There is not, and can never be, any such thing as a purely economic, or purely governmental system to the total exclusion of one from the other. Any Governmental structure whatever its form, must be funded. The Market itself must bare confidence in security of exchange in order to be free. Where traditional “Government” does not operate, the ‘government’ of martial force comes to bare as a chief consideration upon all individuals. [Governments being instituted among men to secure their Creator endowed, unalienable rights, Life Liberty, and Property being among them]
Of course the imperfection of every form of Government known to man cannot negate the positive gain in secured trade. In a ‘State of Nature’ absent even the most primitive social contract, the market would be limited by the confidence of the participants. Where would voluntary exchange seem more secure, between hermits in a wilderness, or citizens of a governmental body which provides a police force?
For a “Market” to be “Free” its government must secure the rights of individuals to keep or sell their labor and property as they see fit [a minimal infringement/taxation required to fund that security].
Only “Anti-Capitalists” argue that “Capitalism” is not synonymous with a “Free Market System”, although many Anti-Capitalists would make no distinction while embracing the Marxian pejoratives which violate the principles of Economic Freedom.
All “Anti-Capitalist” systems, most of which brand themselves “Socialist” or “Communist” bare the unifying traits of infringing and violating the paradoxical principle of Maximum Property Rights and Limited/Minimal Government.
The necessarily bridged gap between Rule of Law Republicanism and Self Governing Democracy, in order to free posterity from being arbitrarily governed by the dead or the living [a swift trigger for revolution], brings forth the question of separating economic influences from the free market of ideas, lest corrupting economic favoritism from government be purchased one way or another.
Jared Lee Loughner, Madman
He shot, & killed a bunch of Ppl. He's Skitzo. He thinks "English
Grammar" is a method for 'the government' to control people, in their own minds
He hates Sarah Palin [who's target map was mirrored on the left, you idiots, you],
He was a fan of Obama. But feared "Government" He is a truther, thinks the Mars Rover was faked,
believes in mind control, and a "new Currency" which is a metophor for Grammatic Nihilism illustrated by his
question to Gifford [her answer being what started his "beef"] which was
"what is government when words have no meaning"
If you think this shooting was politically motivated, let me say, you are Styrofoam Skulled Morons.
If you think the heated rhettoric in the media has any responsibility, his friends said he didn't pay
attention to the news or listen to talk radio.
One person said he leaned left, others said he wasn't interested in politics.
I would cite this quote "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither"
but silencing speech and regulating metaphores would do absolutely nothing to stop skitzos like this from murder.
& The universal failure of Gun control laws should speak for itself.
There're TONS of sources that utterly debunk the popular narratives from the left
I've only skimmed the bare surface. DYOHW
03-09-10, From Natural Man Thru Reason To Capitalism
If we shall begin by what is natural to man, (& presumably bear some loyalty to it) then should not feudalism/tribalism be considered the primary nature of man?
However if we should begin with what the cultures of Man agree to grant value upon (presuming time and unanimity to have some merit) then should we not assess honestly the methods to achieve those goals?
If so then Keynesian economics can demonstrably be charged with causing global recession; the merits of collectivism be damned in the eyes of the individual that can see what it reaps.
The difference in socialism and communism is apparent in the ignorance and apathy of the govt worker that demonstrably destroys his own freedom and wealth, and contrastingly the despondent nature of those that boat in anything that will float from Cuba.
We should be able to agree that a 45% Govt. interference in markets cannot be called free or Capitalist; however more specifically by nature the interference is detrimental to not only potential overall wealth but meritocracy.
Thus if even only the Lion share of the blame rests on Keynesian systems (not capitalist) for the current crisis, the inherent hypothesis of any money spent by govt is well spent, ignores that wealth does not create wealth but effort and self interest which is much lost when capital travels through bureaucracy to reach hands much lest thrifty, much less skilled for it.
Without Popular sovereignty there can be no justice, without justice the law is in vein, without rule of law there can be no freedom, without freedom democracy is in vein.
To inhibit the tyranny of direct democracy and expropriate the angels of its nature, we elect representatives to develop and hire enforcers maintain law.
A Necessary aspect to the rule of law is sovereignty of Nation and Individual CITIZENS. Borders Build Civilizations which in their lacking inevitably FALL ________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you pay taxes it cost you, and if you don't, it still costs everyone else who pays taxes, which in turn leaves them with less to invest in the market which prevents the creation of jobs and makes everyone poorer for it INCLUDING YOU. Wealth creation starts with work, and diffusing cost destroys the incentives of self interest which GIVES PPL REASON TO BECOME DOCTORS
The entire Developed World has become Economically Illiterate Keynesian Socialist Monkeys and chattering won't change the rules of economics.
To honestly consider all Muslims to be the same you must ignore the diversity of sects, Quranic Interpretations, Abrogating Orders, and Selected Hadiths, within Islam as well as the pervasive diversity of mind inherent in human beings. Not to mention the Ignorance of non-Arab converts and Arab Illiterates. Do not be swayed by the easiness of intellectual extremes. There are Muslims wholly outside the Political Islam-of-Islamo Fascism, AND there are Non-Violent Muslims who donate money to Islamic causes funding terrorism. The lack of inquiry as to how many donators know the actual use of the money can be blamed on PCness of the media who won’t even cover the causes themselves.
"a government of laws and not of men." -John Adams
This means you hold the RIGHT to property ABOVE the supposed want or need of it. A Grass Roots sovereignty as laid down in the 9th & 10th Amendments. This being the whole reason for a separation of powers and decentralized government.
Democracy is a part of a Republic, but so are LIMITATIONS, Representatives Do Not get to establish Entitlements at the cost of Rights. Guaranteeing privileges destroy self Govt. Destroy FREEDOM. __________________________
Guess what the San Fran Sicko Examiner has deployed Fact Check Upon!?~No Not ANYTHING in Washington, not even anything in California, Glenn Beck's CPAC Speech
Here's ,my Addressing (if not debunking) of the debunking :D (I don’t exactly have a research staff)
1. Hope For America,
How do you debunk someone's hope? By attacking the man that inspired it! How could Reagan, who left office with a higher GDP Debt, possibly inspire hope for American because debt is bad!? Real journalism and ethics would expound upon why this was. (yeah I'll let better men explain it)
2. Beck doesn’t speak from a Teleprompter, but from the heart,
Yes beck uses a Teleprompter on his TV show (he admits it), However he not only obviously flubs words but asks for details from his producer showing not only no overreliance on it but also is known on the show for tangential monologues. & yes he had a NOTEBOOK for his near hour long speech which he referred to (Several times) IE a few, however he did not remain glued to the podium, nor was his speech written for him. Watch the speech and see how much he uses his notes (he doesn’t have a teleprompter on stage).
3. Progressivism was Designed to destroy the Constitution.
Ryan Witt ( of the San Fran Sicko Examiner) argues that “Progressive Policies” include the Direct Election of Senators & Women’s Right to vote. Talk about selective memory. I’ll counter With Eugenics (Instituted in the US the sterilization of the “Unfit”), Prohibition (Which basically created Gangsterism in America), Fascism its self (IE Unpatriotic Nationalism and Socialism) The Propaganda Machine that inspired Hitler’s, The NRA (National Recovery Administration), The Treaty of Versailles, The Blue Eagle, The Great Depression, & Third Way Politics (a specific strategy for whittling away the constitution into nothing)
4. The Communist Pamphlet endorsing Progressives as Comrades
Beck quotes “Sections” of a Communist pamphlet, as it describes progressives as comrades, to show the only SUBSTANTIVE Difference in the broad scheme of things between Marxism and progressivism is tactics of Revolution Vs Evolution.
Ryan Witt says you can’t allow “Opponents” to define you, of course his non-sequitur “Beck is a racist if the Ku Klux Klan decides to support him.” presumes Communists to oppose Progressives despite a rich History to the contrary ; progressives distancing themselves from Marxists was largely a differing belief in tactics not by any means the broader scope of ends.
