You just don't understand "pragmatism", just dave. Being able to spin on a dime and turn your policies around 180 degrees in an eyeblink, and pretend you did no such thing, is the mark of a superior politician. Mark has told us so, though not quite in such bald terms.
Well, I think like many Christians, dave, the president felt that marriage was between one man and one woman. He changed his mind. Ever done that before?
Oh and...dave...larry...do you think that gay marriage should be legal?
And he changed his mind when it was politically convenient to do so. What are the chances that if political circumstances change back, he spins back, too? Another word for "pragmatism" in the the political sense of the word is "opportunism ".
And yes, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Everything should be "civil union" from .gov point of view, what you do or don't do in church ceremony is irrelevant to .gov. I don't give a rat's ass if it's gay marriage, group marriage, whatever. It's none of my business what people do with their lives.
Nothing wrong with changing your mind...views or evidence changes and people change accordingly.
But I don't think he changed his mind. I have no proof, of course, just my opinion. I would argue that he was in favor of same sex marriage all along and lied about his position to get elected.
I recall during the election, a supported was asked about Obama's opposition to same sex marriage, to which he replied, "Oh, he's just saying that to get elected, but we know he'll support us once in office." Like you, the supporter had no qualms with dishonesty.
And yes, I do believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Wha .. What, dave? I thought we were supposed to all be in ideological lockstep because we're mind-numbed robots controlled by the Koch brothers? I know so because Mark told me so!
Like you, the supporter had no qualms with dishonesty.
As with the other thread, you are avoiding responsibility for the rotten shit that your side does every day and redirecting on me...some "party of individual responsibility."
And yes, I do believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Due to the civil definition of marriage, you are supporting the restriction of civil rights for some members of our society. I don't understand how that fits in with your ideology. Or perhaps you fit in with Larry's point of view above which would, of course, be acceptable as it does give equal protection under the law.
And you are still completely oblivious to point you're missing, Mark.
Larry, the "Gotcha" games are seriously played, dude. Make a point. And while you are at it, refute the facts of this graphic. I think it's very amusing that Sarah and Todd Palin took a stand with Chick-fil-A and had to use private corporations that support gay marriage in order to do it.
If you still can't figure it out, it's only because you're being deliberately obtuse. The point being that the surge in Chik-fil-a business is/was a reaction to heavy-handed threats by certain mayors to punish the owner's beliefs. It's one thing to personally boycott a business, it's another matter to use government regulation to punish free speech. I think the owner's beliefs are wrong-headed. I think attempting to suppress free speech, or to essentially make non-support of gay marriage a thoughtcrime, is dangerous.
So why is the government in the marriage business?
First - which part of "the government"? As you note, it is not part of the federal domain - which in our system means it is a state issue.
Can't they leave well enough alone!!??!!:)
Really? You want the status quo? That means for the most part the only legal marriage is man and woman (one of each). It isn't a matter of suddenly denying people that already had the ability to marry - it is a group that wishes to change or extend marriage from what it is in the law today.
The point being that the surge in Chik-fil-a business is/was a reaction to heavy-handed threats by certain mayors to punish the owner's beliefs.
And your evidence for this is...? (no right wing blog fiction either, please)
I have no problem with the stand for free speech but you know that's not why Sarah and Todd were there. And you still haven't addressed the irony in their "protest."
And what irony, Mark? You only thought there was irony because you were ignorant of what actually transpired, and too stupid to know better than to double down based upon nothing more than your own ignorance.
Well, Larry, you said "mayors"...that's plural. Your links show one mayor and one alderman...an alderman who actually failed as there is already a Chick-fil-A in his district.
Overall, though, your bring up an interesting point. These same people who are arguing free speech are the same ones who didn't want the Muslim rec center built a few blocks away from Ground Zero. That seems awfully hypocritical to me.
And is it really free speech? Certainly, the owners have the right to say whatever they want wherever and whenever they want (of course, they do more than that but we'll get to that in a minute). But do they have the right to build a business anywhere they want? Of course, this means that you would support Nazis or an Al Qaeda like group building a business near you, right? Don't citizens have a right to protest the building of a business in their town?
The bigger picture to all of this is how we sadly once again see the playing of the counter victim card. It's not the gay people whose rights are being infringed but the poor business owners being attacked by loony liberals. Larry, the owners of this business are actively seeking to curtail the rights of individuals. And you call yourself a defender of liberty...what a joke.
Mark, doubling down yet again on stupid is pretty fucking ... stupid. Not only are you ignorant, but lazy. I'm so very fucking sorry I forgot to include everything you are ignorant of, but whatever.
