This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Heheheheee! This brightened my day.
I wonder if the gay lobby's attempt to indoctrinate little kids into homosexuality has anything to do with it?
Or the the fact that liberals would rather kill babies than raise them. Since everything revolves around them, no way would they ever let themselves be inconvenienced by a child, no sir.
"I wonder if the gay lobby's attempt to indoctrinate little kids into homosexuality has anything to do with it?"
WTF? I'll let you explain a little before I even try to figure out what that's supposed to mean.
"Or the the fact that liberals would rather kill babies than raise them. Since everything revolves around them, no way would they ever let themselves be inconvenienced by a child, no sir."
And, WTF?
Please tell me this was all supposed to be a joke.
I read some interesting stats on that. If I recall, we'll pretty much be in total control by 2020.
PPPFFFPPPTTTTT, it was just a matter of time.
"Please tell me this was all supposed to be a joke."
No sadly, it's not. You explain to me the necessity of bringing up homosexuality to kids in the first grade and up just to tell them "it's ok".
From one of Jenns recent posts:
"SB 1437 requires all teachers, all textbooks and all instructional materials to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, bisexuality and homosexuality, including homosexual 'marriages,'".
These kids are just that ... KIDS. They don't need to hear any of this shit.
And by now Pete, you fucking conspiracy addicted moron, you should know that the liberal "philosophy" revolves around self-indulgence. They claim to care for the poor, working man, blah, blah, blah, but only when it comes out of someone elses pocket.
Climb out from under your rock and find a fucking life and quit pretending you have a clue or opinion about anything.
There you go again with the anger, Darwin. You really should look into that. There has to be some kind of link between having to try to bully and belittle people on the Internet and some kind of psychological trigger.
I don't see the teaching of toleration as "the gay lobby's attempt to indoctrinate little kids into homosexuality." People are gay, man. They're born with it. Kids should learn as soon as possible not to treat gay people any different than a kid with asthma. Sure, you don't want teachers directly bringing up the gay debate to a class of first graders, but if the topic comes up, they should be held to teaching tolerance. Do you want to raise a whole generation of bigots? Sure sounds like it.
I do realize the liberal philosophy revolves around self-indulgence. I'm not a liberal. Nor a conservative Republican nut, like most of you guys in here. Thanks for the lesson, though.
And seriously, Darwin, do something about that anger, man. Just accept thet fact that not everyone shares your views.
Waaaaaa: "There has to be some kind of link between having to try to bully and belittle people on the Internet and some kind of psychological trigger."
So, you're a victim now? Can't stand up for yourself? You have to label people as "bullies" and say you're being "belittled"? Your liberal grade school indoctrination is showing. Pussy
Waaaaaaa: "Kids should learn as soon as possible not to treat gay people any different than a kid with asthma."
They should learn to treat ALL people as they would like to be treated. Not just cross-dressers, transsexuals (pre & post op), bisexuals, homosexuals and whatever other category of sexual infatuation they can come up with. Get the point? No, you don't. There's no need to break people down into categories and there's definitely no need to bring sex into the classroom for kids these ages.
"I do realize the liberal philosophy revolves around self-indulgence."
Then you're even more confused than I had previously thought. Since you agree with that, you must understand why having children is a burden to liberals, and not a joy. Why they don't mind killing babies, and conservatives would rather raise them.
Now that I know you're just a chicken shit pussy who can be intimidated by a post from someone you don't know ....... BOO.
I beg to differ on this one.
"People are gay, man. They're born with it." -Panty Pete (say's like it's a disease)
When I wrote the piece on SB1437, I asked my friend/co-worker "T", what she thought about it. This is important, because T is a lesbian, so she actually has some say in this matter.
She said that it is inappropriate to teach 3 year olds about sex(and this was the age they wanted to start, particularily in England). And that is what it is, teaching them about sex. Period. Being gay isn't a race, it's a sexual preference.
Second, she also agreed with me, that it is up to the parents of these children to discuss this with their kids, not the schools.
Finally, I asked her when she knew she was gay, and she said, when she was 24. She had no feelings toward women before that time, when she met her current girlfriend. They have been together for 9 years. She thinks the whole "born that way" thing is a crock of sh*t. As far as she was concerned, it was just her preference. And you know what, she's not the only one of my gay friends to say the same thing. My old boss, same. Two co-workers at a job a few years ago, whom I still keep in touch with, same.
I found that interesting.
Wow. I have issues?
I hope everyone else reading these posts is getting as big a chuckle as I am at the incessant need for namecalling and proving that you're a bigger man. I think we all know what that means. I bet you drive a fancy sports car, too?
At any rate, "They should learn to treat ALL people as they would like to be treated," could quite possibly be the smartest thing I've ever seen you write. However, there is a need for making it a specific policy to teach the tolerance of sexual preference. Unfortunately, there are extreme conservative religious nuts who are teaching that gay people go to hell and that sort of thing. The same way they want to ignore science to teach the magical world of creationism. The lines are all blurred, man.
"you must understand why having children is a burden to liberals, and not a joy. Why they don't mind killing babies, and conservatives would rather raise them."
Man, where to start with that generalization. Just last year, a very popular reverend based in my city, who also is an extreme right wing activist and is broadcast throughout the southeast, was in a little pickle. It seems that his 15-year-old daughter got pregnant and was too God-fearing to tell her parents. She managed to hide the pregnancy, give birth in her closet, kill the baby, clean up the mess, and put the dead fetus in a styrofoam cooler in the back of her closet.
A week later, the house maid smelled something a little funny, and discovered the dead baby. She stood trial, and of course, since her daddy was an influential Republican, got no penalty.
I bring this up because these extreme views do nothing but encourage tragedies like the one above. And that your statement is ignorant to suggest that conservatives all raise their babies and all liberals don't mind killing babies.
Grow up, man. Next thing I know you'll be taking off your shirt and challenging me to a fight.
Thanks Jenn, you were able to make more sense than I did. Pete's still a confused hetero-homo-bi-cross dressing-transexual though.
Jenn, what I find interesting is science. Look into it.
It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that teaching "sex" to 3-year-olds isn't a sound idea. I don't think anyone here even suggested that.
