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

[Guest guest]

I think you should take one day of your weekly paycheck, go buy groceries,

and give then to those guys on the street who try to get you to give them

money. Or better yet, help them get jobs. It is not the federal

government's job to be nice. It is its job to provide national defense and

regulate interstate commerce.

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

Well if you are socially liberal, then I don't know why you do not have any

empathy for those citizens who are struggling to survive and need

governmental assistance to survive?!

You really don't sound to liberal to me.

I am a born and raised left wing liberal democrat. I grew up in a upper

middle class family who always believed in giving back to society and in

paying our fair share in taxes. My dad was a successful attorney and

producer who believed in paying his fair share back into society and helping

out the poor and struggling of this society.

[Guest guest]

" 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]

To how many people have you given one of your paychecks ?

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: Valarie <val@...>

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

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 8:56 AM

I think you should take one day of your weekly paycheck, go buy groceries,

and give then to those guys on the street who try to get you to give them

money.  Or better yet, help them get jobs.  It is not the federal

government's job to be nice.  It is its job to provide national defense and

regulate interstate commerce.

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

Well if you are socially liberal, then I don't know why you do not have any

empathy for those citizens who are struggling to survive and need

governmental assistance to survive?!

You really don't sound to liberal to me.

I am a born and raised left wing liberal democrat. I grew up in a upper

middle class family who always believed in giving back to society and in

paying our fair share in taxes. My dad was a successful attorney and

producer who believed in paying his fair share back into society and helping

out the poor and struggling of this society.

[Guest guest]

Why does everyone have to do things the way you think they should be done?

That's why this country is NOT a religiously based country, so that people can

worship or not and practice their choice of religion or not, and that includes

marriage by a traditional couple or not.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: Valarie <val@...>

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

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:03 AM

" 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]

Marriage isn't a government right, it's a personal choice. Contracts

are how people create legal relationships, be they business or personal,

and contracts are a personal choice, not a government right. Marriage

is a religious institution and can remain in that domain or individuals

can call their relationships " marriage " just by saying so or getting

" married " by any organization they desire, it's their choice. If

someone wishes to get married by their church or an organization or by

self-declaration AND to have a legally binding agreement/partnership

that is better than just " living together in marriage " , they will need a

legal contract as well.

The choice on how to create a relationship, religious or legal or both,

should always be an individual choice. The state and/or fed was never

given the power to regulate the relationships of adults to either

proscribe or require any condition.

Steve

Roni Molin wrote:

> Why does everyone have to do things the way you think they should be done?

That's why this country is NOT a religiously based country, so that people can

worship or not and practice their choice of religion or not, and that includes

marriage by a traditional couple or not.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

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

> not there<>

>

>

>

>

> From: Valarie <val@...>

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

Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:03 AM

>

>

> " 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.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

I give a ton of money to the needy. More than 15% of my total income. I also

give alot of money to animal rights organizations. when i ran a homeless

medical clinic i paid for All the over the counter products out of my own

salary. I bought them gatorade, nutrition bars, sunscreen, water bottles out

of my salary. i always give any homeless person i see some cash or i buy

them a meal. there are 5 homeless persons who live near me that i buy meals

for them when i see them. what do You do?

It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal to help

out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

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

Business Re: [hypoth

I think you should take one day of your weekly paycheck, go buy groceries,

and give then to those guys on the street who try to get you to give them

money. Or better yet, help them get jobs. It is not the federal

government's job to be nice. It is its job to provide national defense and

regulate interstate commerce.

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

Well if you are socially liberal, then I don't know why you do not have any

empathy for those citizens who are struggling to survive and need

governmental assistance to survive?!

You really don't sound to liberal to me.

I am a born and raised left wing liberal democrat. I grew up in a upper

middle class family who always believed in giving back to society and in

paying our fair share in taxes. My dad was a successful attorney and

producer who believed in paying his fair share back into society and helping

out the poor and struggling of this society.

[Guest guest]

People get married all the time in non-religious contexts. All " marriage " is

, is a legal contract between 2 people. Where you have it is your business.

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

Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:03 AM

>

>

> " 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.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Nancie Barnett wrote:

> It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal to help

> out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

Can you point to where in the constitution that it states that the

federal government and/or the local government is designated to help the

needy?

Does " help " mean 100% of needs?

How is " needy " defined?

If the " needy " get provided with food, medical care, insurance, an

average home to live in, a working recent model car, adequate

entertainment expenses, educational tuition, gas money, free utilities,

cable TV, a computer, internet connectivity, dating services (for those

single needies) etc, what incentive does anyone have to work?

Again, how does the constitution define needy?

Are there no personal responsibility requirements?

