It is the job of the Supreme Court to apply the Constitution and while Congress is presumed to do that as well, it has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to violate your Constitutional rights.Originally Posted by MrsSmith
|
|
05-09-2011, 10:42 PM
It is the job of the Supreme Court to apply the Constitution and while Congress is presumed to do that as well, it has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to violate your Constitutional rights.
05-09-2011, 11:33 PM
I have long life longevity working for me. Unlike you, I don't worry about laying up in a hospital suffering with full blown Aids. However, with Obamacare, your stay will be cut short because of cost measures. You will be told to go home and die. Sucker.
05-10-2011, 01:30 AM
Wow. You should print this out and put it with your effects, just in case anyone is tempted to remember you as a good person.
05-10-2011, 01:51 AM
You wish me ill and when I throw it back in your face, you whine like a little sissy.l
Better start sewing a blanket. Obamacare and his death panels.
Last edited by lacarnut; 05-10-2011 at 02:14 AM.
05-10-2011, 07:35 AM
I'm in agreement here. Government should be about protecting rights, not enforcing opinion. I agree, personally, with the morality of entities like the FRC, however, when they "boo" abortion and marriage as a States Rights issue at a National Debate like they did in 2007, they need to re-examine exactly what Federalism means. I know this is probably going to break some hearts, but the religious right is the past of the conservative party, the libertarian right is the future. Some may disagree, but I've met too many people at rallies & online in my age group [early 30's] who care more about being left alone than morality issues to convince me otherwise.
High, straight fastball, easy to pick off. I totally agree, and it's an easy sell because most voters don't realize we can't defend 2,000 miles of open border with most of our assets spread across the globe without spending a whole lot more, but they don't need to know that.
Here comes the change-up slider, a candidate who promises this will look like a fool on national T.V. There are a huge number of illegal immigrants spread throughout this country top to bottom. They don't exactly come when you call 'em, and a nationwide Maricopa County Sheriff's style roundup would cost too much and yield too little. This "promise" would get a politician laughed at, not elected. There's no way to "round 'em up and deport 'em", though there are some alternative plans which could work.
That should go without saying, and is expected of a Republican candidate. Gun control is an issue which can turn an election south in a hurry.
Remember that whole Federalism thing? Apply it here. You want a candidate that will defend gay marriage and force the Several States and municipalities to comply. The religious right, which you obviously don't agree with, wants a candidate that will outlaw gay marriage and force the Several States and municipalities to comply. That is a no-win, no matter how you look at it. The courts will rip either law to shreds. To put it bluntly the Federal Government was not allowed the power to legislate marriage. This is a 10th Amendment issue, regardless how convoluted it has become in tax, inheritance and other family law. If any legislation, pro or against, gay marriage is passed, those of us who don't really care what Harry & Sally or Harry & Sam next door are doing will foot the cost of the court circus which will ensue. The candidate who wants to lead the charge in extracting the federal government from family law will clearly win here.
Nova, how on God's green earth can you reconcile your longing for a single payer system while advocating an individual's freedom of association within your defining issue of gay marriage?
I can see how you might go about reconciling these positions, and it's not a pretty picture. You see, you don't really care about the people of a community "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". You care about your own personal ideals of forcing all to accept gays and getting free or cheaper healthcare paid for by those younger and healthier than yourself. You don't care about the rule of law, the sanctity of property, or the freedom of local, dispersed governance. "To Each Their Own" isn't a part of your vocabulary. Old School Conservatives and libertarians actually care about gays who want to marry and support their right to do so, even if we don't agree with the morality. Modern liberals, progressives, or whatever you want to call them can't say the same for those who wish to speak against gay marriage. People who care only to push their own ideals tend abolish your right to speak if they don't agree with what you are saying instead of defending it, and you consistently fall into their basket. Do you get my drift? You won't stand up, politically, for those who want, for whatever reason, to live in a gay free community, ever, and that is to your detriment.
05-10-2011, 12:10 PM
I see a huge difference there because the religious right wants what amounts to religious discrimination. They have tried, in court no less, to defend their position without using religion or tradition and they have failed to do so. The simple fact is that preventing gay marriage has no effect on the number of gay people, it's stupid to think that it would. So the only effect of denying gay people equal treatment here is religious discrimination. Another fact is that even if you think "the government shouldn't be in the marriage business" it is, and it will continue so for the foreseeable future. You frame it that marriage has become about property when in fact that is the origin of marriage: inheritance and property even at the tribal level. It defines who gets what. There are federal aspects to marriage, and we do want marriages to be valid when you move from state to state, as they pretty much always have been since Loving vs Virginia.
I reconcile it because what we are doing now is expensive and makes no sense. We use taxes to pay for schooling, training, research, inventions, care for the military, care for the elderly, care for the poor, care for the uninsured. We use our paychecks to pay for insurance premiums most of our lives, and then we are dumped into the government plan when we get old or become so ill we can't work.
We pay for NIH and the universities to invent drugs which are then licensed to pharmaceutical companies. We pay for hospitals to be built, schools to teach, and studies to be done. And we also allow these people to use us as Guinea pigs, granted in hopes we will benefit- but the point is that these are not people who are creating a product out of their own resources and then selling it to us at a price the market will bear. This system is subsidized over and over through a patchwork of taxes, charity, and volunteers.
The net result is that we are paying more per person than countries with Single Payer. The whole time there is this propaganda machine out there saying that we're getting more for our money, and winking at people like you and me saying "And you know that because you have insurance, you get to go to the head of the line." It's a lie.
A woman called Neal Boortz yesterday and put it in a nutshell. She said, "I don't want to pay for the brood mare on the couch diabetes medication... but a child would be another matter." I see this as being the charity shibboleth. To say that you don't want to be part of a Single Payer system because charity can take care of the poor, but then you want to pick and choose who the deserving poor are. Imagine how crazy it would be if that woman also opposes abortion (she didn't say if she did) but she doesn't want to pay for life saving medication for someone because she thinks she's useless? Does that make sense?
And the crazy part is this: she would be paying for that woman either way, assuming that she actually pays for anything. Yes, your taxes go to provide medical care to indigent people, but your money also went to my very expensive surgery on my left leg, because you buy gasoline and I worked for an oil company.
It all comes out in the wash. So why are we paying premiums to insurance companies all of our working lives, only to go into Medicare when we need care? It doesn't make sense.
05-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Sorry, I didn't know you were planning to live to 150.
05-10-2011, 01:23 PM
You have not heard. I found the fountain of youth.
05-10-2011, 08:31 PM
A couple points...the religious right - whatever that means - isn't trying to "outlaw gay marriage." Gay "marriage" has never been legal and has never been "their right." No one cares what Sam and Charlie are doing next door...so long as they're not in the middle of the street or demonstrating "techniques" to the whole neighborhood. The 70% of voters that have voted against gay marriage aren't voting because they don't like gay people, they're voting because they understand what marriage is...and it isn't defined by "any 2 people having sex." Many of us would be completely happy with allowing full "marital rights" to any 2 people...but it would be literally ANY 2 PEOPLE. Mother and adult child, no sexual involvement, give them the benefits. Two siblings, no sexual involvement, give them the benefits. Two long time friends/roomates, regardless of sex, no sexual involvement, give them the benefits.
Why shouldn't this "right" be extended on the basis of living arrangements instead of on the basis of sexual relations? Why does the same-sex lobby fight against this idea?
05-10-2011, 08:37 PM
Don't tell him where it is, he'll try to swallow it.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
