Rather than a dissertation, let me just ask straight questions:

1a) If gays WERE allowed to marry (by vote), how would it affect you?
1b) If the issue was never put to vote, and gays started marrying for lack of law disallowing it, how would it affect you?

2) Do you support a federal amendment banning gay marriage?

3a) Would you support the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade?
3b) Would you support the Supreme Court overruling the gay marriage ban?

Mike,

Your answers:
1a: It would not affect me whatsoever. I don’t have a dog in that hunt. As long as it was voted in by the people… I’m good with it.

1b: It would affect me simply by the fact that I do not want to live in a country where everybody just does what they do with no regard for the law. That’s chaos, anarchy and just not a smart model.

2: I don’t support the Federal Government chiming in on this subject whatsoever. It’s not their job or purpose.

3a: Absolutely. But not for the stereotypical reasons that you likely will assume. I would support the overturning based on the fact that I do not support the Federal Government EVER being able to come in and overturn the will of the people as it was voted on. In the case of Roe vs. Wade… the individual citizens lost their rights when the Feds came in and overturned the will of the people. I would like to see the power returned to the people of the state.

3b: See the answer to #2.

Hope these answers are sufficient. If not… I’ll dig deeper for you.

1b) But if there is no law on the books, how is it anarchist? I don’t see homosexuals pursuing the rights heteros enjoy as “just doing whatever.” So it begs the question, if it doesn’t affect you (or most people??) then why must outlawing it be put to a vote? Must there be a law specifically allowing everything?

I think conservatives like the hegemony of state over city or individual choices, as much as they typify liberals as liking the hegemony of federal over state choices. I think true self-determination comes from individuals when it does no one else any harm.

2) Okay we agree on something.

3a/b) Consistent answers and I agree to a point. I would like to believe Roe v. Wade should have never happened and was not necessary, but I do not have faith in states to protect the rights of individuals. I feel federal protection in this case has been a good thing.

Your original post commented on checks and balances. What then is the purpose of the Judicial Branch if we cannot accept their role and power as part of the system?

Mike,

1b: You are talking about introducing a new model of state “contract” between two individuals. As it stands right now… the law is the same for everyone. Any non-related man can enter into a state-recognized contract with any non-related woman.

What you are asking for is to change the parameters so that two men (or two women) could enter into the same kind of state-recognized contract. And that’s cool as long as the people of the state have the opportunity to vote on whether to allow it.

All legal marriage is about is the combining of two individual entities into a binding, legal partnership. That partnership will affect things like property assets, custody of children, financial arrangements, etc. Some of those situations spill right into social/moral scenarios that not everyone is going to want inflicted upon them or their surroundings. For example, I can’t own 150 cats. There are laws preventing me from doing so in my county. Why would someone want to oppress my love of cat-farming…? Because it would have a direct effect on my neighbors.

There would have to be set, defined, legal parameters.

It would have to be spelled out who could enter into these contracts. What about the father who wants to marry his son? Would that be allowed? If not… why?

Or the bi-sexual who wants to have both a husband AND a wife. Would that be allowed? If not… why?

Would it be exclusive to human-to-human relationships? Could it go beyond that? If not… why?

Or here’s one: Could an individual marry a business entity in order to receive special advantages or incentives? If not… why?

All of these questions would have to be answered and defined. Because we are talking “contractual agreements” here. And any contract has definition.

Mike,

One more thing. I want to make sure I understand you clearly:

You stated that you have more faith in the Federal Government to protect the rights of individuals than you do the States. Again I just want to make certain that I understand you correctly.

So you would prefer to have Senate and House members, along with federal judges making decisions for the people INSTEAD of the people themselves exercising their votes/voices. Correct?

Mike,

One final answer that I owe you:
You wrote: “Your original post commented on checks and balances. What then is the purpose of the Judicial Branch if we cannot accept their role and power as part of the system?”

It’s when the Judicial Branch oversteps its boundaries and purpose when I have a problem.

“Legislating-from-the-bench” would be a prime example.

Gusty, you may need to diversify BabyReagan to keep it kicking during the offseason. You could offer wholesale merch or vitamin supplements, or something.

What is the big “change” non-gays would see? What is it they fear about making this option available? I can see and respect the view that gay marriage is a new form of contract that must be defined by the law. My question speaks to the root of the resistance that would deny it.

More or less asking, “What’s next, marrying animals?” is saying the idea of marrying the same sex is deviant, unacceptable, and ridiculous. I can respect that conservatives have their creature comforts, but resistance to change when the existing circumstance is repressive toward a whole demographic is bigotry.

