The Right Scoop
Of course it's nothing new. I was skeptical from the get-go about this supposed "conservative uprising" and "restoring freedom." I'm just saying it's worth knowing this early on that the game is still just a game.
Of course it's nothing new. I was skeptical from the get-go about this supposed "conservative uprising" and "restoring freedom." I'm just saying it's worth knowing this early on that the game is still just a game.
I don't know many Muslims, but the ones I do know...are not bad people. I wouldn't say the Muslim people I know are my friends either. I get along with them just fine when I speak with them, but we don't really hang out because they tend to be a little too dedicated to their religious practices to ever go out and party.
I ideally wanted to post this in an Open Thread...but since there hasn't been one for a while...this is the best suited place to post this video.
It's quite long, so you might want to give yourself about an hour to watch it...but it's well worth it for one reason above else.
The social conservatives...are just as hypocritical as the Progressives were when they were in power.
In this particular clip...Anthony Weiner is actually right for a change. I hate saying that because he's so wrong about everything else...but he's actually right here. The Rs who are in the majority of this particular sub-committee didn't even follow their own rule and attempted to find loopholes so that they wouldn't have to follow it. This is seriously painful, but it was worth it to realize that once again...the same power-hungry people are just trying to shove through legislation...only it's their side of the R/D coin.
Weiner Calls Out GOP For Violating Their Own Rules (52:41)
I'm writing part of this while watching the video, but not posting this until it finishes. So some of this is coming as I watch it.
I think Weiner is being his namesake, but I do actually appreciate his actions for keeping the Republicans in line.
I do understand aspects of what Republicans are trying to do, because they believe the original healthcare law is unconstitutional, but they should cite a source for the amendment to the bill. The easy answer would be to cite the General Welfare Clause and/or the Necessary and Proper Clause, however, in doing so, they would tend to admit that there could be constitutionality in the original healthcare bill. It's a tricky catch-22 to get around.
However, seeing as the law hasn't been ruled on by the SCOTUS, and the law that was implemented by congress, they should cite one or both of the clauses mentioned previously and clarify that any funds provided by the government can be limited to the specific use designated in the legislation by congress.
As a person who is against subsidies, I see this as a subsidy. Despite my dislike for them, I can understand a legal argument for the bill based on subsidies. It can be understood through the fact that you don't get corn subsidies for growing wheat. There is no broad farm subsidy for all crops, each is subsidized at different prices. Under this basis I see no reason congress can't choose which crops get subsidies and which crops do not.
Under the bill, if viewed as a subsidy, the funds can be used for any healthcare plan that does not provide abortion, but if the person would want that covered, it would be outside the range of what is covered by the subsidy.
Rep. Barton is being a weiner about the Article 1 Section 1 as a citation for the authority of the bill. A specific area of the enumerated powers is what should have been cited. He's out of line for the interruptions he makes.
Seems like the chairman is baffled by the rules overall. Weiner does understand the rules of the game much better.
I disagree with Ms. Baldwin on the constitutional matter, even with Roe V. Wade in place, based on my analogy above. The same applies to Pallone's argument at the end. There is a constitutional basis for this, the Republicans just failed to cite it.
Overall, they're all playing childish games. Weiner at least recognizes playing by the rules.
I can't actually believed I watched this whole thing, but thanks for linking the video.
No problem. Sometimes, you gotta watch the videos of the actual going-ons to put yourself back into perspective from the hyperbole that the mainstream media (Fox included) will push onto you.
No problem. Sometimes, you gotta watch the videos of the actual going-ons to put yourself back into perspective from the hyperbole that the mainstream media (Fox included) will push onto you.
I am friends with many gay people of all political aspects. They're not what you're describing at all. In your face? First off...my friends wouldn't do that whether straight or gay. Even if they did, I agree that they shouldn't be in your face, but that doesn't mean you should have the long arm of the law come in and shove them into cages either. I know that telling them they should only be allowed to be who they are openly in their own homes isn't exactly the same...but it might as well be.
"Live & Let Live," is a perfect motto for everyone. If government got their grubby hands out of marriage completely, this discussion would be completely unnecessary. But...we all know government can't just...say it with me...LIVE AND LET LIVE.
It would be ideal for all people of all spectrums to live and let live, but if humans were all perfect and able to get along with one another...then we would be living in a utopian and resource-based economy instead of a planet-destroying free-market society.
I think that motto should apply above and beyond all else in the place where laws are created...so I will concentrate THERE. If you don't want to live and let live...that's fine. My friends gay and straight alike aren't too concerned what you think or care about what you do either. If you don't want to eat magic mushrooms and explore nature with us...fine. We don't need a buzzkill ruining our trip anyhow.
I know I went off-the-bend with that, but I think the point stands.
Personally...if we had more truly small government and not just conservatives in Congress...we could actually bring up those systems at least into a debate if nothing else. It's a shame though that such ideas of freedom in the year 2011 are far and few between.
Social Conservatives are more a threat to the Republic than Progressives.