5. Marxism Is Revolution Progressivism is Evolution (To the same Ends)
Beck was speaking in sweeping broad terms (compared with Witt’s interpretation that is), they are both centralized Statist Ideologies. From the perspective a Constitutional Libertarian even if Obama/FDR were aiming for a maximum of say 75% govt CONTROL of the “Factors of Production” it is still STATISM Beck’s very point. I don’t say regulate as the original definition meaning “to Make Regular” DOES NOT APPLY by all standards of measuring progressivism or Obama policies.
6. Van Jones, Self Avowed Communist
There’s tape of Jones saying he was a communist. That is not up for debate (Going by Witt you would think it were). Addressing Witt’s quote, is that the only ‘Evidence’ of Jones’ “Disavowing Communism”? Govt. Job Banks? Govt. Subsidization of ONE aspect of Energy Industry? Reinvention rather than Reform? In any case there is no misconstruing Jones as anything but a statist. The whole quote was an obvious political ploy to make it SEEM like there’s “Common Ground” where there isn’t.
7. Progressivism Is A Cancer & Must Be Eradicated
Beck is specifically addressing working within the System to VOTE THEM OUT. I did wince that he was not as explicit as humanly possible (Only 75% so), but not even an insane murderous lunatic would think he is advocating violence if they’re paying enough attention to take what he says seriously enough to compare it with their delusional outlook. It takes a leftist to read violence into Beck’s words who staunch advocate of reform NOT revolution.
8. 40-36-20 America is?
Beck Cites a poll (his numbers are right) on America self described as mostly Conservative BUT 49% are self described “Democrats” (same poll) Of course Beck hates both parties so this has nothing to do with anything. J And then Witt cites a poll says that 65% of Americans support the "progressive" public option in health care reform. Of course Beck’s most recent addressing the issue cites a polling at 26% Pro what is consistently, misleadingly termed “Health Care Reform” seeing as how Tort isn’t even being addressed & is the most likely reform to actually do any GOOD. (not to mention all the pork)
9. Govt. Is Incapable of Job Creation
As Beck points out for every “Govt. Created Job” how many were lost? 16? Or 1600? Well since market forces keep jobs in existence by providing services directly to ppl who HAVE A CHOICE, there is competition & excellence, whilst (I don’t have the numbers) but millions of dollars are funding just a dozen jobs under Obama’s “Stimulus”. Watch Beck for better details. =P
10. Govt Is Only REEEALLY Supposed To Protect Us From the Bad Guys
Citing the Preamble of the Constitution, Witt lists, Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, General Welfare, and Secure Liberty for Ourselves & Posterity supposedly to rebut the generalization. Of course this misconstruement must highlight in the eyes of the educated the difference between the original interpretation of the constitution and the progressive reinterpretation; the main example of which is the phrase “General Welfare” however within the framework & examples of original perspective of the founders I am confident that little else was meant by the terminology than simply put “Protecting us from bad guys” which would include those who would play favorites in Govt. and the prevention of undue skirmishes and conflicts with a uniform law. Duh.
11. Americans Do Not Need “Encouragement” To Be Charitable
Witt cites the tax code that does INDEED “Encourage” Americans to charity however Beck was (to a conservative) OBVIOUSLY alluding to Govt.’s Tax & Redistribute Policies, as well as Volunteerism Propaganda Campaign. Witt then notes the majority of our charity goes to “Places of Worship” in America, (Ignoring that the US gives about more Charity than All other Nations combined) and then cites that building of Churches “[does qualify] but it certainly differs from donations to the Haitian relief fund“. I’d bet my left arm we gave the most to Haiti. And apparently no-one on the left gets that Churches do more than build more churches.
12. “Economic Holocaust Is Coming”
Witt complains beck does not cite any economist saying this, and then pronounces “Many economists project a slow recovery [in the coming years]” But of course beck wasn’t up there to cite sources, he does that in his books and you can see many interviewed on his show. One such similar warning however did come from one of the VERY few Economists who predicted the Recession IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!~
13. The Depression of 1921
Witt Admits Beck Is right (again); however he cites Beck blaming Woodrow Wilson (The Anti War Candidate who within a year entered us in The Great War: WWI) saying it was the post war bust that caused it not Wilson… Hmmm
14. Woodrow Wilson Sucks
Witt cites many of the things, (that incidentally I associated with Progressivism previously), as that Beck described Wilson as to blame for. The Intricacies of which can probably be found in books like “Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism” And “American Progressivism” They’re on my Reading List… I’m not the wizard of Oz, but I do vaguely recall there being various ins and outs which do nothing but indict Wilson.
Witt cites the 77% tax as only being on the Uber Rich!~ (I’m pretty sure Beck cited it as a Progressive Tax which ENTAILS THAT ITS ONLY ON THE RICH) Of course any understanding of Economics AT ALL tells us that Poor ppl Don’t Exactly Create Jobs! And Punishing Success Doesn’t exactly get you more of it.
15. Liberal-Progressive Name Switch!
Witt goes after the name switching of “Liberal” with “Progressive” lacking any historical nuance by the blunder of “They’ve always been interchangeable” when there are clear language shifts in history; and then cites that Conservatives don’t call themselves “Right Wing” which is specifically and DIRECTLY because of the leftist False dichotomy - Communist/Fascist Political Spectrum. Both Travesties of Language & History.
16. Harding, Coolidge, and the Roaring 20s
WWI for the US was a war of choice not necessity which was exactly what Wilson used to develop his fascist policies he couldn’t get to work without the war. I would suggest that decreasing Govt. is never easy even when the Dictator’s term & his War Excuse end at the same time.
Beck is a Capitalist, not a Kynesian-ist, so why should he explain the status quo of Keynesians who’ve largely had control of history since FDR?
17. Hoover, Depression Progressive, and The Fed
I suck at Explaining the Fed and Great Depression so Watch Milton Friedman Explain it.
Perhaps there’s not enough on Hoover’s involvement, Check your local Library XD
The Great Depression Was Ongoing DURRING WWII and thus did not its self end it >_> I think… It was the unique monetary position of lending that the Victorious USA had after WWII which substantively got us out of it. Read “New Deal Or Raw Deal”
18. The Statue Of Liberty; Symbol Of…
Witt would seem to presume that the modern attitudes of the French or that what “Most have said” has anything to do with ONE ARTIST’S and ONE POET’S Intent 100 years ago, …. Mno. And in fact contexts of history would suggest Beck’s is the more accurate & informed perspective. He’s given more details in previous segments of his Fox News TV Show And Presumably on Radio too.
Where is there the pursuit of comparing the 'State of Nature'-Theoretical concepts for society such as "The Federation of Liberty" Vs "The Union of Liberty" arguments with over arching Constitutional Classical Liberalism and its historical real world application's failures in maintaining a standard of freedom?
The State of Nature Theories oft as I've heard them discussed leaves a ludicrous number of details to the imagination.
Whilst the Constitutional History uncomfortably shows that many inherent flaws existing from the beginning (as will occur with any human institution) Not the least of which was slavery, the throwing off of which, in many ways, contributed to the current status quo of economic 'slavery' (or at least indentured servitude).
The status quo of economic slavery is majoritarily accepted as a great evil today (under the names of Socialism, Keynesian Economics, Progressivism, or Big Govt), but Political correctness or ignorance hides the source of it in the vital necessity of throwing off The Unparalleled evil of Slavery in the first place.
So, without slavery (or racial tensions which come with a racially mixed society) what would the united states look like today? Would women's Sufferage have come about? or Prohibition? Would Classic Liberalism have Endured? would it have evolved to current Human Equalities without the cost of economic freedom?
Slavery being in itself a deviation from capitalism (Under which humans cannot qualify as property nor their enslavement be a part of what is DEFINED as "Economic Freedom").
In fact (Capitalism being Absolute Economic Freedom) America has never really been a purely Capitalist society (as some socialists will argue when they advocate their 'Utopianism') However all the various mixed economies and partial freedoms' resulting prosperity for America, Can Be Traced Back to Being Caused by the Greater Economic Freedom!~ And never the limitations.
(Modernally the call is heard against "Deregulation" (as the cause of the recession) yet the madness of it is (not only are corruption and rule breaking to blame making enforcement the issue much like Illegal Immigration) but that they call Instituting the REGULATION of giving loans to the unqualified because of their skin color (practically a racial quota) a "deregulation, (For "Equality")!!