Are the " constitutional " needy limited to US citizens or does it go

beyond that?

If the " needy " don't want help, can the government force them?

Also, can you point to any original discussions that show that the

constitution was understood at the time it was ratified to mean that the

federal government would be required to help all the needy and that the

wealthy would be required to give all their worldly goods up to but not

beyond the point that would make them " needy " ?

How does the constitution define needy?

Have you read the constitution?

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Well, not exactly. If that were entirely true, then a civil contract through an

attorney would be sufficient. However, it is necessary to obtain a marriage

" license " from the state you live in, and if you are a same sex couple, and that

happens to not be " legal " in your state, you can't get the license and hence

your marriage is non-existent.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

>

> From: Valarie <val@...>

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

Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:03 AM

>

>

> " 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.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

I think " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness " could be a mantra for the

federal government's responsibility to help out people. They don't get any where

near what you are talking about, no matter who they are or why they need help.

In addition, the government guidelines as to who they will help, force people to

become destiute before they can get any sort of help at all. Sometimes they have

to go without food or shelter while they are waiting for help. I don't think you

would be so judgemental if you were placed into that kind of circumstance

through no fault of your own. Yes, there are people who are lazy, but simply

being lazy won't do it.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

> It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal to help

> out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

Can you point to where in the constitution that it states that the

federal government and/or the local government is designated to help the

needy?

Does " help " mean 100% of needs?

How is " needy " defined?

If the " needy " get provided with food, medical care, insurance, an

average home to live in, a working recent model car, adequate

entertainment expenses, educational tuition, gas money, free utilities,

cable TV, a computer, internet connectivity, dating services (for those

single needies) etc, what incentive does anyone have to work?

Again, how does the constitution define needy?

Are there no personal responsibility requirements?

Are the " constitutional " needy limited to US citizens or does it go

beyond that?

If the " needy " don't want help, can the government force them?

Also, can you point to any original discussions that show that the

constitution was understood at the time it was ratified to mean that the

federal government would be required to help all the needy and that the

wealthy would be required to give all their worldly goods up to but not

beyond the point that would make them " needy " ?

How does the constitution define needy?

Have you read the constitution?

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

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

[Guest guest]

The word " marriage " is a religious term and as such, should not be used by

government. Domestic contract would be more appropriate.

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

People get married all the time in non-religious contexts. All " marriage " is

, is a legal contract between 2 people. Where you have it is your business.

[Guest guest]

Nancie, again, I am most impressed with how much you give of YOUR own

resources in support of YOUR causes. Where do you think government gets the

money to help needy people? What section of the U.S. Constitution mandates

that?

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:12 pm (PDT)

I give a ton of money to the needy. More than 15% of my total income. I also

give alot of money to animal rights organizations. when i ran a homeless

medical clinic i paid for All the over the counter products out of my own

salary. I bought them gatorade, nutrition bars, sunscreen, water bottles out

of my salary. i always give any homeless person i see some cash or i buy

them a meal. there are 5 homeless persons who live near me that i buy meals

for them when i see them. what do You do?

It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal to help

out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

[Guest guest]

The term marriage is used by all the states and refers to marriages done by

religious means or civil (as in judge) means. Who are you to determine what

people should or shouldn't do?

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: Valarie <val@...>

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

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 8:46 PM

The word " marriage " is a religious term and as such, should not be used by

government.  Domestic contract would be more appropriate.

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

People get married all the time in non-religious contexts. All " marriage " is

, is a legal contract between 2 people. Where you have it is your business.

[Guest guest]

I've been watching that. No non-elected group outside of the US should

ever be allowed to dictate US policy or practices. Next, Americans will

drafted as UN troops and voters will not have anyone they can throw out

of office to end it.

The moving of funds internationally is worse than you think. Bush

signed a bill in 2008 the " heroes bill " that included a rider that

states that you willing give up your citizenship, the US government will

confiscate 50% of ALL YOUR ASSETS WORLDWIDE.

They are going after tax havens but it will still be possible to have

international trusts take over your assets so that you don't own them

any more but you will still control them via the trust as trustee or

entities you own as trustees.

Were being sold down the river and I think I'm going to buy more guns.

Steve

cindy.seeley wrote:

> That one's coming, according to Obama and his administration's stated

'transnationalism' (their term, not mine!) agenda... Additionally, Obama agreed

at the G20 summit last week to allow European 'over-site' of ALL United States

companies, including setting 'pay' standards whatever they deem

'reasonable'...and Geitner, along with Ben Bernanke, has stated that he

would give consideration to a different currency as the International

standard...Obama also stated (last week) his intention of closing all

opportunities for U.S. citizens to outsource their monetary funds to other

countries (including income earned in those other countries) to get around U.S.

tax laws...oh, yeah...it's coming!