Ask just about any gay man if they'd rather be heterosexual, and they'd tell you, 'hell yeah!.' It's not a choice. For some, yes, it is. Gender can't be defined as man, woman, gay, straight, like we've been taught. There is far too much gray area and in-between. It's different for everyone. But the lone fact of the matter is, being gay is largely not a choice.
"I bet you drive a fancy sports car, too?"
No, I drive a 1992 Cayman green Ford Ranger. I'm nothing like what you perceive me to be and you haven't any ability to grasp who or what people really are. Go away.
The rest of your post is jibberish and nonsensical. Go away further.
I'm proud of you, Darwin. I knew you could make it through one post without cussing at me or trying to degrade me.
Now if we can just get you to have some meaningful debate. We'll work on that.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Republicans should back off and let men marry men, women marry women, and totally legalize abortion.
In three generations there will be no Democrats!
"Now if we can just get you to have some meaningful debate. We'll work on that."
It's impossible because I won't agree on any issue that you care to bring up. My underlying philosophy is people are essentially responsible for themselves and the further one gets from accepting responsibility, the more problems society faces. It's not a perfect world and things will never be perfect. Imposing any kind of federal, state, or politically correct standard of responsibility goes not only agaisnt the basic premise of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but against the basic tendency of mankind to better itself through it's own volition and necessity. That's why socialism or any ideology that restricts the freedom of individuals in any way stagnates the evolution of mankind instead of furthering it.
You seem to believe that government should be there to take care of all. Therefore, we will disagree constantly and debate nothing.
"In three generations there will be no Democrats!"
And no more Petes !!!!!!!
When can we start?
I heard this last night - yippee! Hope springs eternal! They further predict that the heavily blue areas (i.e. NYC, LA and SF) will also be red within this time frame due to this phenomenon. Lib city dwellers seem to be even more self-absorbed than their burb counterparts and are even less likely to reproduce.
"Ask just about any gay man if they'd rather be heterosexual, and they'd tell you, 'hell yeah!."-PP
That's a load of crap, most gay men I know (and that's quite a few) like being gay, big time, they revel in it.
"Gender can't be defined as man, woman, gay, straight, like we've been taught."-PP
"Jenn, what I find interesting is science. Look into it."-PP
Uh, scientifically speaking, a man is a man, and a woman is a woman. That would be their GENDER.
Sexual preference is not a science, it's a choice. Like I choose to have rockin' sex with my male heterosexual husband. My friend T, she has rockin' sex with her girlfriend. She's still a woman, and so am I.
What I have a problem with is teachers imposing their "feelings" on children on subjects that have nothing to do with education and schooling. I managed to accept people who are gay without teachers shoving it down my throat. But other people can choose, as if their right, and part of their freedom, to not accept it. Due to their religion, or any other reason.
"You seem to believe that government should be there to take care of all. Therefore, we will disagree constantly and debate nothing."
So you can only debate with people who agree with you? Nice logic ... and not much cause for any debate then.
I'm not sure what gave you this impression. You're assuming I'm like the "libtards" you guys are always degrading in here.
I'm totally for taking responsibility for yourself. But I also think as a functioning society there needs to be upgrades to some standards that naturally have changed since 1776. You can't keep living and progressing without change.
How would government survive without our tax dollars? I think in return for our tax dollars and obeying the law there ought to be services that are provided for its people. I think if a natural disaster hits that the government should do its part in helping those people get back on their feet and rebuilding. Etc ....
I guess I just don't understand where you pulled that out of the air since you didn't provide any kind of context for the statement.
Oh, and Henry, that's right, man: there are absolutely no gay republicans. Good call.
P.S. Darwin is right and Pete is wrong.
Henry - with all due respect, that's a bad idea (although your comment sounded more tongue in cheek than anything). The reason being that if we let the homos marry then we can't constitutionally stop the moron who comes in wanting to marry his 6 year old nephew.
Think it won't happen - guess again. This nonsense is already starting to happen in MA - which is why they're rethinking that same-sex marraige thing. A guy has already come in wantng to marry sisters, some guy wants beastiality decriminialized and NAMBLA is pushing their sick agenda - all in the name of "it's just a life-style choice."
People are always saying "Don't be silly/hysterical! It will NEVER come to that!" Yet they are always proved wrong time and time again. Without rules people are idiots!
"Lib city dwellers seem to be even more self-absorbed than their burb counterparts and are even less likely to reproduce."
Especially true in San Fran. Don't forget the fact that the colon doesn't contain any reproductive organs.
Just so every one is clear:
My comment was, as Wit surmised, "tongue in cheek".
However, Jenn's post lends itself to the truth within the humor.
"So you can only debate with people who agree with you? Nice logic ... and not much cause for any debate then." -PP
That is not what Darwin meant and you know it sh*tbrick. His point, if I may assume to speak for him, is that you will not agree on anything, ever, because your views on society, and the world as a whole are so vastly different, that there is no point.
You do have a point Wit, one I've argued before. Now, while many can argue that there are age restrictions on marriage, that won't stop pedophile/NAMBLA types from then wanting their own way. I mean if Adam and Steve can get married, then why can't Pete and his donkey? Or Kelly and her brother Mike..... You get the point.
"You can't keep living and progressing without change."
How you and I define progress are two different things. I view our progress now as going backwards. Men and women were freer when this country was founded than we are today.
We're not going to get anywhere on this gay topic. Especially once we start talking about beastiality and calling them homos.
And, Jenn, if you think gender is as simple as "a man is a man and a woman is a woman," you just set back gender studies about 75 years.
Let's move on ...
Hey Jenn, you can speak for me anytime!!
Gender studies? Man, now you know why I think our progress is going backwards. What an absolute waste of time and money.
ok- how about this: why is it that many men to women transsexuals then become lesbians?
Although it has been explained to me several times- I still don't get it. Maybe it's my american brain.
All I know is when one of these girls starts giving it the "Hey, sister, I know", all I want to say is that unless you have to deal every month with what I have to deal with- I don't want to hear it!
Ok Pete- I'm waiting for your learned response.
You're going to have to do a better job of posing a question, Kris. I can't make any sense of what you wrote.