INCONCEIVABLE!~ ludicrous EVEN~
A REAL Deregulation would be to allow interstate insurance competition, which was only prohibited in the first place, by a Misinterpretation of the Constitution, perceiving "Regulation" of interstate comerce (at the time meaning to make regular) with CONTROL of.
Always be on the lookout for vague undefined or not juxtaposed use of language, behind it hypocrisy is lurking.
this has been Asderathos, and remember, I am Not a freaking 'Intellectual'
Republic, Democracy, Democratic Republic, Call it whatever you will, quibble semantics Aaall you want, but get the definition the History, Right! The Founding Fathers Put in place a Republic (res publica = rule of law) wherein the direct democratic (demos = common ppl, kratos = rule IE Rule of the Ppl) election of representatives was purposefullycircumvented because it was known that DIRECT Democracy is merely a Tyranny of the Majority.
And we have fallen into more of a Democratic Tyranny by way of "Representatives" either being Populists without Morals gaming the system Or Highly Moral Revolutionary Fascists seeking to Impose their Collectivist morality on the ppl by far and away ABOVE The Individual and State Sovereignty Described in the 10th Amendment.
Etymology's Place
Popular Understanding of language Trumps Etymological Truth by way of intent (for communication), Except when necessarily applied for understanding history and current Sociology or Politics.
Political Correctness
governmental dictatorship of truth
or rather dictatorship of what is considered to be "true"
regardless of demonstratable facts, reason, or logic
Political Correctness is by example of history, A Governmental Ideological or Organizational Dictatorship of what is "True" particularly within Controversial Issues or actions of that Dictatorial power; with demonization of dissenters by agents of or sympathizers with that Power or its agenda.
Political Correctness, is inherently destructive or derisive of free speech; and is even more effective when a cultural rather than openly legal implementation, pitting ppl against ppl, rather than ideas vs Ideas which with any honesty and reason would necessitous arrive at some measure of Objective Truth.
_____________________________
Take note of the Value of Economic Freedom without which there cannot be Individual Sovereignty; A socialist would say govt handouts create it, but dependence cannot = autonomy; a Purity of which would be anarchy, but restraint only with representative taxation and Rule of Law creates the most Freedom Possible without creating an enslavement to defense of self family and property as is necessitous with anarchy, nor an enslavement to a god-state from which all blessings and all rights must flow with Tyrannical Communism Fascism Socialism or Global Government.
If your goal is freedom in the highest, then logically it is clear what you must and must not advocate lest you be a hypocrite or liar. =) ________________________________________________________________________________________________
If a man lies with mankind as he lieth with womankind,
both of them have done what is detestable,
both of them have committed an abomination
They both shall surely be put to death
Leviticus 11-7
And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you
___
What? I'm asking you, and myself, amongst the men of the earth, do Leviticus 20:13 and 11-7 have to do with each other,
Gays are not swine after all
Well, besides chapter, verse falls under that which reason has prohibited in defiance of what one would purport to be "God's Will" But CANNOT be, to a Jeffersonian mind, abiding by Libertine Philosophy
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
Ppl that ate pork until recently, biblically speaking, DIED FROM IT, (I doubt the gays did much better spreading Disease)
My perspective is that Death was the punishment for nhilistic anti human Risky behaviors destructive to society; However society less close to the bone can abide it, tolerate it, but, but, still should not condone, approve, or accept as normal this behavior.
(In a libertarian society you are a sovereign citizen, but this is my recomendation) ...
I attribute the nuclear family with being the cornerstone of a stable society, all one need do is look at the demographics for a certain ppl who, coincidentally, embraced this deviation, and the consequences
Reverend Manning, of whom I was a fan, was banned from posting new videos to YouTube, I can only conclude (from the video) for calling Gays not Normal
NORMAL: conforming to the standard, or the common type, usual, not abnormal; regular; natural
If Homosexuality ever became “Normal” that would be the end of NATURAL Reproduction
Its a given that the Progressive Politically correct establishment is pushed the envelope beyond tolerance to mandated acceptance (This is why GayMarriage is being pushed by activist judges) but know that I don’t hate Gays, I just find their “Sexuality” Nauseating, and objectively bad for society
If You wouldn’t silence me from saying Leather Fetishists are oogy and bad for society don’t be a hypocrite and advocate it for other sexual deviants. I am a "Libertarian" But that does not prevent me from having opinions as to what is good for society, it only prevents me from enforcing that opinion by force of law or barrel of gun. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Johann Gottfried Herder's principle of Cult Patriotism, (Although One might say Cult "Nationalism" or "Tribalism" Going by Hitler's statement that he was a Nationalist not a "Patriot") generally based in a tribal romanticism of a race culture or nation, (which originated with Rousseau’s solely political arguments) laid the intellectual foundation for Nazism (National Socialism). Cult Patriotism disambiguated is an extremist version of Generic Patriotism.
American Patriotism for instance can be that of flag waving ignorance, or deep philosophical and historic understanding of the unique ideas laid down by our founding fathers, of Freedom, Individualism, Natural Human Rights, and the authority of Law over Men (allowing no man to arise a tyrant). Whereas Fascism values a Populist Conclusion of the greatest good by far over individual Human Rights, and the Leader above the law as ultimate Judge Jury King and Executioner; Whereas American Separation of Powers divides the three branches of Govt. relinquishing “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (the 10th Amendment) purposefully to make it a nation of Sovereign individuals subject only to the law, and never Men.
Hoover went to Russia and “Rationalized” smelting into a 2 million dollar profit, which soon after the Communist Revolution disappeared, because the workers brutalized the native experts who knew how to keep the machines working and sent away the American Experts. If you cannot see the lesson from this, I can only say to you, punish excellence and you’ll have less of it, reward excellence and you’ll have more. Revolutions Need Leaders, and we were lucky enough to have one’s scornful of a corrupt Monarchy and wise in the ways other forms of govt. can go wrong.
“American Culture”, I’ve heard disturbingly often, “doesn’t exist”. They get this from multiculturalism. An ideology of removing the flame of Assimilation from the melting pot, and without commonalities, of which the few left that there are, are necessarily (by leftist ideology) deemphasized for the elevation of differences, in a frenzy of xenophelia. This is a recipe for civil war.
American culture is one of tolerance, assimilation, and acceptance of those that wish to embrace American Values (Regardless of their other intransigent aspects of culture, or of their race). We being a broad tent society, have room for those “yearning to be free”; however, other isms, than this Americanism, have been infiltrating the US for decades, and are working to enslave us to their vision of utopia, destructive to not only freedom but identity.
This Ideology by design is purposeful in polarization to destroy common culture, unity, and project victim and oppressor statuses onto every aspect of life Politicizing Your Very Perception of the World using Political Correctness (The Ideology Telling You What Not To Say) & Identity Politics (The Ideology Telling You Who Is Saying It), the ends of which are centralized govt. and forced equality regardless of merit. The means of which are infiltration and usurpation thru indoctrination, of the Professions of education, the law, media, politics, & also activist philanthropy.
They claim to champion freedom, having proven themselves the epitome of double standards, & hypocrisy, they cover up the corruption, not by conspiracy but by mutual elevation of ideology above the moral standards of the current system in aspiration of transcendence. AKA, the ends justify the means. A Willfully Blind Cultural censorship of, the Politically Incorrect; demonized as heretics to the New System. Never mind what the Founding Fathers Envisioned (or Martin Luther King for that matter), never mind what the constitution actually says, never mind the facts, after all it is a living document· ________________________________________________________________________________________________
My Ideology consists (when whittled down) of Three words… “We Are Human.”
But that only begs the question...
Well, Hitler was human, Gandhi was human, Bin Ladin, Thomas Jefferson, Edgar Allan Poe, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and Enoch Powell, Charles Manson, Marylin Manson, Marylin Munroe, You, I, We, are all human.
We are not born angels and demons, Gods or Mice, we are human, No matter the monsters or martyrs we become, in the eyes of the people.
