Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: [hypoth

[Guest guest]

Nanci, I really have to jump in here. The clause reads that all men ARE created

equal, not should be created equal. It's kind of a different thing. While I'm at

it, I do have to voice my opinion about the government, any government being

able to wipe out poverty. I don't think it will ever happen, no matter how well

intentioned they and everyone else might be.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...>

Subject: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 1:43 AM

The federal government enforces MANY policies and programs that are not part

of the constitution, although there is one clause that all men should be

created equal which means that all people poor and rich should be treated

the same, . But you believe that poor people should be 2nd class

citizens. Sounds like you would be someone who would vote against civil

rights.

You can house 100 homeless people but I wonder what they would think if they

knew that you were against them getting governmental assistance and against

the living wage? HUH? Care to ask them? You are a hypocrite

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> False statement. However, you were correct until you added " and

> government " if you mean the federal government. The purpose of

> government IS NOT to help the needy. It's not in the declaration of

> independence; it's not in the constitution; it's not in the bill of

> rights or any of our national founding paperwork. As a matter of fact

> it is specifically prohibited on the federal level by the 10th amendment

> [which, unfortunately is essentially ignored].

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's about bloody time!!!

Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics,

>> > > > and

>> Big

>> >

>> > > > Business Re: [hypoth

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > > I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

>> > > > marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

>> > > > supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a

>> > > > woman

>

>> > > > There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men

> or

>> > > > two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need

> to

>> > > > be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for

> longer

>>

>> > > > than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by

> that

>>

>> > > > norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally]

>> > > > in

>

>> > > > places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

>> > > >

>> > > > Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because

>> they

>> >

>> > > > can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his

> dog

>>

>> > > > his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his

>> car

>> > > > or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

>> > > > other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack

>> > > > thereof.

>

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > > .

>> > > > .

>> > > >

>> > > > > Posted by: " Valarie " val@

>> > > > > <mailto:val@wyosip

>> > > >

>> > >

>> >

>>

> com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

>>

>> >

>> > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > > %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

>> > > > > val1198 <val1198>

>> > > > >

>> > > > >

>> > > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

>> > > > >

>> > > > >

>> > > > >

>> > > > > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages

> should

>>

>> > > > > be left

>> > > > > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should

>> have

>> > a

>> > > > > legal social contract.

>> > > > >

>> > > > > Val

>> > > > > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult

> consenting

>>

>> > > > > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

>> > > > > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a

> marriage

>>

>> > > > > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that

> they

>> > > > > create if they want a legal partnership.

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

[Guest guest]

Which comment seems discriminatory?

CW

Traveling? Know someone who is? Use my travelocity site www.travelfhtm

com/crystalwright

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

>

> Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> > Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> > <mailto:val@wyosip

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

>

> %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > val1198 <val1198>

> >

> >

> > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > be left

> > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have a

> > legal social contract.

> >

> > Val

> > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > create if they want a legal partnership.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 Only time will tell how well a child raised by a gay couple will function

is

> society.

That one! Why would you even bring up that question? Do you think gay couples

sprang into existence recently? Do you not know they have been living together

as families and

raising their children for eons? What prompted that remark? That's the same kind

of remark people have made about children raised by bi-racial couples. I would

think you would be more open and less rigid.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley@...>

Subject: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 10:38 PM

Nancie...do you have an 800 hotline we can all call for our 'horoscopes'?

>

> Some more right wing closed minded BS

>

> -- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

>

> Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> > Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> > <mailto:val@wyosip

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

>

> %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > val1198 <val1198>

> >

> >

> > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > be left

> > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have a

> > legal social contract.

> >

> > Val

> > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > create if they want a legal partnership.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I favor EQUAL rights. IMHO positive discrimination base upon skin color

is just as immoral as negative discrimination. Because positive

discrimination of one color is negative discrimination for another color.

Marriage in the aggregate promotes the well being of children in the

aggregate. Not every marriage will promote the well being of children

and not every child will be given the best life possible because of

marriage or lack thereof. Marriage of gay couples does not that I can

see enhance the well being of children in the aggregate, although it

could in isolated instances.

I'm aware that the man-boy love advocate group has been officially

removed from the mainstream gay rights movements, but it took some

doing. Still, I remain unconvinced that a gay lifestyle of two same sex

" parents " has the same probability of healthy development of the child.

I'm sure others disagree. If I were the parent of a small child and I

faced death due to illness then I would prefer that my child be raised

by a heterosexual couple all things being equal. Which they never are.

Glad to see you and Steve on the same page, though! [ggg]

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%2\

0Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:53 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> james-

> are you against gay rights? That argument about gays not being allowed to

> marry because they can't procreate is BS. 2 heterosexual couples can get

> married and they can both be infertile which means that they can't

> procreate

> So, why is it ok for them to be married.

> 2 gay men may not be able to procreate but, 2 lesbian women can have a

> child. In fact both of them can get pregnant and both can have kids. Your

> argument SCREAMS of right wing conservative bigotry.

> As long as the child is loved, who gives a crap about whether or not

> it is 2

> gay men who are married; 2 lesbians or 2 heterosexuals.

>

>

> -- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

>

> Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

>

>

[Guest guest]

We ask for a definition of " needy " and you provide the government's

poverty level stats. Not exactly the same thing. Try putting " needy "

into google. You will find much more [and better] than your narrow answer.

Some majority of children who receive free lunches at school would not

do so if means testing were applied. But if that happened a lot of

otherwise unnecessary government employees would actually have to find a

job.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%2\

0Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:07 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> I just posted one . I did the work because you people can't seem

> to go

> ogle anything.