I've got you Kris.
Then you translate, Jenn.
It's a good day when Rosie O'Donnell doesn't spawn out the devil child.. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one scratching my head...
I don’t have time to read all the posts now, so sorry if I am repeating a point already made.
They can now realize what practicing what you preach gets you with their pride and joy issue. The pro-choice lefty’s can now see what happens when you kill your own. You go extinct.
They don't wash and who wants to hit the sack with someone that smells.
It doesn't take long to revert back to this adolescent namecalling and generalizations.
Fun!
I got you too Kris!
Miss Jenn - that is another of the libs goals - to remove age restrictions on marraige (another MA thing - Geez that state is going to hell, although it explains why Teddy keeps getting reelected).
And Pete - I call em homos because I WON'T call them gay (which means happy and carefree - I don't like people changing the meanings of words!) and typing out homosexual is just plain tedious.
Hey Pete,
Here's some name-calling: You're a giant douche!
In fact, I'm going to nominate you for The Biggest Douche in the Universe Award!
Everyone else feel free to do the same.
I love it when Pete get's all hoity toity and uses all his big boy words, like "revert" and "generalization".
What I love so much about it is how he often reverts to generalization when he condemns both myself and many of my regular commenters.
Pete, like most on the left lives by a "do as I say,not as I do" attitude. Typical.
Nice shot, Miss Jenn!
The reason being that if we let the homos marry then we can't constitutionally stop the moron who comes in wanting to marry his 6 year old nephew.
MY GOD your logic is infantile at best!
A union between two consenting ADULTS is in NO WAY comperable to a union between an adult and a minor child.
If we allow "the homos" (as you so elloquently put it) to marry, there is still precident for blocking marriage unions between adults and kids.
Oh and Jenn, how long will it take for you to realize that Pete isn't a thumb sucking Liberal... he just tends to disagree with you? I'm a Libertarian... FAR from Liberal and most of these comments disgust me.
I'm sorry you feel that way James, please feel free to not read anything here if you find it so offensive. Though, instead of condemning, why don't you attempt to conceptualize what exactly you find so offensive. Try to open a dialouge.
Pete is a thumbsucking liberal to the extreme, as well as a tin foil hat wearing card carry member of the left wing conspiracy theory brigade. He just disagrees to disagree.
I'm not fond of the term "homo" as it has been deemed rather offensive, and as you can see,I don't use it. But you see, this blog, it's called,"Say No To P.C.B.S.", not "Mamby Pamby Liberal Whiner", so if Wit wants to call them Homo's so be it.
I believe in freedom of speech.
James: "A union between two consenting ADULTS is in NO WAY comperable to a union between an adult and a minor child."
That's not how the "gay marriage" issue was conceptualized. It was challenged, successfully in Mass., as discrimination based on the fact that "married couples" were eligible for benefits and legalities that same sex partners weren't.
That could easily be applied to polygamists. In fact I think there's already a lawsuit out there somewhere and I see no reason why it couldn't be applied to any other "union". Bob and little mary, bob and little bob, bob and his goat, cathy and her dolphin, older teachers and young students and on and on.
When Jenn gets back to London and if we do get the chance to meet for a pint, I will tell her about the work I do at my computer- and then she will have a real understanding of what a relief and how much I enjoy the breath of fresh air her blog is.
BTW James, I'd probably consider myself more "libertarian" than "Republican"- simply because I don't think the republicans (unlike UK conservatives/Tories) would have me. And some of the comments here make me wince sometimes too. But have a hard look at it: it's ordinary Joe's participating in democracy- and it's pretty rare in this world.
So while you cry over the ass whoopin Pete gets on a daily basis here- make no mistake- he gets slammed- not so much for being a "liberal" but for being a grade a twat who is constitutionally incapable of backing up anything he says- ever.
Finally, instead of moaning about what is said- why don't you thank your lucky fucking stars that this is America- the last true bastion of freedom of speech- and lighten up!
What I find so offensive about this blog is that deep down, you and I (as well as many of your readers) share like beliefs, yet they seem to have a block somewhere that prevents open and mature discussion.
I see people come here for the first time with logical, well thought out points. Only to be faced with a barrage of childish name calling and ad hominem attacks from people whom I apparently share core political beliefs with.
True I CAN just stop coming by, nut since I thought highly enough of your "purpose" behind the blog to link to you from mine I come back hoping the readership has graduated High School from time to time.
@ Darwin...
It was challenged, successfully in Mass., as discrimination based on the fact that "married couples" were eligible for benefits and legalities that same sex partners weren't.
...and I agree with them. Moral American society as we knew it was supposed to fall into utter decay if a White man was allowed to marry a Black woman... and it didn't. Now I'm supposed to buy into your slippery slope theory that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, that every sexual deviant in the country will come out of the woodwork wanting spousal privileges for their daughter, pig, horse, etc.
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Denying someone certain benefits based solely on their social preferences IS discrimination. I personally find polygamy repulsive and absurd, but I see nothing ILLEGAL about it as long as those involved are consenting adults. Who am I to judge another?
Finally, instead of moaning about what is said- why don't you thank your lucky fucking stars that this is America- the last true bastion of freedom of speech- and lighten up!
America is NOT about Freedom any more... turn on the TV, in a 10 min span you'll run across MANY examples of people wanting to pass laws or sue someone else becuase they disagree with their freedom to do so.
If America was truely about freedom and nothing else, there would be no need for the multitude of lawyers we have in this country. Nor would there BE a debate about the "morals or legality" of same sex marriages, or the "legality" of flag burning, because in a truely FREE world, I could marry whomever I wanted to and burn the flag all day without fear of retribution. PERIOD.
James, James, James...Please don not confuse Pete's diatribes with, "open, mature discussion".
If people give you shit- why don't you fight your corner?
As for no freedom otherwise there would be no need for lawyers (?!) How many human rights lawyers do you suppose they have in China or Saddam's Iraq or Taliban ridden Afganistan?!
If all of us could live in your utopian vision of freedom where nobody says shit to anyone else, I think you'd find that that world was not inhabited by human beings.
If all of us could live in your utopian vision of freedom where nobody says shit to anyone else, I think you'd find that that world was not inhabited by human beings.