The meaning OF life (to me, self evident) is to find meaning IN life, of course the murderers of the world have failed at this having taken life unjustly (as that is the definition of murder), but many soldiers with noble causes have succeeded.
regarding WAR
To Quote Ronald Reagan-
“The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits — not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
“A Time For Choosing” a speech by Ronald Reagan, for me its a three way tie with “I have a Dream” and the “Declaration of Independence” for the most important speech in American history, we the United states of America, might I remind you, are the greatest experiment in freedom in the history of man. If you accept that, think on it, if you have not study up.
regarding Freedom and Slavery
Surrender is the dissolution of freedom, it is slavery. Hopefully most of us acknowledge it is not good to be a slave and is thus not good to keep a slave. (Forgive the linguistically simplistic logic, I’d hate to see it applied elsewhere) Why then is indentured servitude allowed? You might say it isn’t but in the form of contracts it is. If you break a contract you can be sued, jailed. So why if slavery is an evil are contracts stating other than if you do this I’ll pay you this, allowed? (feel free to give an answer if you have one) I merely contend a higher morality, and simply reasoned principle, that being anti slavery should mean protection from giving away freedom in this form.
Taking note of History, we should observe that many ppl will wish to enslave or murder others, whether because of Ideology stemming from culture or culture from ideology. Teaching (in govt hands) has proven inefecient at to not producing ppl of this type.
Regarding Education
I contend that besides the rare deranged (for he is inevitable) a free market of ideas made manifest in a privatization of the school system meeting minimum requirements for safety, end of year testing and keeping of the Academic Bill Of Rights, (from first grade up) Would prevent indoctrination or radicalization to a much greater extent than the great morass of centralized bureaucracy handling curriculum and funding.
regarding the Constitution
In its time, the constitution was much better understood via the Federalist Papers, a book still available to the public today, while not understood at all by ppl claiming constitutional scholarship and doctorates. Case In Point Barack Obama 2001 Radio Interview
OBAMA: “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.”
Individual Freedom, is a key theme of the Constitution, The reason we have (or had) a three tiered Govt, a separation of powers, which were supposed to (and did and kinda sorta still are) keep each other in check. The Amount of power vested in the Federal Govt. weather it is Taxing the bejeezus out of you or showering you with lavish welfare checks, in doing so, your freedom is diminished. Under progressive taxation your amount of thriving is diminished, to support welfare recipients, which if you yourself are on, then you lose the right to fail or thrive on your own merits. America was never a Utopia, but in the attempt to make it one we have become a dystopia. A restoration of the Constitution IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORIES NO LONGER TAUGHT (but somehow learned), such as the Federalist Papers and Founding Faith, we can restore our Meritocracy.
Regarding Language
Monopolies always used to be understood as bad, a destruction of competition, which must exist to create and maintain quality and efficiency on its own (The freedom of meritocracy). But ideology deviating from freedom cannot afford its’ competition. This Hypocrisy was hidden, by mere associative psychological warfare. The Old Totalitarian trick, "tell a lie often enough and it Becomes the Truth", ideology over perception.
Thus self described liberals are able to, and are acheiving the destruction of competition Economically and ideologically, using the most Fascist of tactics.
Popular Synonyms of good; Progressive (without question of goal) Liberal (without question of necessary borders) Democratic (without inquiry as to an Informed electorate)
An Ongoing Affirmative action requires by logic that either those benefiting are either inherently incapable or those not benefiting are inherently oppressive.
Gay marriage (oxymoron) puts the right to manipulate the law by its rewriting language, up for grabs, either legislatively (or judicially vetoing legislation)
If language and our understanding of it defines the law, how then can we allow Courts or Ballots the right to official redefinition of language, thereby subverting the law. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Searching "Fascism" on Etymology Online, I found amongst the results of "Brown Shirts" and "Quisling", (Vidkun Quisling, Norwegian fascist politician who headed the puppet government during the German occupation of Norway in World War II) also "America" once a synonym for freedom and liberty now (since the 60’s embrace of communist propaganda) one of Tyranny.
Fascists are classically opposed to Communism yet introduce socialism. The American Left of Today, has piggy backed on the civil rights movement supplying the aspect of Racial championship, yet the goal has changed, from Nationalist imperialism to International Dictatorship & bureaucracy thru the UN, from glorifying a “Master Race” to Extolling the Victimhood of non white Races, women or minority status equivalents, The Christian White Male, is the equivalent of Hitler’s marked Jews, along with any Victim Class Person Not Politically correct, decried, as a traitor to their group, luckily their fate is not to fill out the other half of internment camps as the Catholics and Communists did in Nazi Germany.
The politically incorrect suffer only slander and censure from the majoritarily Left wing media. Seeking refuge in talk radio and the only major opposition in TV FOX NEWS, hosts of which receive the most ardent attacks, often from those who do not (or pretend not to) know the difference between hard news and opinion shows. And hosts from both mediums are often slandered by lies malicious or ignorance willful.
Vindicating Contexts shown rarely on other than “alternative” media. Rush Limbaugh was called racist for doing a comedy bit in which he called for nothing more and nothing less than America to enforce its southern border in exactly the same manner as Mexico does with its own. Michael Savage was reported to call for the death of 100 Million Muslims, The FACT that this was in the confines of a monologue on what we would do in the “US or Them” Scenario of a nuclear threat from a Muslim Nation, is ignored, effectively painting a target on his back. Glenn Beck (along with nearly the entire Conservative Spectrum) was purported (Recently) to hold the same views as the “Holocaust Museum Shooter” when a rundown of the Issues was read, all the Murderer’s views were leftist or centrist at best except distaste for the Federal Govt. (which I would hope is nearly universal)
The Nationalization of Banking and Auto Companies is purported by the left to be only Temporary; although similar claims were once made about welfare, affirmative action, & the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (a one time Amnesty that has recurred six more times since)
Political Correctness, A Left Wing Issued Truth regardless of facts, the Modern Day Pravda Isvestia is distributed in all major mediums, majoritarily in 2/3s of them.
The only weapon against it, is an honest self education. K now thy self, be able to provide rationale for your conclusions,
and know thine enemy, be able to supply a historical context to their ideology and where it ends.
"Fight for truths eternal, a history complete Lest you lose tomorrow to a blindness of the past." -Asderathos
I will not call myself an intellectual although others are sure to call me a pseudo intellectual
This of course doesn't mean I'm against Thoughtfullness quite the contrary. I advocate much learning,
and education, not to be confused with an indoctrination which is much of what occurs in most institutions
of supposed higher education. All you need do to find a great standard of measure is go to
Students for academic freedom dot org
and read the academic bill of rights
Students For Academic Freedom Dot Org (The Academic Bill of Rights)
to which most colleges were once at least partial adhearers. No longer.
A quick quote "academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture
of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements
that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry."
In other words Professors shouldn't be able to flunk a student because they
don't opinionitively like their scholastic conclusions,
I myself am for Ideas proven or even new unproven ideas.
but I am SURELY against Old Ideas that have repeatedly been Proven Wrong or Immoral
The Ideal is that one may learn from history so as to improve the preasent and future
Within politics this has not occured, high taxes have proven to dissuade industry yet they are risen to support
Govt interference which beyond the most minor regulations to secure human rights has proven counterproductive
Yet it is accelerated in times of economic turmoil.
Who is at fault? a loose group of Intellectuals who's sole tie
(reaching far beyond the Democrat party) is their Progressive agenda
Progress sounds wonderful, but progressives have intellectual roots in alternative history which is pro
Communist pro Fascist anti Classless society
(I misspoke when I said "Anti Classless society" a classless society being a communist ideal, the American Ideal being a Class MOBILITY based upon Ability and Merit rather than birth right.)