We are facing an epidemic of government debt at all levels, We are facing the impending collapse of our Republic and you want to talk about Gay Marriage. If that is the Most important topic of the day, then we have already lost the war.
Who give a god damn what 2 consenting adults do, You social cons say you do not want government telling you what your religion should do or say, well Government never has defined what Marriage Means to YOUR religion, Marriage from a LEGAL stand point is slightly more complex than a standard business partnership.
Government should be agnostic when it comes to marriage and SHOULD treat marriage as a simple legal partnership. If 2 guys what to enter in to an agreement where each gives up all property rights to the other, and vice versa, then MORE POWER TO THEM.
At the end of the day that is all Marriage is to the GOVERNMENT, a property and tax break down, nothing more. To you and to your religion is may mean more, and you are free to believe that, but to the GOVERNMENT it should NEVER mean more than that.
Gay Marriage is not an assault on your beliefs, unless your believe in Big Government Regulating every thing about your life.
In the end however THIS IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE, THIS IS A STATE ISSUE. and Each state should decided for themselves what partnerships will be valid ad which will not. THAT IS THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION to take on the issue, and Levin should no that. There is NOTHING in the constitution that would even remotely begin to give the federal government the power to regulate marriage or partnerships of any kind.
So while you Social Cons worry about what consenting adults do (from gay marriage to Drugs, to you name it) and try to impose your will on others just like Statist do but because you feel you have "god" on your side your arrogant self's feel your justified in removing Man's Will, I will focus ON THE REAL ISSUES, i.e the Nation Debt, the Assault on Liberty, of which Social Cons are a big part of the problem
And for the Record, I am not Gay, but I am tired of Social Cons talking about how much they love Liberty and Personal Freedom, then in the very next breath talk about how the government should control this behavior, or that behavior.
The role of government is NOT to uphold your moral ideals
I'm with you on this just like Tyler. IMO, Progressives and Social conservatives were equally guilty of the likes of prohibition. Both are about control.
Oh, and I saw a post you made a while ago quoting Patton. I absolutely admire that man and you for quoting him.
My bad for even making it seem like I was saying he was. I was just saying that when I think of George Patton, I think of war and I don't tend to make quotes about war, so I wouldn't go out of my way to quote someone who causes me to think of war.
Patton was not "pro war" either, no sane person is "pro war"
He was referring to this quote
"It is certain that the two World Wars in which I have participated would not have occurred had we been prepared. It is my belief that adequate preparation on our part would have prevented or materially shortened all our other wars beginning with that of 1812. Yet, after each of our wars, there has always been a great hue and cry to the effect that there will be no more wars, that disarmament is the sure road to health, happiness, and peace; and that by removing the fire department, we will remove fires. These ideas spring from wishful thinking and from the erroneous belief that wars result from logical processes. There is no logic in wars. They are produced by madmen. No man can say when future madmen will reappear. I do not say that there will be no more wars; I devoutly hope that there will not, but I do say that the chances of avoiding future wars will be greatly enhanced if we are ready. "
-General George Patton
Wanting a country that can bring to bear overwhelming force against any enemy to quickly put down all threats with minimum casualties on all sides is not "pro war"
Wanting a Weak neutered military is a suicided pact
The Ancient quoted Patton in a post that was a few days old, posting it there would easily have been overlooked. So I just figured I'd put it in this reply directed at his comments.
I've also admired your replies in various topics, I do tend to agree with your viewpoint often. I apologize for causing the confusion.
I don't think that was me who quoted Patton. I think someone else quoted that under my comment.
Do what good conservatives do. Agree to disagree. The social issues are not what is destroying the country right now. It does play a part, but the bigger issue is the fiscal incompetence that we are being treated to. It needs to stop. We also are having an issue with our allies. They do not respect us. That will change in 2012!
I like what Ron & Rand Paul said on Freedom Watch about social conservatism. There's nothing wrong with being social conservatism, but it should be instilled through the communities and the individuals...not the government.
You missed one.
Shouldn't it be, that if a conservative doesn't like gay marriage, he doesn't marry a gay? But if a liberal doesn't like it, he tries to ban it?
Maybe on gay marriange, conservatives are acting like liberals.
Caucus with Dems? I am a gun-toting, Constitution-carrying, free market capitalist. And you want that I should caucus with Dems because I don't fit in with the typical sex/gender norms? Screw that.
What...you didn't know? Nobody can possibly be a Republican or have conservative values if they're "queer." I mean...c'mon now. We all know you're just a liberal in freedom's clothing.
HAHA! Sorry. I couldn't resist. That's the way I view all criticism of homosexuality coming from those who actually see it as a "threat to the American people," as one Rick Santorum once said.
Wow. Really? Good luck with your social stance when our debt turns us into a 3rd world nation down the road.
One thing you've got to realize Jaynie is that while there are always going to be movements which will go after more and more to keep the money flowing...the majority of gay people really do just want equality under the law and nothing more.