I don't recall the mayor of New York coming out and saying he would ban the Muslim community center and mosque. I do recall arguing that those who spoke out against it were wrong-headed, but I sure as hell would never support banning the businesses of people who did.
And no, asshole, I wouldn't support banning the (law-abiding) businesses of Nazis or anyone else. The best antidote to ignorant or evil free speech is more free speech. You've already staked out your claim in support of government censorship, though, so best hope you don't get your wish and then lose control of government to a group who who also supports censorship, but of your ideas, instead. Why not ban mosques and the businesses of strict Muslims who are against gay marriage?
Oh, while we're at it, TeacherBoy!, try looking up the meaning of curtail. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean "seeking to prevent the expansion of something". You're thinking of "contain". Master the dictionary, son, master the fucking dictionary.
You are a dipstick measuring the depth of stupidity and Constitutional ignorance in the schools, so at least your blog does serve a useful purpose. Sheesh, even Jon Stewart doesn't agree with you.
But I'm not questioning the right of her to say what she wants. I'm wondering if it's OK for people to not want someone like that in their town? She is actively seeking limited rights for a certain segment of the population. Isn't that the definition of curtail as you linked here?
Something else to consider...why is John McCain not talking? He's seen the tax returns. Why isn't he calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar?"
But I'm not questioning the right of her to say what she wants. I'm wondering if it's OK for people to not want someone like that in their town? She is actively seeking limited rights for a certain segment of the population. Isn't that the definition of curtail as you linked here?
Something else to consider...why is John McCain not talking? He's seen the tax returns. Why isn't he calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar?"
She doesn't want gay people to be allowed to marry. Because there are certain civic benefits to being married, she is curtailing the rights of gay citizens.
No, you weren't talking about limiting her right to free speech, you're just thinking it's okay if government financially penalizes Mr. Cathy for his (wrong-headed, IMHO) speech. [Yeah, yeah, I know -- it's not a penalty, it's a tax or some BS like that.] Just keep your trap shut, that's all. Or else you could lose your right to do business. Mm-kay.
All of the rights that one gets when one is married. I assume you know that they are and are just being a dick. If you like, I can list them. There are around 1400 of them (state and federal).
All of the rights that one gets when one is married
And those are? [If M responds at all it will be with the discredited list of items in the federal code where marital status is mentioned, not that any right or preferential treatment actually is noted. Snore.]
Funny how there can be so many rights around marriage when there aren't that many mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Not even close. That is leftie/proggie magical thinking for you.
If gays do not have the right to be married, then ipso facto they do not have rights that can be curtailed.
So, let me see if I have this straight...gays have curtailed rights at the present time on a federal level and in most states. But they do not have rights that can be curtailed. Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Wow.
You really don't like it when I'm right, do you?
And those are?
joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents), status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, joint insurance policies for home, auto and health
You really exist in a different universe don't you? Reading comprehension dude.
You do not have the right to punch me in the nose. It does not exist. If you are petitioning for the right to punch me in the nose, and I come out against you receiving that right - I am not attempting to curtail your rights. I am attempting to contain an expansion of rights.
Gays to do not have the right to marry. Period. End. Stop. That is the current fact. If they do not have the right, then there is no right to curtail.
If there are attempts to expand the right of marriage to include gays then opposition to that expansion is not and cannot be claimed to be curtailing. It is containing.
34 comments:
You never miss a chance to completely miss the point, do you, Mark?
KULTUR WAR!!!
wake me when it is over.
Wasn't Obama on record in favor of traditional marriage until just recently as well? He wasn't lying about all that before was he?
You just don't understand "pragmatism", just dave. Being able to spin on a dime and turn your policies around 180 degrees in an eyeblink, and pretend you did no such thing, is the mark of a superior politician. Mark has told us so, though not quite in such bald terms.
Well, I think like many Christians, dave, the president felt that marriage was between one man and one woman. He changed his mind. Ever done that before?
Oh and...dave...larry...do you think that gay marriage should be legal?
And he changed his mind when it was politically convenient to do so. What are the chances that if political circumstances change back, he spins back, too? Another word for "pragmatism" in the the political sense of the word is "opportunism
".
And yes, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Everything should be "civil union" from .gov point of view, what you do or don't do in church ceremony is irrelevant to .gov. I don't give a rat's ass if it's gay marriage, group marriage, whatever. It's none of my business what people do with their lives.
And you are still completely oblivious to point you're missing, Mark.
Nothing wrong with changing your mind...views or evidence changes and people change accordingly.