You completely missed the point of my comment. I am not saying that my vision of freedom is one in which everyone treats everyone with respect etc...
What I DID say is this...
Freedom = Lack of a governing body.
The idea that America is some sort of shining beacon of "freedom" is laughable.
Take for instance, the "gay marriage" issue that so many conservatives are scared to death of at the moment. In a truely "free" society, whom you wish to marry would not matter to your neighbor, and thus the "banning" of said practice would be unneccesary as your society is free.
In America, one segment of society feels the need to legislate morality based on nothing more than a narrow minded religious premise that "God" frowns upon homosexuals so what they do must be illegal. That is NOT Freedom.
Freedom is not "from my point of view only". I cannot pass a law that silences all verbal opposition to my point of view and claim to have freedom in my country.
Thank you James for articulating what you meant.
And allow me to address your issues as best I can.
1) 99.9% of the time, people come here they do two things they generally agree with what I say, or they call me a "mother f*cker dude". Or a "douche bag". Or a Chimpy McHitlerburton sex slave. I've been told to f*ck myself, kill myself, eat sh*t and die, play in traffic etc. etc. I get death threats. Due to the massive amount of abuse, it is not in any way shocking that many of my regular readers, and myself included are f-ing sick of that sh*t and tell many of these people to go F themselves.
If someone comes in with a rational argument/debate, they are spoken to like adults, if they don't, they aren't.
Pete has done all of the above (well, he never threatened me with death), and after calling everyone here every name he can think of, has promised to never come back, at least 5 times.
2)I actually have no problem with same sex couples engaging in civil unions. None. In fact, it would be good for business if all my gay friends could get married, I could do their flowers.
3)"America is NOT about Freedom any more....you'll run across MANY examples of people wanting to pass laws or sue someone else becuase they disagree with their freedom to do so."
But James, dear, this is in fact freedom at it's very core. Just like I allow my commenters free reign to say what they like, I also allow people whom I disagree with free reign. People have a right to sue, and they can be sued in return. People have a right to burn the flag, that's fine, I don't have to like it, and I'm so very free to tell them so. Freedom abound James, it's everywhere.
4) Back to the gay marriage issue that is obviously at the root of your concerns. As I said, I have no problem with civil unions. But, marriage is a religeous union, so it should be left up to the discretion of the individual churches.
Again, I deign to speak for my commenters, but the issues they bring up are not without merit.
Say gay marriage/civil unions are "allowed". Fine.
Many feel this will open doors to groups like NAMBLA to succeed in their bid for their equal rights. And they have a point. If you make marriage/unions no longer male/female only, then you can't just make it for one other select group and not all of them. Does that make sense.
I'm not comparing being gay to being in NAMBLA, or being a polygamist, I'm saying if one group of people get's those rights, then all the others have to also. By my way of thinking, how am I wrong?
James: "Now I'm supposed to buy into your slippery slope theory that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, that every sexual deviant in the country will come out of the woodwork wanting spousal privileges for their daughter, pig, horse, etc."
It's not my "slippery slope". Lawsuits have already been filed at least in favor of polygamy.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/
0...5037355,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain596268.shtml
Look, I've already had this argument with kris. I don't understand why civil unions aren't acceptable by the gay community now seeing as that was what they were shooting for to begin with. Most states I think are ok with that but now gays say no, we want marriage now.
What's wrong with compromise to make everyone happy?
Oh .... before I forget. I think you're a self-ingratiating asshole. Didn't want to leave without calling you a childish name.
Sorry James - I'm right about that slope and so is Darwin. Being on the east coast I get a real nice close-up of that slope, ah-la Massachusetts. If it was a matter of civil-unions (which I support) and not marriage this wouldn't even be open for debate. And comparing old laws about race related hetero marriages is disingenuous. Those were still about a man and a woman.
Again, if you allow the concept of marriage - a union between a man and a woman (a tradition that is THOUSANDS of years old) - to be changed, then you can't CONSTITUTIONALLY disallow any other "life-style" choice. It has ALREADY been challenged in MA. "Special" interest groups are trying to eliminate the age limitations for children to not only consent to have sex, but for marriage also. "Special" interest groups are trying to decriminalize beastiality. "Special" interest groups are trying to push the NAMBLA agenda - all in MA.
In Vermont where civil-unions are allowed, separate and distinct from marriage, but with the same legal benifits, NONE of this other garbage has occured. Only in MA where the tradition itself was legally dismantled has this nonsense arisen.
This is NOT a coincidence.
Oh and Darwin, you made just one teeny mistake about why marriage was dismantled in MA. In their state constitution "marriage" was worded as a union between two PEOPLE - hence the loophole they were able to exploit.
Most other states actually have it in their state constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman - and those that saw what happened in MA have since amended their state constitutions to specifically include the terms "between a man and a woman" in them.
"Freedom is not "from my point of view only"."
It has to be from someone's point.
I mean, if our ability to be "free" is based on no one's point of view at all, then...
Joe Smith, get's drunk, because he's free to do so, get's in his car, because he's free to do so, and kills a familiy of 4 on their way to Sea World, because he's "free" to do so.
If it was a matter of civil-unions (which I support) and not marriage this wouldn't even be open for debate.
I personally see no difference in the two outside of acceptance by a religious body. Other than that... you're both joined in a commitment.
Many feel this will open doors to groups like NAMBLA to succeed in their bid for their equal rights. And they have a point. If you make marriage/unions no longer male/female only, then you can't just make it for one other select group and not all of them.
I'm sorry... I'm talking about Adults here... not children. NAMBLA would have NO grounds to file a law suit for "civil union/marriage" rights to young boys because we have civil rights laws in place to protect our youth from adults in such a manor. Adults have certain rights that only apply to adults.
Joe Smith, get's drunk, because he's free to do so, get's in his car, because he's free to do so, and kills a familiy of 4 on their way to Sea World, because he's "free" to do so.
Freedom (to me) is the ability to do what I want, when I want and where I want so long as it does not infringe upon another persons constitutional right to life, liberty, or property. Since I AM free to drink, I should be free to do so at will. BUT... the moment I put anyone else's life in danger, I have stepped outside the boundaries of freedom into the realm of law.