Woodrow Wilson, American President, a Progressive inspired the Nazi Propanda machine
Progressives gave us Prohibition, which gave rise to organized crime
Worse still These are the ppl that invented eugenics, and one Eugenicist founded Planned Parenthood a Pro Abortion Organization
The so called intellectuals who paint dissenters as anti progress or racist etc, leave no room for unslandered dissent
Thus Intellectual freedom is being crushed by an ideology based in results applying no morality to methods
Common sense is dying, "The Ends Do Not Justify the Means"
In one way or another EVERY Major Founding Father said, AMERICA can only Survive with a Religious and Moral Society
These men are painted deists by Progressives as if the Human trate of doubt would make them any the less prophetic or God inspired
We as men and woman, citizens of America, must be thoughtful, Educate yourself and your children, in an honest way
don't exclude dissenting voices, empower your knowledge by understanding opposing arguments, satisfy your own mind or change it. _______________________________________________________________________________
5-14-09 What ISN'T Liberal
or 1st Amendment VS Lingual Revisions To Oxymorons
Gay Marriage, Stupid Genius, liberal Fascist: What do these terms have in common?
They are all Oxymorons, Using the Classic Definition of “Liberal” rather than whoever wants to call themselves that, (often being Progressive Fascists), who’s M. O. IS redefining terms outside of reality so as to manipulate public perception! A Famous Communists’ Nazis’ Fascists’ and Dictators’ Strategy.
They (Leftist Progressive Fascists) decided Republicans were all Rich White Male, Racist, (Blacks having registered as Democrats out of solidarity for The Civil Rights Martyr JFK, Linked with MLK.) Not being able to before in the South because only Republicans would ACCEPT Blacks.
They decided Self Described “Conservatives” were all just republican shills like Rush Limbaugh during the Bush Administration, and then when Constitutionalist Traditional Americans wanted to distinguish themselves again as “Independent Conservatives” the branded them Republican Shills Again, with no effort, or regard to language, pointing at the bandwagon jumping fools (Like Rush)
They Decided FOX News IS SATAN. Thusly demonizing all reporters Opinion Makers or watchers no matter how casual as Evil Neo Cons! FOX being the only major opposition to the rest of the TV Media.
Neo Con being defined anywhere from Far Right or more accurately Hypocritical Leftist posing As Right (used to be called RINOS).
They Took George W Bush a Globo-Fiscal-Socialist Progressive with a couple socially conservative stances and demonized him as some kind of Right Wing Fascist.
They decided that if you earn more it would only be fare to make you pay a greater Ratio of Your Earnings, because the Govt. Super Bureaucracy is better at charity than you. Yeah Right…
They Decided The “Fairness Doctrine” forcing Radio Stations to subsidize unpopular talk radio in order to keep their Broadcasting licenses would be well, fair, and upon vehement opposition, are currently rebranding similar ends thru “Localism” in attempts to force out the nationally syndicated BIG FOUR (O’Reilly having gotten out of radio) it used to be the big five
They decided there is no such thing as an Illegal Alien, there are no Illegal Human Beings, No Borders No Language No Culture No COUNTRY, only roving Immigrants of the world who must be given ballots IN SPANISH, GOLD PLATED MEDICAL CARE, AND AS MANY LAWYERS AS THEY NEED TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY (EVERYTHING THEY OWN) OF A CITIZEN WHO STOPS THEM FROM CROSSING OVER THEIR OWN LAND
They decided that Hate speech isn’t Free Speech, Christening Leftist Golden Calf Minorities’ Feelings as more important than the First Amendment.
They decided Hate Crime Laws would NOT apply to Blacks committing vicious crimes against whites EVEN WHEN the Criminals ADMIT to Racial Motivations!!~
The Hypocrisy Is Deafening.
*(Reiterate Beginning)*
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You Have The RIGHT, Speak out against Orwellian Hypocrisy.
___
UPDATE: (My Replies to comments on YouTube relevent to the topic)
Outside of a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a preacher assuring him there wouldn't be official State religions. The first appearance of the phrase (Separation of Church and State) was an FDR Socialist Lawyer changing the meaning of the first amendment to freedom from religion. Every campaign to remove religious symbols from memorials or court rooms ban in God we trust from the money Under God from the pledge and prayer in school is for unconstitutional repression.
The historic precedence of the first amendment allows for "Endorsement" (that is the language of the FDR Socialist Lawyer) of religion! It only prohibits Congress Specifically from making laws linguistically regarding making laws Regarding Religion. So you could not possibly interpret it to BE a law prohibiting the ten commandments in a court room. In English "Respecting" meant in reference to or regarding not having "Respect For".
Guaranteed Freedom "From" Religion means NO FREE SPEECH IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, no prayer in congress which opened with a prayer from its inception (until the 60s after FDR's Progressive Lawyer), or public schools no school vouchers for religious schools . It implies as interpreted today the removal of all Religious paraphernalia from the public eye. THAT is what Freedom FROM entails. Freedom OF doesn't mean atheists are outlawed or executed, or a sudden Theocracy; harassment or disturbing the peace laws would still apply to overzealous proselytizers.
Public Schools are practically unconstitutional in the first place, as are most govt institutions of any kind today. There's a rule in law being abused today called "Reasonable Accommodation most often its where Wheelchair jockies scout places without handicapped access and sue often putting places out of business cause they can't afford the retrofitting. (There are ppl who make a living off of this despicable atrocity) The original intent of this rule of thumb was intended for a moral, religious, and SANE citizenry. ___
“The More You Know” doon) doon (>) dooooon (v) dooon (^)
^*Picture NBC Public Service Announcement Sound Effects*^
___
The Comedies’ Not Seemless but Meh gotta throw it in
_____________________________________________
We are America, tolerant of the distasteful. it is a part of the Principle Of Libertarian Freedom. You can do whatever, behind closed doors, in the privacy of your own home, Consenting Adults Yadda Yadda, and say whatever you want on the street corners,
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire
BUT, we cannot, must not, start BYPASSING the revision of UNFAIR LAWS AND RULES BY LEGISLATING LANGUAGE INTO AN OXYMORON. And Gay Marriage IS An Oxymoron Whether You like It or Not And IT is FAR outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Legally, Lingual-ly Marriage is between Man and Woman, Husband and wife. It Is anthropologically religious in nature, a community’s cultural ceremony recognizing a couple’s adherence to the specific values of the nuclear family and raising of, Children together.
Civil Unions would be ENTIRELY equal If Gays weren’t being used by the Progressive Movement for the purposes of deconstructing traditional American culture.
"The Eye That Alters Alters All" --William Blake
NO RELIGION ON EARTH PERMITS HOMOSEXUALITY, DOCTRINEALLY,
Scripture tells us (in Shakespearean Code requiring an Education [as apposed to an indoctrination] to understand it) to shun Gays, You can’t be Gay and Christian BUT you can be AMERICAN and Gay. Freedom for all slavery for none (such as forcing a Church to accept Everyone regardless of morals)
But this is a secular nation right? No we are In Principle and Values a Christian Nation (not to be confused with a Theocratic Dictatorship) Seculars have no tolerance for religion whereas Christianity Tolerates very well other religions.
Ann Coulter said Jews should be perfected. What you don’t hear is that Muslims think Kafir should be brought up to “Human” status (or killed).
She Didn’t Say RE-EDUCATION CAMPS, merely a passive goal of expanding religious teachings. Yet she’s demonized for believing (not even that hers is the only religion) but it is the better religion a view held by all but Unitarians.
__
Many Libertarians think Marriage should be wholly a private matter, (I myself am open to that idea, in which case it would be insane to stop gay ceremonies) BUT the govt involvement has to do with (originally) encouragement of The Traditional Nuclear Family which is necessary for the stability of civilization's future. __________________________________________________________________________________
What is Conservativism, to me? Its simple, America was founded by Non-Traditional Christians; brilliant men with wisdoms unique and intellects applied.
The conservation of the understanding of the constitution thru the context of well documented history; letters, speeches, and the “Federalist Papers” IS Conservativism, Political, Economic, Governmental, and Republican (as in Representative Government, not the corrupt Party).
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” –James Madison
Conservativism is Economically Capitalist. You are entitled to the lion share of your earnings, no taxation without representation, IE no allocating funds for projects not serving the Citizens taxed,
No progressive taxation, no redistribution of taxes levied; to un-earning parties (No Matter The Victimhood Extolled),
No 16th Amendment; IE no Income Tax,
No 16,845 pages of tax code,
‘It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” –James Madison
No governmental budget exceeding funds, no printing of money without sufficient backing of material common currency IE gold,
Local govt. funded and addressed locally, no centralized govt. yes, a separation of powers (Executive, Legislative, Judicial)
No positions at companies for representatives (or their relations) directly involved with govt. contracts related, Budgetary Excesses Will Be Resolved by Fiscal Accountability of Representatives Responsible.
