen too many families and kids in general get pretty messed up due to one parent siding with the kids over the spouse. You are not your kids friends, you are their parents. If they happen to actually like the person you are (and how you treat them) than that is a major bonus, but not the primary goal. The primary goal is to get them as prepared for life as you can. Again, my point was that the bond between the parents must be strong and they must have each others best interest in mind when making decisions about kids. I may have stated it wrong, but I would wager that most of you do indeed hold your spouse at a higher level than your kids when it comes to love and dedication. These are not conflicting ideals, rather a united front FOR the kids. | ||
| Court |
>>>>The primary goal is to get them as prepared for life as you can. I have long said . . . "my primarily goal, as a parent, was to become increasingly disposable to my children culminating about about age 18". It worked . . . . my sons, now 33 and 35 are amazing. I know, and appreciate, what you are saying. You are just wording it very poorly. | ||
| Court |
Someone failed to listen to Biden . . . http://nypost.com/2014/06/12/al-qaeda-linked-group -vows-to-march-on-baghdad/ |