You're confusing my concept of freedom with anarchy.
Case in point, I don't believe in Helmet OR Seatbelt laws from the standpoint of SINGLE occupant vehicles.
If you're riding a bike or a car, by yourself... you're already piloting a vehicle that COULD endanger someone's life, BUT say you collide with someone else, how would being belted in or strapped to a helmet improve their chances of survival?
It is YOUR personal choice to take steps that COULD save your life. If you choose not to, then that's YOUR call, not the governments. BUT... the moment that another human life falls into your control (i.e. - a passenger) then there should be legal means that require at least THAT person (be they a minor) buckle up or wear a helmet.
So James, you don't think civil unions for gays would be a good compromise? Gays get all the supposedly longed for "benefits", and straights and relgious folks keep marriage.
Everybodys happy, unless securing those rights and benfits is really not what this thing is all about. Could be another agenda at work? That would make things a little different.
I agree wholeheartedly on seat belt and helmet laws, they are nothing but big brother wastes of time.
"I personally see no difference in the two outside of acceptance by a religious body. Other than that... you're both joined in a commitment."
That's the point....like I said,marriage is a religeous union, so it should be left up to the discretion of the individual churches. Not the government.
"I'm sorry... I'm talking about Adults here... not children."
You may be, but the door can and may open to that. How is it right or fair to grant one group a set of rights and not the other then? Many states differ on marriage age as it is, so technically, you could have a NAMBLA guy marry a 14 year old boy, and that would be o.k.in some states.
It's hard. I think it's a much more complicated issue than it's being treated. It is not black and white.
"You're confusing my concept of freedom with anarchy."
No, not really, I am going by what you say. You say,"Freedom (to me) is the ability to do what I want, when I want and where I want so long as it does not infringe upon another persons constitutional right to life, liberty, or property."
Your freedom to do what you want, when you want, may often infringe upon other people's lives,liberty or property.
The reason I fight against P.C.B.S. is just that. Too many people telling me they have a right to their rights and poop on mine. Take non-smokers. These people have managed to make it illegal to smoke just about anywhere on earth. Now, I am a very conscienteous smoker, I pick up my butts, I don't smoke around non-smokers as much as possible, but I smoke. But, the "do-gooders" are taking away my right, for their rights. Their freedom to breath clean air is infinging upon my freedom to slowly kill myself.
Pisses me off.
I guess what they say is true, freedom isn't free(dom).
From all the posts here, I'm guessing that it's not that Democrats aren't breeding, it's because stupid people are reproducing like bunny rabbits.
Once again James, if you open the door to one group you can NOT constitutionally keep another group from claiming those same rights.
The fact that all these cases are popping up in MA is no coincidence! The groups have seen a leak in the dyke (truly no pun intended) and are trying to burst the dam.
Don't believe this could escalate. The damage this is already causing society is here.
Case in point: Here in Virginia, two women fall in love and decide to have a child, and one of them has the child "the old fashioned way." the two then go to Vermont and are joined in a civil union.
Eventually they split and mother and child comes back home to VA. Her partner sues for vistation and the mother, with the help of the biological father, fight her in court. VA doesn't recognze civil unions and rules in favor of the biological parents.
Vermont supreme court claims THEY have juristiction over the case. VA says ppsssstttt to Vermont, essentially telling them, "we have the mom, the dad, the kid and we don't recognize your stinkin civil unions. So what are you gonna do about it?"
How much more fun is it going to be when "other" groups claim their rights?
"How much more fun is it going to be when "other" groups claim their rights?"
James and his ilk can't see beyond the PC haze. He's beginning to sound more and more irrational. "The hell with everything. I must do whatever I please when I please!"
"From all the posts here, I'm guessing that it's not that Democrats aren't breeding, it's because stupid people are reproducing like bunny rabbits."
Hey Mattie! How long did it take you to come up with that one?
Miss Jenn I love the smoking analogy! You have it worse in CA than we do out here (VA is a tobacco producer so I'm not so worried about my rights) however, in MD some do-gooder is trying to make it illegal to smoke in your backyard - your own personal property! That just drives me NUTZ!
Some guy can be BBQing, with his face stuck in all those carcenogens, yet if he smells your cigarette/cigar smoke he can have you arrested! What a bunch of hooey!
"The hell with everything. I must do whatever I please when I please!"
darwin
Well, you know Darwin, that IS the lefts mantra! Which is also why their not reproducing. Having to raise a child takes away from self.
Speaking of "self" did you notice matt the drive-by moonbat stopped by?
"The hell with everything. I must do whatever I please when I please!"
darwin
Well, you know Darwin, that IS the lefts mantra! Which is also why their not reproducing. Having to raise a child takes away from self.
Speaking of "self" did you notice matt the drive-by moonbat stopped by?
"Speaking of "self" did you notice matt the drive-by moonbat stopped by?"
I did. It takes him a while but I think he's planning another drive-by as we speak!
Wit, Darwin... James is fully capable of rational thought, unlike many others that drop by and leave their poop. We just all happen to disagree with him at this point on some issues.
Check out his site, he's not so far from what we all feel, think.
Matt, go back to smoking your hooka....If you have something to contribute, then do so, if not, kindly piss off. (P.S. I was at the lagoon this weekend, I think I smelled your weed from the swamp.)
I don't agree with James' seat belt argument- spare a thought for the poor EMT guy that has to scrape your splattered brains off your former windshield. What about the cop that has to tell your hapless family that you were too much of a dingbat to put your seatbelt on. What about the doctors and nurses who could probably speand their time dealing with people who didn't bring their injuries on themselves. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY- what about the insurance that somebody ends up paying for- you're dead so you don't give a shit- but poor saps like me have to subsidise YOUR stupidity.
Have a nice day!
How can they breed with all those same sex marriages?
Jenn: "Check out his site, he's not so far from what we all feel, think."
I did, and I agree.
Maybe it was his opening statement on his first post that somewhat clouded (or not) my judgement of him.
"MY GOD your logic is infantile at best!"
Maybe he needed a drink or something before he decided to post.