And no representative’s voting their own salary direct electorate salary determination only (this is my somewhat unique idea),
Conservativism is Socially/Culturally Individualistic. You may enter into any lawful contract and seek constitutional legislation of any kind, that does not seek to rewrite law by manipulation of finitely contradicting words/terms Specifically Exampled “Gay Marriage” However “Civil Unions” cannot be disallowed.
American Culture (Actually Denied to exist by some) of “Enlightened Christianity” is laid down in the values expressed in the Declaration of t independence and Bill of Rights; Self/Small Governence, limited taxation, Nature’s God is the source of Human Rights, not govt. Freedom of Speech, Faith, Arms, Ownership, and Conscience.
_______________________________________
“A Nation of Laws Not Men.” –Washington.
“A Republic if you can keep it.” –Franklin
_______________________________________
Asderathos On YouTube ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Short Gayriage Rant (originally uploaded July 4th 2009 to myspace blog)
Gay Marriage is not a "rights" issue its a "subversion of the Law" Issue, using activist courts to redefine words so as to get around their meaning in contracts. If Gay Marriage was ACTUALLY about equal rights they'd be lobbying Hospitals to change their rules etc. but, it being (to them) about a state mandated acceptance of their behavior, actual rights wouldn't get them there, only an Orwellian inversion of the most universally sacred of words, not to mention also its further secularization.
The very purpose of Marriage as an institution as promoted by Govt. (& I'm not married to the idea of Govt being involved in it at all) is to promote the stabilizing influence of a nuclear family on society, and the next generation. Anthropologicially & Culturally that IS its purpose: Marriage is a promise to the resulting children of that union that the two who made you will be there to raise you) the modern Romanticism is the exception of history & culture, not the rule.
A recent (San Francisco Chronicle) poll showed 50% of gays are in "open relationships", many stating they were reticent to say so because of political reasons (so obviously then, how many didn't say it when they were?).
I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal.
Discrimination didn't used to be a bad word it literally means to discern/tell the difference in things; Blacks were believed inferior which was a presumption later proven false. Of course gays blacks and all the rest of us are equal in our humanity; however when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment out of a misplaced sense of guilt? (Be it with ppl, or definitions of institutions: Marriage being defined as Man+Woman=Child)
There is also precedent in the string of logic for advocating Racial + Behavioral, Profiling (as apposed to dumb Racial profiling)
Paper and ink are specifically the tools to record ideas the preservation of which is contingent upon individuals not only reading and understanding them but realizing their value, something the progressive youth cannot accomplish if they are dead set against "old Things" until they become useful again at which point they may be long since beyond repair or warped by constant hypocrisy.
"you have NO RIGHT, no right what so ever to vote on the rights of another person which is already in the constituion."
Sorry no, you are wrong here on many levels.
1stly (A bunch of self evident truths; that we are endowed by our creator INALIENABLE RIGHTS among these life liberty, Pursuit of Happines [originally property but switched so as not to endorse slavery]) The Rights of Men are sourced FROM GOD, to start with, not the constitution which is a protectorate AGAINST Government ENCROACHING upon those NATURAL Rights; a stark document of How To's and What For's (if you read the preamble), and a set of GUARANTEED SWEEPING BROAD Rights that the Federal Govt. CANNOT And WILL NOT Violate. (although they have).
A charter of Negative Liberties.
2ndly we do as a society have the right to take away rights, otherwise laws would be merely suggestions without teeth, to free the slaves you had to extinguish the right of slave owners to hold them. To Enforce a right to Property you must jail the thief.
3rdly The Gay movement has stolen their own rights by diverting the cause from civil unions to Marriage. This has been done specifically to establish not mere standards of tolerance but mandate acceptance, an encroachment, which in principle is inherently totalitarian. Equality in law and principle cannot compete with a Progressive ache for a shifting of names, words, definitions and crushing history.
4rthly All men are created equal, as men (individual human beings) we are equal in that and must have equal protection under the law as citizens; but this does not deride exact sameness amongst us nor prohibit distinction; laws prohibit for Youths what is allowed for the mature, Criminals are jailed, Aliens Barred, and marriage defined as of opposite genders, because there is no separation of your stripe, no sameness in spite of all distinction, Equality is theirs collectively for the taking, but it is forsaken for an envied word, not even unanimously wanted, nor if had, I suspect, majoritarily enshrined. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
GAYRRIAGE!?~
Lets shake up the Luv Fest!~
The very purpose of Marriage as an institution as promoted by Govt. (& I'm not married to the idea of Govt being involved in it at all) is to promote the stabilizing influence of a nuclear family on society, and the next generation. Anthropologicially & Culturally that IS its purpose: Marriage is a promise to the resulting children of that union that the two who made you will be there to raise you) the modern Romanticism is the exception of history & culture, not the rule.
A recent (San Francisco Chronicle) poll showed 50% of gays are in "open relationships", many stating they were reticent to say so because of political reasons (so obviously then, how many didn't say it when they were?).
I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal.
Discrimination didn't used to be a bad word it literally means to discern/tell the difference in things; Blacks were believed inferior which was a presumption later proven false. Of course gays blacks and all the rest of us are equal in our humanity; however when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment out of a misplaced sense of guilt? (Be it with ppl, or definitions of institutions: Marriage being defined as Man+Woman=Child)
There is also precedent in the string of logic for advocating Racial + Behavioral, Profiling (as apposed to dumb Racial profiling) but I think I'll spare you.
___
Not all, just half of a 500+ Survey of San Francisco reported by the Chronicle (That bastion of Right Wing Conservatism [<-Sarcasm]). And not Whores, Sluts. (Whores have sex for money, Sluts are promiscuous).
(Marriage being primarily for Child Rearing) is in the origin of the institution. Pagan Tribes have Marriage Ceremonies for the same reason. It is a near Universal Human institution.
There is no "Separation Of Church and State" in the way I'm sure you understand it. It is not in the constitution. The constitution guarantees Freedom Of Religion, not Freedom From Religion. This was reinterpreted by a Fascist (similar to the Jacobin Tradition) FDR Lawyer; before which the only mention of "Separation Of Church & State" was in a Thomas Jefferson letter clarifying that the 1st amendment prevented an establishing of a National Sect of Christianity, there having already been Official State Religions. And debating why the first amendment was necesary there came up the Avoidance of prohibiting Official State Religions, while Providing for the Prohibition of a national one.
I'd prefer Govt Get out of, rather than manipulate the corner stone of civilization. Won't Marriage be diminished if engaged in by more and more ppl who don't consider it sacred?___
The inequality/diminishment [of marriage by instituting gay marriage] is primarily in definition and purpose, not necessarily the character of Individuals. I've already explained that constitutionally and within the framework of the USA your emotional "can't vote away rights" argument does not apply. and furthermore I doubt many enlightenment thinkers would agree that naming your contract in a spirit of revenge would be considered a "Right".
Civil Unions Yesterday but for craving a name.
I more specifically said a majority would not hold it sacred and that there is not a unanimous want of the name Marriage either.
There are many gays who either don't care about "Gay Marriage" or are actually against it.
What most Pro-Gayriage supporters don't recognize is that a political elite is controlling the argument.
___
You presume anything less than Gay Marriage makes gays second class citizens. I disagree, advocating Civil Unions, which legally could not be made unequal as contracts. There is a Principle which only one side of the argument gets. Simply put that Marriage is a unique institution. Equal Rights are not even an issue.
Actually there is modernly great fear to amending the constitution because the pervasiveness of ignorance and indoctrination; and I would suggest that is a good reason not to.
Equal rights are not the issue; otherwise Civil Unions would be the issue not "Gay Marriage". Gays can't get married, by definition of what marriage is. An Orwellian Oxymoronical legislation of language won't change that. Just as changing in print the gender of a man who has a sex change operation doesn't make him a woman.