But I don't think he changed his mind. I have no proof, of course, just my opinion. I would argue that he was in favor of same sex marriage all along and lied about his position to get elected.
I recall during the election, a supported was asked about Obama's opposition to same sex marriage, to which he replied, "Oh, he's just saying that to get elected, but we know he'll support us once in office." Like you, the supporter had no qualms with dishonesty.
And yes, I do believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Wha .. What, dave? I thought we were supposed to all be in ideological lockstep because we're mind-numbed robots controlled by the Koch brothers? I know so because Mark told me so!
This makes as much sense as your silly graphic.
Like you, the supporter had no qualms with dishonesty.
As with the other thread, you are avoiding responsibility for the rotten shit that your side does every day and redirecting on me...some "party of individual responsibility."
And yes, I do believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Due to the civil definition of marriage, you are supporting the restriction of civil rights for some members of our society. I don't understand how that fits in with your ideology. Or perhaps you fit in with Larry's point of view above which would, of course, be acceptable as it does give equal protection under the law.
And you are still completely oblivious to point you're missing, Mark.
Larry, the "Gotcha" games are seriously played, dude. Make a point. And while you are at it, refute the facts of this graphic. I think it's very amusing that Sarah and Todd Palin took a stand with Chick-fil-A and had to use private corporations that support gay marriage in order to do it.
Once again, you COMPLETELY miss the point of why they did that, Mark. Whoosh! 6' over your head and you're completely fucking clueless of it.
I find it ironic that you've said that three times and yet still can't explain the point. I wonder why that is...
supporting the restriction of civil rights
Where is the right to marry in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Hmmm?
You are correct, juris. It's not in there. So why is the government in the marriage business? Can't they leave well enough alone!!??!!:)
If you still can't figure it out, it's only because you're being deliberately obtuse. The point being that the surge in Chik-fil-a business is/was a reaction to heavy-handed threats by certain mayors to punish the owner's beliefs. It's one thing to personally boycott a business, it's another matter to use government regulation to punish free speech. I think the owner's beliefs are wrong-headed. I think attempting to suppress free speech, or to essentially make non-support of gay marriage a thoughtcrime, is dangerous.
So why is the government in the marriage business?
First - which part of "the government"? As you note, it is not part of the federal domain - which in our system means it is a state issue.
Can't they leave well enough alone!!??!!:)
Really? You want the status quo? That means for the most part the only legal marriage is man and woman (one of each). It isn't a matter of suddenly denying people that already had the ability to marry - it is a group that wishes to change or extend marriage from what it is in the law today.
The point being that the surge in Chik-fil-a business is/was a reaction to heavy-handed threats by certain mayors to punish the owner's beliefs.
And your evidence for this is...? (no right wing blog fiction either, please)
I have no problem with the stand for free speech but you know that's not why Sarah and Todd were there. And you still haven't addressed the irony in their "protest."
So, the ’right wing’ is not allowed to be used as a source to explain the actions of the ’right
You got some back assward logic there.. ...
Are you truly this ignorant of what you seek to mock? Why yes, yes you are.
TIME: Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-fil-A Franchise from City over Homophobic Attitude
ABC News: Chicago Politician Will Ban Chick-fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Comments
And here's a liberal site with some brains, which are notably lacking in the proprietorship here:
The American Prospect: Don't Fil-A the First Amendment
Practicing your mind-reading skills again, Mark? News flash: they suck so badly that you are nearly always flat-assed wrong.
"I'm speaking up for him and his 1st Amendment rights and anybody else who would wish to express their not anti-gay people sentiment, but their support of traditional marriage, which President Obama and Joe Biden, they both supported the exact same thing until just a few months ago, when Obama had to flip-flop to shore up the homosexual voter base," she said.
And what irony, Mark? You only thought there was irony because you were ignorant of what actually transpired, and too stupid to know better than to double down based upon nothing more than your own ignorance.
Well, Larry, you said "mayors"...that's plural. Your links show one mayor and one alderman...an alderman who actually failed as there is already a Chick-fil-A in his district.
Overall, though, your bring up an interesting point. These same people who are arguing free speech are the same ones who didn't want the Muslim rec center built a few blocks away from Ground Zero. That seems awfully hypocritical to me.
And is it really free speech? Certainly, the owners have the right to say whatever they want wherever and whenever they want (of course, they do more than that but we'll get to that in a minute). But do they have the right to build a business anywhere they want? Of course, this means that you would support Nazis or an Al Qaeda like group building a business near you, right? Don't citizens have a right to protest the building of a business in their town?