Many states differ on marriage age as it is, so technically, you could have a NAMBLA guy marry a 14 year old boy, and that would be o.k.in some states.
If the states legal age for marriage is 14 and the laws in that state grant ANYONE the right to marriage, then there is nothing ILLEGAL about an older man marrying a 14 year old boy in that state.
Your freedom to do what you want, when you want, may often infringe upon other people's lives,liberty or property.
...and if it does, then it is ILLEGAL. My point is that everyone should have the right to do as they please only if it does no harm to another persons life, liberty or property. Hence my stance on smoking bans. Second hand smoke causes harm, therefore a persons personal choice to "kill themselves slowly" infringes on my right to life in a public local. I have nothing against a persons right to smoke if they want to... but I feel that if they MUST, then it either has to be within the confines of their own home ALONE, or within the confines of a "smokers closet" in public. I also attribute people who smoke with their kids in the car to child abuse that should be punishable by law.
James and his ilk can't see beyond the PC haze. He's beginning to sound more and more irrational. "The hell with everything. I must do whatever I please when I please!"
My "ilk"? PLEASE... I'm having a discussion here, and unless you can proceed without personal attacks, you're not included in my discussion. Good day.
Check out his site, he's not so far from what we all feel, think.
Yes, please do... I invite anyone that thinks I'm some moonbat in sheeps clothing to check out my blog. Thank you Jenn.
spare a thought for the poor EMT guy that has to scrape your splattered brains off your former windshield. What about the cop that has to tell your hapless family that you were too much of a dingbat to put your seatbelt on. What about the doctors and nurses who could probably speand their time dealing with people who didn't bring their injuries on themselves.
That's their JOB. End of story.
James: "I'm having a discussion here, and unless you can proceed without personal attacks, you're not included in my discussion. Good day."
No shit genius. I'm fine with laying off the personal attacks, but you got your panties shoved up your crack a little too far seeing as your the one that started your "discussion" with a personal attack.
"MY GOD your logic is infantile at best!"
I'd say that's pretty personal. So if you'd like, you can gently step down from your soapbox and we can have this "discussion" you claim you want to engage in, or we can fire away.
Your choice.
I did look at your site and I agree with Jenn. Your opening salvo isn't really representative of your site so I'll disregard it unless you give me a reason not to.
I hardly think one example of a personal attack on my part trumps the record on your end.
Either way, I'd prefer to continue the discussion in a calm manor if everyone else is willing to contribute that way.
James: "everyone should have the right to do as they please only if it does no harm to another persons life, liberty or property."
James: "then there is nothing ILLEGAL about an older man marrying a 14 year old boy in that state."
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Do you believe that when these words were penned the authors were thinking of gay marriage, pedophiles "marrying" 14 year old boys, polygamy, drug use and so on?
I think not. I believe these words were written to include anything within reason. These men had no idea at the time how their noble words would be twisted by sinister men with sinister motives to corrupt and destroy the sound basis this country was built on.
I'd say you're pretty much free to do anything you want today .... within reason.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Do you believe that when these words were penned the authors were thinking of gay marriage, pedophiles "marrying" 14 year old boys, polygamy, drug use and so on
You're fooling yourself if you think that the founding fathers wrote those words with any more foresight than 100 years out.
There is no "twisting" of anything... if you say "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness" without any qualifiers, you left your door WIDE open. If you would like to rewrite the Constitution to add some sort of conservative qualifiers to that statement, go get your time machine.
The words "within reason" are no where to be seen in the Constitution of the United States of America. They may be implied but "within reason" is still so vague that something that seems reasonable to you may seem utterly insane to someone else.
Some people think jumping out of a plane at 20,000 feet is a perfectly reasonable past time... I happen to think that it's literally insane. But to attempt to make THAT illegal is equally insane.
The only time I would support a law that would curtail someone's right to marry, commit or engage in sexual activity with another human being is when that act involves a child.
The only time I would support a law that would curtail someone's right to marry, commit or engage in sexual activity with another human being is when that act involves a child. ... I would like to add "or a non-consenting adult" to the above statement.
James: "The words "within reason" are no where to be seen in the Constitution of the United States of America. They may be implied but "within reason" is still so vague that something that seems reasonable to you may seem utterly insane to someone else."
Nothing is vague. To a reasonable man, that's exactly what it means.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248
Reasonable statements by a man of reason. To assume that by not being more specific, or because the words "within reason" are not included is well, not reasonable.
You must remember the precursors for deciding to break away from England.
http://www.ushistory.org/declara...ation/document/
The Declaration of Independence spells it all out. To these men of reason, this is what "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is all about.
Look, I'm not trying to be some antagonist here, I only want the words of the men who founded this country to be interpreted as they intended.
Kris, with all due respect, insurance costs are high for two reasons: Insurance Fraud and Uninsured Motorists. I worked in insurance for about 10 years and seat-belts, antilock brakes and dead drivers are pennys compared to the rampant fraud that occurs and the enormous costs to insurance companies due to accidents caused by the uninsured - and with all the illegals here that cost has only increased.
James - smoking bans - especially nitwit bans in peoples back yards are insane. You will never convince me about the inflated dangers of second hand smoke. To hear the SG talk second hand smoke is more dangerous than smoking itself. That's bunk! And any idiot who says the discussion is over, when the health industry doesn't think it's over, has an agenda.
People who want an agenda passed always use that sentence - just like the idiots who believe in global warming, "The discussion on global warning is over!" Oh yeah? Who says? You? (that's not directed at you, James).
And by the way - I think 14 year olds are children and I don't give a damn what some states law is.
especially nitwit bans in peoples back yards are insane
Like I said... in public I feel you have no inherent right to smoke while standing next to me unless I've said something to the effect of "meh, go ahead"... That being said, banning your choice from your own private property IS insane so I will agree with you there.
Nothing is vague. To a reasonable man, that's exactly what it means
Like I said... what seems like rational reasonable law to Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson may seem utterly assinine to you or I... Just because they were considered "rational and normal" in their society means nothing to our society today. Applying a statement today with the same intentions as to which they were applied in 1776 has very little bearing on our society in 2006.
Back on the statement about "banning" gay marriage, do those of you who support it, support the ban at the state level or at the constitutional federal level?