This whole fiasco is an attack on The Fundamental issue of gender difference. The leaders of it believe that Gender is socially constructed, that there is no difference.
Doubting that you would believe this, consider that I do, and if it Were true, what that would mean.
___
There is LITERALLY NO COMPARISON between Segregation and legal acknowledgment of the differences between the sexes. I don't want to put all gays on an island somewhere. I don't want separate drinking fountains & bathrooms.
Forced acceptance is TYRANNY. Not of body but WORSE, of mind. Its a sad state that those who scream for diversity are the ones who advocate a lockstep fascism of the mind.
--
Did everything just taste purple for a second?___
The tax code has somewhat recently shifted to discouraging marriage in and of its self, in some instances, yes. This does not negate the original purposes.
"Separation of Church And State" is not in the constitution, but a letter from Jefferson to a man of the cloth assuring him there would be no NATIONAL religion (as there WERE Official state religions).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Within 24 hours of ratifying the 1st amendment a national day of thanks to Almighty God was declared. (Thanks Giving) All your modern misconceptions (about the constitution) stem from a rewriting of history and law after FDR by Statists.
What is "Normal" is not the reason for the promotion of the nuclear family but what IS and has been PROVEN by history to be the Healthiest system for raising children. You might like to look at "A Conservative History of the American Left" many communes were started in 1800s America where they got rid of the Traditional family and the children were messed up by it.
Several Hundred were polled. It was a couple or few weeks ago that it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Nooo, you have misunderstood. I did NOT say "the takers had to choose an open relationship because that was the only reasonable selection for political reasons." I said, that Many were reticent to admit to being in an "open Relationship" because it would play right into 'Stereotypes' that gays are promiscuous; Which By This Poll Would Not Seem Far Fetched, especially if one thinks outside of the box enough to ask how many Lied to avoid promoting the 'Stereotype'.
You Find It "reprehensible for [me] to even vaguely mention that same sex parters shouldn't raise childre because it wouldn't be fair to the children not to be given an equal start in life."
EXCEPT I specificaly DID NOT SAY THAT I said "I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal."
TRANSLATED- I DO Believe Gays Should be Allowed to both Raise Children (duh) and Adopt. duh.
Maybe you misread the "I'm not saying no" double negative.
MISCONSTRUMENT!~
& I am speaking about general trends not individuals, so "Not Having An Equal Start" is TOTALLY the wrong language, "being less likely to have the more healthy of possible formitive years" is more like it.
Another Misconrument.
A Useless Source? The entire Population of San Francisco would disagree with you there. I cite a source which suggests 50% + (at least) are in OPEN RELATIONSHIPS. This not only suggests a difference between Gay "Successful Relationships" and Heterosexual Monogomy but a drastic skew in moral values.
"Discrimination" has NOT always been used as a negative word. I'm sorry but you are being quite ridiculous on this point. Read som really really old books, seriously. It was a synonym for dischernmentation. (cause discenrmentation sounds dumb). It seems you don't recognize that I am talking about the WORD before it was ever used in a racial context. (There is always a necessity for someone to do the work for you if you can make them) Actually blacks were Inferior. They were inferior IN CIVILIZATION (and thus were subjugated as has happened thruought human history) the term slave comes from the name of the Slavs, white ppl who were so enslaved their name became the definition of it. And of course (This ought to go without saying) Blacks weren't un-equal in their CAPABILTY of civilization, duh. In fact the combination of shifting climate and lifestyle of other ppls is what caused innovations, necessity being the mother of invention. BTW the arab slave trade was literally 300 times worse than the transatlantic. (Blacks are equal, I'd assume you'd agree that has been proven true)
"when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment"
Maybe this one's above your head, no offense.
Should we have different laws or more lax sentencing for blacks merely because statistically they commit more crimes? (This is the very REAL Inequality; a bad behavior which you wish to reward; inevitably getting you more of it) No, this is called Disparate Treatment and is a part of the Civil Rights act, negating equal protection under the law. This is a From of Reparations instituted out of guilt for slavery & segregation.
I use this as a jumping off point to transfer the principle of equality to marriage which is defined as between a man and a woman, changing this for a victims feelings once again would be gross disparate Treatment.
You think we should censor the statistic racial inequality of prisoners or instute lessor sentences for minorities to prevent "Persecution"? This is what we already have to a large extent and it has only furthered the Victimhood mentality/entitlement culture, which has brought us such gross statistics. This is my point. The Victimhood of blacks was extolled durring the civil rights movement and since there has been a RAPID decline of black families since.
PROFILING!~ You've got Muslims, (I hope your good at this type of SAT questions...) Not all muslims are terrorists, but the Overwhelming vast majority of Terrorists are Swarthy Arab Muslims. (And young males to boot) so in airports doing RANDOM CHECKS that are 90% 100 year old irish nuns is.... Stupid? YES, of course if the Irish Nun is showing the tell tale signs of suicide bomber nervousness KICK HER ASS OUT OF LINE, duh. but the current standard of checking children geezers and the OBVIOUSLY NOT TERRORISTS of all archetypes is functionally retarded and negates the purpose with a false presumption of Equal likelihood that a Nun will be a terrorist as a Young Swarthy Muslim. duh.
LOL Ad Hominem, yay. When one launches into explaining reasoning BEHIND one's opinion, it would be quite obvious I'd think, as to what it is & yer close, I wanted to "SHAKE UP THE LOVE FEST" by providing dissent in SUCH A FORUM as seems never to have experienced it not out of stupid mallice or some imagined bigotry of yours, but the ernest joy of debate and discussion. My citing several FACTS should suggest that I've done some research of my own. And as for my "Formal Language" This is just how I talk, I regard it as a disability in communication, so stop being prejuidiced Perhaps I overestimate my readers ability to read my "mess" however your regard for it as a "Waste of space" tells me you aren't even trying to get it. but I'll post this extra long "mess" anyway. One might suggest that you have wasted your time in responding particularly since mine IS a well thought out (if not well laid out) Argument. ___
As an atheist you are specifically divorced from the founding principles of the United States Government. The concept of God Given Rights not having much meaning to you. Some would transcribe to Natural Rights.
Marriage is an institution established before the Govt. or its law; and is in origin a religious institution incorporated into law and endorsement by Govt. breaking any faximaly of a presumed separation.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
A Child is either messed up because of the sins of his father or is okay in spite of them, (no man being without sin); however shifting the corner stone of civilization for 5 millennia, AGAIN, and expecting a different result than that which history has told, is the definition of insanity.
Grey Gouache bleeds not the white or the black but in it surely are both. "any child raised outside the norm wouldn't become a healthy adult." of course I dissagree with that grey-gouache statement.
How many ppl Live in San Francisco? Wikipedia it (more importantly the poll was of "Successful/enduring Relationships" not saying monogomous for obvious reasons. the whole point of polling is to get an accurate snapshot of the ppl, and since it was the Chronicle, their intentions were obviously noble. 50% odd percent said they were in open relationships, many said they reticent to divulge that DO TO THE STEREOTYPE OF PROMISCUITY obviously some were reticent enough to LIE! SO 50% +, BUT 20 odd % DECLINED TO ANSWER Obviously if some decided to answer and lie more would have just skipped it. This is the Obvious conclusion.
So According to you Morality has nothing to do with raising children. Yep you sound like an atheist.
I suck at Phraseology, or am so brilliant at it as to constantly be misunderstood negating the purpose for which the quality aught to be intended.
Agreed its annoying trying to find previous comments.
My purpose in describing "Discrimination" out of its colloquial context was to break its idiotically racially related assumed meaning, so as to be sure to not be misunderstood in saying That gays are different and said un-sameness makes them not one wit the less human and equal for it, but in discriminating circumstances such as marriage (Irreparable while maintaining its purpose)
I also presume to take on the role of extolling etymology to spread greater understanding about language.
I actually do expect ppl to know the stuff I tacked "Duh" onto...
It is a principle of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Fairness not being the same as equality.
Jinx's poll asked for opinions, I gave reason for mine, and then challenged for not doing so, then for saying too much, would you have me not respond?