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Ok. I don't believe that " marriage is a religious institution. I believe

marriage is just a contract between 2 people who love each other and get a

license " to satisfy a state's requirement.

That is how it should be, IMHO

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

Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:03 AM

>

>

> " 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.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Steve wrote:

> I've been watching that. No non-elected group outside of the US should

> ever be allowed to dictate US policy or practices. Next, Americans will

That should re " should NEVER be allowed to dictate US policy... "

> drafted as UN troops and voters will not have anyone they can throw out

and " will BE drafted as UN troops... "

> of office to end it.

>

> The moving of funds internationally is worse than you think. Bush

> signed a bill in 2008 the " heroes bill " that included a rider that

> states that you willing give up your citizenship, the US government will

and " IF you willing give up... "

> confiscate 50% of ALL YOUR ASSETS WORLDWIDE.

>

> They are going after tax havens but it will still be possible to have

> international trusts take over your assets so that you don't own them

> any more but you will still control them via the trust as trustee or

> entities you own as trustees.

>

> Were being sold down the river and I think I'm going to buy more guns.

>

> Steve

>

> cindy.seeley wrote:

>> That one's coming, according to Obama and his administration's stated

'transnationalism' (their term, not mine!) agenda... Additionally, Obama agreed

at the G20 summit last week to allow European 'over-site' of ALL United States

companies, including setting 'pay' standards whatever they deem

'reasonable'...and Geitner, along with Ben Bernanke, has stated that he

would give consideration to a different currency as the International

standard...Obama also stated (last week) his intention of closing all

opportunities for U.S. citizens to outsource their monetary funds to other

countries (including income earned in those other countries) to get around U.S.

tax laws...oh, yeah...it's coming!

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

No argument with me. Some people view it as religious some as civil contract.

Whatever floats your boat.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

>

> From: Valarie <val@...>

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

Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 9:03 AM

>

>

> " 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.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

You are missing the point. In a civilized society, one hopes that you don't

have to have it the constitution in order to provide for the less needy in

the society. There is a moral and ethical duty for society [ and government]

to help the needy. Because many people who have money or the resources , don

t or won't contribute to the needy, government has to step in.

Yes, it would be frigging fantastic if everyone gave enough monies to

non-profits or NGO's to help the needy and government didn't have to step in

but that is a fantasy.

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

Business Re: [hypoth

Nancie, again, I am most impressed with how much you give of YOUR own

resources in support of YOUR causes. Where do you think government gets the

money to help needy people? What section of the U.S. Constitution mandates

that?

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:12 pm (PDT)

I give a ton of money to the needy. More than 15% of my total income. I also

give alot of money to animal rights organizations. when i ran a homeless

medical clinic i paid for All the over the counter products out of my own

salary. I bought them gatorade, nutrition bars, sunscreen, water bottles out

of my salary. i always give any homeless person i see some cash or i buy

them a meal. there are 5 homeless persons who live near me that i buy meals

for them when i see them. what do You do?

It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal to help

out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

[Guest guest]

Tax cuts increase government income, and that's a historical fact you

choose to ignore. Tax increases often have the opposite effect; as in

the case of the yacht tax the not so bright liberals passed several

years back. There are many well documented cases. I believe

Kennedy demonstrated that many decades ago.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " " kennio@...

>

<mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\

%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> Kennio <Kennio>

>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 12:08 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> Yeah, right. We just tried the tax cuts for 8 years. IT DIDN'T WORK.

>

> ____________

> ____________________

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

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:49:35 PM

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

>

> AMEN!!! Steve for president!

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nancie, I'm quite sure you're honest and sincere in your position; more

than I can say for a lot of others. It's unfortunate that you don't

seem to be able to see that people like Steve are also very honest and

sincere in their [our] belief that the best way to help someone is often

to not help them at all. Or perhaps to teach them to fish rather than

give them a fish. We honestly, sincerely and very deeply believe in the

evidence of our senses, intelligence and education [whatever it may be]

that the most empathetic way to promote the well being of those who are

now struggling is the route of personal responsibility and other tenants

of conservative [and libertarian] philosophy. It is profoundly clear to

me that little if any of modern liberal thought had any place in the

considerations of the founders of our country. The idea that

generations could live on the public dole with no personal

responsibility would no doubt have been an incredulous one for them.

To disparage the motives and moral character [or mental capabilities, as

we continue to see here] is a pathetic position, indicating one cannot

defend one's position in an honorable, logical and intelligent manner.

Too often those who can't marshal facts to support their position are

pretty good a slinging the $#!+ to cover up that lack.

..

..