James: "do those of you who support it, support the ban at the state level or at the constitutional federal level?"
The for or against should be decided at the State level. The States need to reclaim their authority. The federal government should have little involvment in issues that face us today. Abortion, gay marriage, even polygamy should all be left up to the people of the respective States to decide. One State, say California, may easily approve gay marriage or abortion. Fine, let the people of other States decide the issue for themselves. It's incumbent on the minority (of a state) to go where their preferences would be the majority. It's not incumbent on the majority to supercede their wishes with the minorities desires.
Gay and wanna get married? Go to California.
Want an abortion? Go to Florida.
Don't believe in or want either? Live in Ohio.
I have no idea what these individual states believe in, they're only examples.
The federal government needs to stay out of most areas and leave it up to the States to decide.
James: "Applying a statement today with the same intentions as to which they were applied in 1776 has very little bearing on our society in 2006."
Hmmmm ..... then we're in a shitload of trouble. Perhaps you can qualify your statement by providing examples of what specifically in 1776, doesn't apply in 2006.
So James, where are my rights? Last time I checked, tobacco was still a legal substance to obtain. If I want to smoke on the beach, let's say, I should be able to. My tax dollars are the same as anyone elses, I pay for these public areas just like everyone else.
Just like a-hole dog owners who don't pick up after their pooches, thereby making it impossible for responsible dog owners such as myself to rent anywhere, there are irresponsible smokers who ruin it for everyone else.
Example. The San Diego Zoo. They have, I believe, 4 designated smoking areas. They are way off in the boondocks. Personally, I do not smoke at the zoo at all, too many kids and too many animals, I wait. But, inevitably, you see some idiot blowing smoke on the pygmy marmocets.
The few often ruin it for the many.
If I were for a ban on gay marriage, I'd say state level.The less the federal government plays a role in state issues the better.
I completely understand your point that the few ruin it for the many, but simply because you WANT to do "activity X" in a public local does not make it your right (IMO) in the instance of smoking. If I wanted to smoke, I would smoke... simply because you want to smoke doesn't mean that I want to breath in your sloppy seconds.
I understand that there are responsible smokers, but from my personal experience, there are a SHITLOAD of "up yours" smokers out there.
To me, anti-smoking laws make more sense than seatbelt laws because your actions when not in an isolated area DO affect those around you. Whereas a single driver without a seatbelt has NO impact on anyone.
Just my personal opinion.
James,
If I may ask, what do you think of anti-smoking laws in bars or restaurants?
Damn, this is like a bad merry go round.
James, then by your logic, we should outlaw cars, because they spew asbestos and fumes at people walking down the sidewalk.
You know, just how far are we going to go now? I don't mind it not in bars and restaurants,In fact I prefer it that way. But telling people they can't smoke in a public place is a load of hooey.
If I may ask, what do you think of anti-smoking laws in bars or restaurants?
I fully support any action taken to remove the ability for people to smoke in bars and restaurants.
"I fully support any action taken to remove the ability for people to smoke in bars and restaurants."
What if someone wants to operate a "smokers only" bar or restaurant?
Thank you for the response, James. You cannot be a true libertarian. See, here's the proper libertarian response:
A bar/restaurant is a private business, purchased with the owner's risk and finances. Therefore, the owner should run the restaurant however he/she sees fit. If the owner wants to allow smoking because he/she thinks it will enhance business, it should be his/her right to implement such a policy.
Let's get one thing straight: you do NOT have a "right" to enjoy a smoke-free restaurant run by someone else. Here's where your love for choice kicks in: if you don't want to be subjected to smoke in a particular dining/watering establishment, the don't freakin' patronize the place! You can either CHOOSE to patronize the biz, or CHOOSE not to.
Personally (and with apologies in advance to Jenn and other smokers), I find smoking to be gross and disgusting. That's why I avoid restaurants and bars that seem to have a high number of smokers. I tend to frequent places that have cleaner air. I CHOOSE these places.
If enough people feel like I do, then the owner has two choices: (1) change his business model to accommodate the customers he/she would otherwise lose; or (2) stubbornly cling to his/her model that runs would-be customers away, which would likely result in the biz going under. It's the owner's CHOICE.
I find it reprehensible that people who may never step foot into a particular biz have the unmitigated GALL to tell those biz owners how they should run THEIR businesses that THEY put their money into running. That is damned sure not a "libertarian" trait.
Can;t do that, it wouldn't be fair to the non-smokers.... see P.C.B.S. IN ACTION.
Mr. Leffingwell...
You know what I hate? People that seem to think that when someone says "I'm a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Socialist/etc."... that they adhere 100% to the core beliefs and practices of said party.
I consider myself a Liberatrian because FOR THE MOST PART I share core beliefs with that party... I DO NOT, nor will I EVER tow the party line for ANYONE.
If one thing in this world ticks me off more than anything, it's when someone comes along with "well you're NOT a Libertarian because ONE thing you said doesn't fall lockstep in line with their philosophy."
Just my $.02
What JL said. Exactly.
James: "well you're NOT a Libertarian because ONE thing you said doesn't fall lockstep in line with their philosophy."
Yeah but James, THAT's a pretty big part of libertarian philosophy.
I fully support any action taken to remove the ability for people to smoke in bars and restaurants.
James
See - this is bull. I know others have said it (Mr. Leffingwell and Miss Jenn) but I'll go a bit further. When I still lived in CA, my hometown had very LOGICAL ways of handling that issue. There was no compulsory law at the time, but we had both smoking and non-smoking bars and resturants. The owners would post their policy above the doorway.
That policy accomodated EVERYONE! Yet in steps the state and institutes a totally totalitarian and facist policy that effected the entire state and all people living in that state.
This state is now dictating what can be taught to school children, ragardless of what parents feel should be taught. They have already determined how you drive your car (seatbelts) and ride a motorcycle (helmets). Next they are going after what people eat.
They have forbidden religious expression (unless you're "other" than Christian) and muzzled free speech in anything other than the party line. Hence a straight kid gets suspended on the new religious holiday of "Day of silence" and a Fed Judge says that's ok because he's a straight white kid and it's alright to discriminate against him.