An Open Asking of opinion from me, will get you it with details.___
Actually the very nature of the constitution is to limit GOVT.
Regarding Religion; the "Separation" is solely and specifically to prevent Govt from corrupting Church, while allowing the morality of Religion to shine benevolently upon the souls of all equally including those in power. (Without the shadowy cloak of Govt. Smothering Religion [as has been done in England])
"Separation of Church And State" is not in the constitution, but a letter from Jefferson to a man of the cloth assuring him there would be no NATIONAL religion (as there WERE Official state religions).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Within 24 hours of ratifying the 1st amendment a national day of thanks to Almighty God was declared. (Thanks Giving) All your modern misconceptions (about the constitution) stem from a rewriting of history and law after FDR by Statists.
lol, you cannot (w/o hypocrisy ) declare (even if there was a legitimate secularization of govt. & there's not) that because a certain Taboo ppl believe something it can't be law!~ Otherwise that would merely lend super precedence to Christians as the majority. Neither of us want a theocracy. Remember Equality.
The Constitution has been increasingly deviated from for over 100 years, starting shortly after Lincoln was shot (by members of his cabinet). Woodrow Wilson Imprisoned ppl and allowed gangs of "Patriots" to execute ppl in public for their SPEECH. The Blue Eagle of the NRA (National Recovery Agency) were required to be hung in businesses showing they adhered to the Govt. Minimum Prices
I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there used to be laws against divorce (or rather divorce was not legally recognized) in some states at one point.
There are many ridiculous laws about marriage atm, making a man pay for a woman's lifestyle to which she has "grown accustomed" was from a bygone age and hasn't been gotten rid of simply because its beneficial to the 'Victimhood Class' of Woman.
The whole idea of a Democratic Republic is that a Society as a Whole has a say in what laws are, and thus-far, the majority say No to Gay Marriage; the irony being that the Majority would also say YES to AN ABSOLUTELY EQUAL "Civil Union" Which in my opinion the prohibition of should be out and out illegal seeing as how entering into contracts ARE a Natural Right; however Marriage as a contract definitively requires a Man & a Woman.
Recent attempts in California, at Legalizing 'Gay Marriage' have in them stipulations that Priests unwilling to preform ceremonies for Gays be fined and their Church's tax exempt status removed.
So much for Freedom of Religion. So much for just wanting "Equality". ___
Paper and ink are specifically the tools to record ideas the preservation of which is contingent upon individuals not only reading and understanding them but realizing their value, something the progressive youth cannot accomplish if they are dead set against "old Things" until they become useful again at which point they may be long since beyond repair or warped by constant hypocrisy.
"you have NO RIGHT, no right what so ever to vote on the rights of another person which is already in the constituion."
Sorry no, you are wrong here on many levels.
1stly (A bunch of self evident truths; that we are endowed by our creator INALIENABLE RIGHTS among these life liberty, Pursuit of Happines [originally property but switched so as not to endorse slavery]) The Rights of Men are sourced FROM GOD, to start with, not the constitution which is a protectorate AGAINST Government ENCROACHING upon those NATURAL Rights; a stark document of How To's and What For's (if you read the preamble), and a set of GUARANTEED SWEEPING BROAD Rights that the Federal Govt. CANNOT And WILL NOT Violate. (although they have).
A charter of Negative Liberties.
2ndly we do as a society have the right to take away rights, otherwise laws would be merely suggestions without teeth, to free the slaves you had to extinguish the right of slave owners to hold them. To Enforce a right to Property you must jail the thief.
3rdly The Gay movement has stolen their own rights by diverting the cause from civil unions to Marriage. This has been done specifically to establish not mere standards of tolerance but mandate acceptance, an encroachment, which in principle is inherently totalitarian. Equality in law and principle cannot compete with a Progressive ache for a shifting of names, words, definitions and crushing history.
4rthly All men are created equal, as men (individual human beings) we are equal in that and must have equal protection under the law as citizens; but this does not deride exact sameness amongst us nor prohibit distinction; laws prohibit for Youths what is allowed for the mature, Criminals are jailed, Aliens Barred, and marriage defined as of opposite genders, because there is no separation of your stripe, no sameness in spite of all distinction, Equality is theirs collectively for the taking, but it is forsaken for an envied word, not even unanimously wanted, nor if had, I suspect, majoritarily enshrined. ___
So many ppl today are indoctrinated into the "Why Do You Hate?" Mindset. A caricature so egregious, words can't describe it; but it consistently evokes from me either Laughter and then rage, or rage then laughter; sometimes followed (as now) by quiet depression.
Yeah, I don't hate or "Dislike" gays or any group of ppl. The fact that you can't follow my logic doesn't mean my arguments are governed by emotion or shallow prejudice.
Yes altering the Cornerstone of human civilization affects me. I invite you to view my long winded debates with others on this poll rather than Repeating myself. ___
You are comparing Slavery, with not having the name you want on a contract which is left without the benefits of another Gender Specific (& religious) Contract, specifically because you are hung up on having the name (which by definition does not apply). I don't think so; no, enslaving human beings and segregating them, not the same as resisting an admitted attempt to force not tolerance but acceptance on society as a whole through Govt legal maneuverings and extolled victim-hood status.
Liberty requires many things.
Freedom of speech requires the allowance of racists to speak.
Similarly, Rule of Law requires that we not redefine contracts to get around their lingual restrictions; the only options that Maintain RULE OF LAW, are either to abolish the contract and replace it, or simply write one lacking the restrictive language.
_______________________
Morality shall never be measured solely by the law, and Tyrannically Legislating Morality (particularly that of a minority) for its own sake regardless of language, reason, opinion of the ppl, or precedent is one of the many dastardly aspects of theocracy.
I would be Super Great with abolishing Govt Marriage contracts and instituting Civil Union contracts for everyone.
I'd be super Great with keeping Marriage contracts and having Equal Civil Union Contracts for gays (With all the same rights etc).
If Govt. is going to eliminate the incentives for behaviors/associations promoting the health of society, the least they can do is not retain the name of behaviors/associations that promote the health of society, under their promotion of that which does not do so.
I only have a problem of pretending sameness (Not to be confused with equality which is no pretension). Men are not women, gays are not straights (Humans are still Humans eternally equal), Heterosexual & Homosexual Relationships are not the same (Except in effection, attraction, endorphins and the fact of sexual arousal, the societal legitimizing of which is NOT the purpose of marriage), Gay-Marriage is wholly a pretension of sameness on levels where there is none.
Marriage is being destroyed by modern society, and incorporating into it a loose homosexual culture (which in part already has) can only damage it further.
___
Gay marriage is the negation of a legal contract's defining term & title, (done by illegitimate legal maneuvering) this is not an opinion but a fact. To use your comparative analogy, Gay Marriage is like me saying, you don't want black ppl to vote? Well then Blacks get 2 votes for ever 1 of yours!~
This is disparate social reparations having NOTHING to do with equality under the law. & I care because, I care about Society Civics, the Law, And the INTEGRITY of the American Form of Govt. A REPUBLIC, Ruled by LAW NOT MEN, Reason Tempering Emotion, Equality Chastising "Fairness". Equal Opportunity NOT Equal Outcome.
I said "I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal."
& yer close, I wanted to "SHAKE UP THE LOVE FEST" 
not out of stupid mallice or some imagined bigotry of yours, but the ernest joy of debate and discussion. 
Perhaps I overestimate my readers ability to read my "mess" however your regard for it as a "Waste of space" tells me you aren't even trying to get it. but I'll post this extra long "mess" anyway. One might suggest that you have wasted your time in responding particularly since mine IS a well thought out (if not well laid out) Argument.
(more importantly the poll was of "Successful/enduring Relationships" not saying monogomous for obvious reasons. the whole point of polling is to get an accurate snapshot of the ppl, and since it was the Chronicle, their intentions were obviously noble. 50% odd percent said they were in open relationships, many said they reticent to divulge that DO TO THE STEREOTYPE OF PROMISCUITY obviously some were reticent enough to LIE! SO 50% +, BUT 20 odd % DECLINED TO ANSWER Obviously if some decided to answer and lie more would have just skipped it. This is the Obvious conclusion.