The bigger picture to all of this is how we sadly once again see the playing of the counter victim card. It's not the gay people whose rights are being infringed but the poor business owners being attacked by loony liberals. Larry, the owners of this business are actively seeking to curtail the rights of individuals. And you call yourself a defender of liberty...what a joke.
Mark, doubling down yet again on stupid is pretty fucking ... stupid. Not only are you ignorant, but lazy. I'm so very fucking sorry I forgot to include everything you are ignorant of, but whatever.
I don't recall the mayor of New York coming out and saying he would ban the Muslim community center and mosque. I do recall arguing that those who spoke out against it were wrong-headed, but I sure as hell would never support banning the businesses of people who did.
And no, asshole, I wouldn't support banning the (law-abiding) businesses of Nazis or anyone else. The best antidote to ignorant or evil free speech is more free speech. You've already staked out your claim in support of government censorship, though, so best hope you don't get your wish and then lose control of government to a group who who also supports censorship, but of your ideas, instead. Why not ban mosques and the businesses of strict Muslims who are against gay marriage?
Oh, while we're at it, TeacherBoy!, try looking up the meaning of curtail. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean "seeking to prevent the expansion of something". You're thinking of "contain". Master the dictionary, son, master the fucking dictionary.
You are a dipstick measuring the depth of stupidity and Constitutional ignorance in the schools, so at least your blog does serve a useful purpose. Sheesh, even Jon Stewart doesn't agree with you.
But I'm not questioning the right of her to say what she wants. I'm wondering if it's OK for people to not want someone like that in their town? She is actively seeking limited rights for a certain segment of the population. Isn't that the definition of curtail as you linked here?
Something else to consider...why is John McCain not talking? He's seen the tax returns. Why isn't he calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar?"
But I'm not questioning the right of her to say what she wants. I'm wondering if it's OK for people to not want someone like that in their town? She is actively seeking limited rights for a certain segment of the population. Isn't that the definition of curtail as you linked here?
Something else to consider...why is John McCain not talking? He's seen the tax returns. Why isn't he calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar?"
actively seeking limited rights for a certain segment of the population. Isn't that the definition of curtail as you linked here?
Really?
What current right is she actively attempting to limit?
She doesn't want gay people to be allowed to marry. Because there are certain civic benefits to being married, she is curtailing the rights of gay citizens.
No, you weren't talking about limiting her right to free speech, you're just thinking it's okay if government financially penalizes Mr. Cathy for his (wrong-headed, IMHO) speech. [Yeah, yeah, I know -- it's not a penalty, it's a tax or some BS like that.] Just keep your trap shut, that's all. Or else you could lose your right to do business. Mm-kay.
Again for the reading impaired.
What current right is she seeking to curtail?
All of the rights that one gets when one is married. I assume you know that they are and are just being a dick. If you like, I can list them. There are around 1400 of them (state and federal).
You are really dense aren't you?
Curtail, as defined earlier:
to cut short; cut off a part of; abridge; reduce; diminish.
To be used with an object, in this case - rights.
Curtailed rights - require the object, rights, to be existing in order for them to then be reduced, abridged of diminished.
If gays do not have the right to be married, then ipso facto they do not have rights that can be curtailed.
Larry gave you a blatant clue by referring to the word contain. In this usage the definition being:
to prevent or limit the expansion
Which is the proper word to use to describe her actions vis-a-vis gay marriage.
All of the rights that one gets when one is married
And those are? [If M responds at all it will be with the discredited list of items in the federal code where marital status is mentioned, not that any right or preferential treatment actually is noted. Snore.]
Funny how there can be so many rights around marriage when there aren't that many mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Not even close. That is leftie/proggie magical thinking for you.
If gays do not have the right to be married, then ipso facto they do not have rights that can be curtailed.
So, let me see if I have this straight...gays have curtailed rights at the present time on a federal level and in most states. But they do not have rights that can be curtailed. Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Wow.
You really don't like it when I'm right, do you?
And those are?
joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents), status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, joint insurance policies for home, auto and health
Should I go on?
You really exist in a different universe don't you? Reading comprehension dude.
You do not have the right to punch me in the nose. It does not exist. If you are petitioning for the right to punch me in the nose, and I come out against you receiving that right - I am not attempting to curtail your rights. I am attempting to contain an expansion of rights.
Gays to do not have the right to marry. Period. End. Stop. That is the current fact. If they do not have the right, then there is no right to curtail.
If there are attempts to expand the right of marriage to include gays then opposition to that expansion is not and cannot be claimed to be curtailing. It is containing.
Should I go on?
Most of which can also be arranged via other contractual mechanisms. I guess there must be a right to convenience somewhere in there too.
Post a Comment