Can you say communist/socialist state. I personally don't see a damn bit of freedom in that state.
"Next they are going after what people eat."
Um, actually, they are doing that already, at least in schools. Banning soft drinks and crap food.
Good rant Wit. It seems the only two groups it's deemd socially acceptable to bash are whites (especially if they are christian) and fat people.
You know what I hate? People that seem to think that when someone says "I'm a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Socialist/etc."... that they adhere 100% to the core beliefs and practices of said party.
James, I can certainly relate to that. I've been vexed over the years by people who have said that I am not "libertarian" or "neo-libertarian" enough.
But darwin is correct, James: "THAT's a pretty big part of libertarian philosophy." Libertarians can AND DO certainly differ on things like national security and immigration. However, I have yet (until now) met a libertarian who thinks that such a naked display of big government heavy-handedness on a private business is a good thing.
Actually to expand on that one...
I used to frequent a particular liberal blog. We all got along pretty well. I made a comment about that Jefferson dude that got popped, and how they acted like it was o.k. for him to do what he did. But if a Republican had done the same, he'd have been tried and convicted in the press in minutes.
Some, obviously black "woman", just started ripping me a new hole, because Jefferson is black, and I was a, and here I quote exactly,"A KRAKKKER ASS KRAKKER K*NT". Because of my statement, that in fact had nothing to do with his color, in any way, rather his party affiliation.
Now, oddly enough, one time I called Al Gore a pansy (as in weak, stupid) and got ripped a new hole, because apparently pansy is a gay insult, I was totally unaware of that, and all the lesbians on the site got really pissed at me. I mean they ripped on me for a while. Made me laugh actually.
But black chick callls me a "KRAKKER ASS KRAKKER K*NT," and nary a peep. Not one word. Chirp, chirp of crickets.
Now that is typical.
I'm usually a HUGE proponent of private business rights, but on a personal note... smoking repulses me so much, that on THAT note, I have no problem with my aforementioned beliefs having a conflict with some political party.
No offense to you Jenn, I understand that it's an addiction, I just cannot stand smoking.
As for being called a racist for making a remark about someone that HAPPENS to be another race than I... Been there, done that.
I post ANYTHING on my opinions of the Katrina victims and the race pimps a cometh.
"I post ANYTHING on my opinions of the Katrina victims and the race pimps a cometh"
-I hear you there. Unfortunately, race happens to play a big part in Katrina.
I started smoking when I was 14. I liked it then, I like it now. The only time I have a desire to quit is when I'm sick. I am so addicted, I actually get "nervous" when I have less than 10 smokes in a pack and no back up pack. It's an illness really.
I don't care how people feel about smoking - really. Gov't had no business regulating business' - PERIOD! Again, in my home town people evidently had the audacity to regulate themselves.
If you didn't like a smoking evironment, feel free to go to the establishment next door - their sign indicates they are a non-smoking establishment and they have great steak.
This also went for people looking for work - if you didn't want to work in a smoking establishment, Mikes across the street is hiring - his is a non-smoking bar.
I don't know why do-gooders feel the need to regulate behavior. We've gotten along pretty damned good without their stickin help!
100 comments...yee-hooooo!
smoking repulses me so much, that on THAT note, I have no problem with my aforementioned beliefs having a conflict with some political party.
It's not a party, James. Libertarianism is an ideology. That aside, I also find smoking repulsive, but not nearly as repulsive as "Well, since I hate it, I have no problem with banning it."
I mean, you berated people above for wanting to ban gay marriage because they found it repulsive...and yet it's different when it comes toy what you find repulsive?
Nice comparison Mr. Leffingwell. Same sex marriage IS repulsive to me (again, I'm ok with civil unions - just not marriage) which is a religious and societal concern and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
As for smoking - I smoke, but never in front of non-smokers and I also never smoke in resturants (I always choose the non-smoking section and I can't stand the smell when I'm eating).
And I totally loathe the government getting involved in any of these issues. It's none of their damned business. I hate legislating behavior and I hate liberals for their interference! The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for this to happen.
Wit, it's really simple, and you (and most others) on here seem to get it:
The free market does a good job of correcting the problem. If I own a diner and I allow smoking, I will likely lose some customers. Will it be enough to make me reconsider my smoking policy? If "yes", then I will either reconsider it or I will go under. If "no", then I will continue to allow smoking.
Some people will like it, and some people will not. But ALL people will exercise their choice in accordance with their own convictions.
Sigh! I wish the liberals would get it!
I'll second that, Wit!
I'd say James took his ass whupping like a man ..... kinda.
I'd say James took his ass whupping like a man ..... kinda.
Actually, I gave up because I started the conversation when we had 30+ posts... and realized that we'd more than likely have 300+ by the time someone caved.
Knowing the attitude of most of the active posters around here, no one else would just pack their bags and move on so I took the initiative and left this discussion.
I would hardly call any of the opposing discussion in this topic an "ass whuping".
James: "I would hardly call any of the opposing discussion in this topic an "ass whuping"."
Easy champ .... I was just having a little fun at your expense.
Yes - but you never addressed Jonathan's excellent point, which was that you are fine with legislating things when it's your horse in the race (i.e. I hate smoke) but you have a problem with it if it's an issue you believe is a private choice (i.e. same sex marriage) that you support.
It's not a consistant stance.
Easy champ .... I was just having a little fun at your expense.
...I'm shocked...
but you never addressed Jonathan's excellent point, which was that you are fine with legislating things when it's your horse in the race (i.e. I hate smoke) but you have a problem with it if it's an issue you believe is a private choice (i.e. same sex marriage) that you support.
Really the only time I've ever found myself in that position is on the smoking ban issue... pull me up to a conversation about anti-walmart pricks, or minimum wage laws etc and you'll find me firmly entrenched in the "leave it up to the private ownership" camp.
For some reason, I just don't fall there on this issue.
You're racist against smokers. Bigot. (j/k)
wouldn't that be "smoke-sist" or some other stupid made up word?
"wouldn't that be "smoke-sist" or some other stupid made up word?"
Possibly something akin to a "Tobacco Combustionist".
Antismokerism.
Gotta have the "ism" in there.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