The very idea of marriage was originally nothing more than sort of "legal contract" within tribes which was basically that this man owned this woman. The woman was to be his property and the marriage was the contract. It was actually this way for a long time until pretty much the past century mostly.
Marriage should not be a legal institution (by which I mean tax breaks and so forth) in the first place in this day and age...it should remain a private arrangement that two or more people can choose that extra level of commitment if they want or not.
I doubt it'll ever be removed as a legal institution, so the next best option...allow gay folks the right to be equally accepted as such should they decide to get married.
Last thing on your movements argument...most movements are usually smaller than the general public is lead to believe (the Tea Party is probably the only one I know of which is the opposite).
"Live and let live," is the best way to approach social issues until we get our financial house in order as a nation.
As a Libertarian, I think social conservatives in the end defeat themselves...period. They've done it time and time again and continue to do so now it seems. Isn't true freedom all about "live and let live?" It's not like this idea has actually been tried in our country. Perhaps we should finally evolve and give it a shot.
That aside, I've made my stance on this and I honestly couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree on gay rights and gay marriage because it's really not that huge of a deal when compared with the big picture.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I could only choose between social issues and economic issues as far as which one I could actually get solved...I'd go for economic issues in a heartbeat because the national debt actually has been stated as the number 1 threat to our national security.
The fact that people are fussing so much about social issues in a time when our economy is about to turn our sovereign nation into merely another piece of land for the New World Order is just outstandingly absurd to me.
These social issues are things that you save for times of peace and economic prosperity...not for when our still great nation is about to sink into the depths of historical oblivion forever.
I'm sorry if this sounds like an attack, but I prefer to think of it as using your logic instead of emotion to solve a problem which requires logical thinking as opposed to emotional thinking.
Blah, blah. The fact is that there have been some folks in DC who work behind the scenes who have been trash-talking GOProud for months. Yes, Chris Barron should have been more diplomatic in his criticism. But to say "if you want respect, give respect" to a group that's been the target of undeserved and unfair characterization for months whose only real sin has been to fire back—that's fatuousness at best.
Amen, brother. I'm pretty sure GOProud has been the target of undeserved and unfair criticism for much longer than just a few months now. Let's not forget Ryan Sorba condemning CPAC for allowing GOPride (their previous name) to be there last year. Wow...I can't believe it's actually been a year since I started posting on this site. Anyway...yeah.
Personally I think Gay Marriage is a state issue, that should be decided by the individual state population. That is all.
What is it a government issue at any level?
If two people want to say they are married, they should be able to in a free country. If there is some church that wants to bless the union, it's no one else's business. What the bureaucrats think should be irrelevant.
Live and let live, right? Heck...let's go as far as to say live and let die, if gay marriage is such a terrible evil for you.
Exactly. I agree completely. Again..."live and let live." Our country's motto can remain the same, but if we were to change the government's way they do business and their motto to...as I said earlier..."Live & Let Live," then our country would either be on its way or already back to being #1 undisputed in all aspects.
You are missing the point. I am not defending gay marriage, but question the source of government's authority to control association.
I am trying to figure out what is "conservative" about using the power of government to enforce your preferences: racial, sexual, or otherwise. Isn't that what liberals and other statists do? For government to be "limited" wouldn't it have to be powerless to interfere with rights of association?
Levin's argument that the historical version of government-run marriage has served society well is just a rehash of liberal 'end justifies the means' thinking. (Mussolini made the trains run on time). If you are going to accept that government has the power to run, regulate and license marriage, then you have to accept that someday government may change it's mind about what the regulations are. That's what happens when you buy into statism.
I agree with Levin and you on that issue. It is a state issue.
However, the only caveat on that is if the Federal government will recognize the marriage under law. This is important for areas of taxation and gets into a whole new set of entanglements when taking that marriage across state lines or in regards to federal benefits(social security).
Though, if a flat tax is implemented at the federal level, without marriage being a factor in it, you solve a lot of that problem. At that point, the majority of the financial factor is solved.
Beyond that, I think the Federal government has an obligation to recognize the laws of the state, and recognize the marriage.
But other states do not have that same obligation, so if the pair were to move, another state may not recognize the marriage. But does the Federal government still have to recognize that marriage then? I'd say yes, but others may interpret it as no.
A lot to think about and a lot could possibly be ruled upon by court decisions which change the interpretation. Which is why so many want to put forth the law on a federal level, since it would supersede state law. But if it is interpreted by the SCOTUS without an amendment to the constitution, Judges like Scalia and Thomas (two whom I revere for their perspectives) would probably rule it unconstitutional because marriage is not decided at the federal level under the constitution.
Ok I am not gay (I dn't think that means n e thing but to the right scoop fans I guess it does.) You fight other conservatives. Go ahead, vote for Obama. If he wins in '12 then 'we' r seriuosly DOOMED! 'BE' Proud. Y can't we vote jst for a conservative and then take up our differences once we have power. SIGH.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.