>

> -- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> What document in our founding papers spells out this responsibility of

> the government? Clue: There isn't one.

>

> Did you mean to say " immoral " rather than " amoral " ?

>

> In either case your statement is meaningless until you can find a

> universally accepted definition of " needy " . Again: There isn't one you

> can apply across the board; anyone can define themselves as " needy " of

> your earnings.

>

> If you would define the needy as only being those who actually cannot

> help themselves you will get a lot more agreement. But you will only

> have a few percent of those typically labeled as " needy " .

>

>

[Guest guest]

My brother [one of them], although not a panhandler himself knows a

number of " fringe " people; hell, he's one. I asked him one day how much

pan handlers make and he said about $250 per day. I don't really

know... If they do I'm sure they're all happy to send in their income

tax to help support the poor and downtrodden...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

>

<mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20\

%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:35 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Honestly the peddlers on the street corner are the worst. The other day I

> saw one on the corner with his sign : HOMELESS VETERN. HUNGRY. ANYTHING

> HELPS. Then as I was coming out of Wal-Mart I saw him coming out of the

> convenience store with a 30 pack of Busch. I believe in helping the poor,

> but not by giving them pennies. Helping them learn about money and how to

> earn it and how to stay out of debt has to be the key. I also thing homes

> are not assets. Anything that takes money out of your pocket isn't an

> asset

> but a liability. JMHO

> CW

[Guest guest]

Baloney. There's nothing in the constitution that suggests the

government should help you " pursue happiness " . If you think it's your

responsibility to help me " pursue happiness " send money. Large bills

preferred! [ggg]

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%2\

0%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:09 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> The point is that they have the right to do that, so if they need some

> help in order to be able to exercise their rights, that's what it's

> all about. Nancie gave some links to the Federal Government's

> procedures and programs that were excellent. Perhaps you could look

> these over.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and

> Big Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:25 PM

>

> Not unless you're a liberal, in which case " down " may actually mean

> " up " . The constitution is actually pretty straight forward in its

> meaning IMHO in most cases. " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

> Happiness " have nothing to do with helping the needy.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>

>> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>>

>>

>> Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:07 pm (PDT)

>>

>>

>>

>> I just posted one . I did the work because you people can't seem

>> to go

>> ogle anything.

>>

[Guest guest]

Hey, right now, $250 a day seems  pretty good. Now where did I put my oaktag?

Hmmm!

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 12:50 PM

My brother [one of them], although not a panhandler himself knows a

number of " fringe " people; hell, he's one.  I asked him one day how much

pan handlers make and he said about $250 per day.  I don't really

know...  If they do I'm sure they're all happy to send in their income

tax to help support the poor and downtrodden...

..

..

>

>       Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

>   

   <mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A\

%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

>         sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1>

>

>

>         Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:35 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Honestly the peddlers on the street corner are the worst. The other day I

> saw one on the corner with his sign : HOMELESS VETERN. HUNGRY. ANYTHING

> HELPS. Then as I was coming out of Wal-Mart I saw him coming out of the

> convenience store with a 30 pack of Busch. I believe in helping the poor,

> but not by giving them pennies. Helping them learn about money and how to

> earn it and how to stay out of debt has to be the key. I also thing homes

> are not assets. Anything that takes money out of your pocket isn't an

> asset

> but a liability. JMHO

> CW

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

, I said people have a right to pursue happiness. However if their income

is below about $10,000, in most states they qualify under the poverty level, and

therefore are eligible for some help. I don't think it should be forever, and I

do think they should be strongly " encouraged " to get a job, but I also don't

think they should be allowed to starve. Out here in the Seattle area they have

tent cities where homeless people gather in a group, and the churches or some

other organization allows them to use their land for a few months. It's a

ridiculous situation. There are plenty of buildings that could be cheaply

converted to house these people. (Yes, I recognize some of them drink or do

drugs) That notwithstanding, it

really ticks me off when convicted criminals around here, including child

molesters, rapists and murderers are housed in gorgeous quarters as a half house

to allow them to get on their feet. If you want to talk about a handout that

hurts the rest of us, this is it.  They could do this with the people that are

not criminals, and maybe help things to be better.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and

> Big Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:25 PM

>

> Not unless you're a liberal, in which case " down " may actually mean

> " up " .  The constitution is actually pretty straight forward in its

> meaning IMHO in most cases.  " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

> Happiness " have nothing to do with helping the needy.

>

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

The constitution is actually pretty straight forward in its meaning IMHO in most

cases. " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness " have nothing to do with

helping the needy.

As was pointed out by Jon when Rush Limbaugh spoke about Life, Liberty

and the Pursuit of Happiness being in our Constitution....... it's not there.

It's in the Declaration of Independence which led to the Revolutionary War.

I'm also a single-filer head of household, I got $300. It was based on your

annual income, I can't remember the income amount but above a certain high

amount you got $600, below it you got $300.

Terry in AZ

[Guest guest]

I think it partially depended upon taxable income and/or actual taxes.

I got it and I sure as h*ll am not in a high income bracket.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " TerryW " blazingsaddles@...

>

<mailto:blazingsaddles@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%\

20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> azglassblaster <azglassblaster>

>

>

> Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:43 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

>

>

> I'm also a single-filer head of household, I got $300. It was based on

> your annual income, I can't remember the income amount but above a

> certain high amount you got $600, below it you got $300.

>

> Terry in AZ