> Nancie Barnett wrote:

> > Well if you are socially liberal, then I don't know why you do not

> have any

> > empathy for those citizens who are struggling to survive and need

> > governmental assistance to survive?!

> > You really don't sound to liberal to me.

> > I am a born and raised left wing liberal democrat. I grew up in a upper

> > middle class family who always believed in giving back to society and in

> > paying our fair share in taxes. My dad was a successful attorney and

> > producer who believed in paying his fair share back into society and

> helping

> > out the poor and struggling of this society.

[Guest guest]

Nancie,

You wrote:

> ... All " marriage " is

> , is a legal contract between 2 people....

Technically, it is a government sanctioned contract with special privileges

aimed at protecting children, although most of those have been change with the

trend toward single parents. At one time, married couples filing jointly payed

less income tax than contractual partners.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Right, that is why Steve keeps telling me that I am making up tsh*t. Nice

try james, but i don't believe anything steve tells me as far as politics

goes.

he says he has empathy for less fortunate people but frankly that has not

been demonstrated here from him or even sometimes from you.

forgive if i feel it is a bit hollow...and cold...

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

Business Re: [hypoth

Nancie, I'm quite sure you're honest and sincere in your position; more

than I can say for a lot of others. It's unfortunate that you don't

seem to be able to see that people like Steve are also very honest and

sincere in their [our] belief that the best way to help someone is often

to not help them at all. Or perhaps to teach them to fish rather than

give them a fish. We honestly, sincerely and very deeply believe in the

evidence of our senses, intelligence and education [whatever it may be]

that the most empathetic way to promote the well being of those who are

now struggling is the route of personal responsibility and other tenants

of conservative [and libertarian] philosophy. It is profoundly clear to

me that little if any of modern liberal thought had any place in the

considerations of the founders of our country. The idea that

generations could live on the public dole with no personal

responsibility would no doubt have been an incredulous one for them.

To disparage the motives and moral character [or mental capabilities, as

we continue to see here] is a pathetic position, indicating one cannot

defend one's position in an honorable, logical and intelligent manner.

Too often those who can't marshal facts to support their position are

pretty good a slinging the $#!+ to cover up that lack.

..

..

> Nancie Barnett wrote:

> > Well if you are socially liberal, then I don't know why you do not

> have any

> > empathy for those citizens who are struggling to survive and need

> > governmental assistance to survive?!

> > You really don't sound to liberal to me.

> > I am a born and raised left wing liberal democrat. I grew up in a upper

> > middle class family who always believed in giving back to society and in

> > paying our fair share in taxes. My dad was a successful attorney and

> > producer who believed in paying his fair share back into society and

> helping

> > out the poor and struggling of this society.

[Guest guest]

Right, that is why Steve keeps telling me that I am making up sh*t. Nice try

james, but i don't believe anything steve tells me as far as politics goes.

he says he has empathy for less fortunate people but frankly that has not

been demonstrated here from him or even sometimes from you.

forgive if i feel it is a bit hollow...and cold...

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

Business Re: [hypoth

Nancie, I'm quite sure you're honest and sincere in your position; more

than I can say for a lot of others. It's unfortunate that you don't

seem to be able to see that people like Steve are also very honest and

sincere in their [our] belief that the best way to help someone is often

to not help them at all. Or perhaps to teach them to fish rather than

give them a fish. We honestly, sincerely and very deeply believe in the

evidence of our senses, intelligence and education [whatever it may be]

that the most empathetic way to promote the well being of those who are

now struggling is the route of personal responsibility and other tenants

of conservative [and libertarian] philosophy. It is profoundly clear to

me that little if any of modern liberal thought had any place in the

considerations of the founders of our country. The idea that

generations could live on the public dole with no personal

responsibility would no doubt have been an incredulous one for them.

To disparage the motives and moral character [or mental capabilities, as

we continue to see here] is a pathetic position, indicating one cannot

defend one's position in an honorable, logical and intelligent manner.

Too often those who can't marshal facts to support their position are

pretty good a slinging the $#!+ to cover up that lack.

..

..

> Nancie Barnett wrote:

> > Well if you are socially liberal, then I don't know why you do not

> have any

> > empathy for those citizens who are struggling to survive and need

> > governmental assistance to survive?!

> > You really don't sound to liberal to me.

> > I am a born and raised left wing liberal democrat. I grew up in a upper

> > middle class family who always believed in giving back to society and in

> > paying our fair share in taxes. My dad was a successful attorney and

> > producer who believed in paying his fair share back into society and

> helping

> > out the poor and struggling of this society.

[Guest guest]

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@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geo\

politics%2C%20and%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]

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.

..

..

> 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.