And if it’s not a civil rights but a moral issue, then it’s bigotry toward those who don’t share your encapsulated moral or religious opinions. And to take it a step further, if there’s not even a religious motive behind those who voted against it, then what? Misindoctrination? Inocculation? Xenophobia?

You finally stated that people voted against it because of the adverse effect it would have on the community. Not to generalize, but it only speaks to my idea that conservatives tend not to accept different people. They want to exclude not just from their politics, but from their streets, neighborhoods, and the same benefits they enjoy themselves. It’s the 80/20 rule applied to viable lifestyle and diversity.

There is a huge disconnect between our understanding of the “will of the people.” The will of the people does NOT equal the power of the state. Maybe I say this because of my politics and I live in a red state. I think the will of people within my 5 mile radius more closely reflect my stance than the will of some farmer in Tifton hours away.

Why can counties or cities or families not exercise their own will?—within a reasonable frame of laws. Much as you do not support the federal government overruling states, I do not support states overruling individuals. And if you want to support the federal (states’ rights) concept, why not invest power in counties or cities, which are closer to the level that affects people?

The Georgia state Consitutional amendments that were voted on this year have different connotations for different parts of the state. They could each be seen as good for some, bad for others.

Thank you for asking if you understand my stance on federal protection correctly. I do not have MORE faith in the federal government than the state government, but I believe we NEED the federal government to keep state governments in check. I wish we didn’t. I’d like states to make their own decisions responsibly, except when (in my view) they choose to deny civil liberties, in which case we need a greater law to step in.

QUESTION:
How do you feel about the Second Amendment?

JGusty/Mike,
Are we not getting close to anarchy with statements like this?

“Much as you do not support the federal government overruling states, I do not support states overruling individuals.”

Just wondering.

Carry On.
T

Mike,
“I can respect that conservatives have their creature comforts, but resistance to change when the existing circumstance is repressive toward a whole demographic is bigotry.”

Just a reminder that it was the liberals in Cali, Fla, and AZ that secured the gay marriage ban this election. The numbers are everywhere… even on CNN and MSNBC, and yes FOX….
The issue to me is religion NOT conservatives.

Maybe we should try a baked goods sale for the off season ….

Carry On.
T

Mike,

I seriously don’t think that there are too many people out there (liberal, conservative or anywhere in between) that fear homosexuality.

An why would you consider someone wanting to marry an animal “deviant, unacceptable, and ridiculous”?

That’s rather judgmental don’t you think? Seriously.

Animals have rights too. And they are faithful, loyal members of our families. Why would someone wanting to commit the rest of their life to another life that they love very much… and receive whatever civil, social and legal benefits go along with it… be considered in such low regard?

I think that if you really step back and try and be a bit more progressive in your thinking… you would see that it’s wrong to pass such a harsh judgment, thus reinforcing a negative stereotype of two living, breathing individuals wanting to simply be together.

What is wrong with that?

…and why the desire or concern to monetize BabyReagan.net?

Stop trying to inflict your capitalistic tendencies upon this not-for-profit community service.

We’re doin’ this for the kidz.

Mike,
“I think the will of people within my 5 mile radius more closely reflect my stance than the will of some farmer in Tifton hours away.”

Isn’t this the same thought process that you accuse those in the suburbs to have. Are they not allowed to congregate with like thinkers also without being chastised?
I am not being a smart@$$, I swear.
It seems that what you accuse others of… is what you fear most about yourself… (you meaning people, not you the individual)…

Carry On.
T

QUESTION: What does everyone think of the Second Amendment? Good? Bad? Get rid of it?

Gusty you’re right, I guess I have to start standing up for bestiosexuals and their civil rights. Humorous as it all is, you’re still saying that the chosen way of life for these millions of sentient humans is asinine (no pun intended).

Really it’s a matter of what people find acceptable. Speaking to Tony’s raison d’être these days, if it’s not conservatives driving the anti-gay marriage agenda, then is it religion? One way or the other, you’re looking at a set of ideologies that excludes. If data insists it’s mostly religious liberals, then it’s religion that is the force of bigotry, which speaks to another assertion I’ve made: that religion is the key component of Republicans who are not quarter-millionaires or global executives; of those who are not so well off.

So perhaps we’ve found the key wedge in our abilities—no matter our politics—as a reasonable species to have sound judgement. Religion.

Tony, as for settlement patterns, I support the right to surround oneself with the like-minded, although conservatives can do so in a planned town or viable neighborhood. But even still, I don’t like location politics. I don’t oppose people of various ideologies should intermix, as they do in bellweather parts of the country. But as long as they concentrate themselves, they should not have an effect over decisions I can make for myself. As much as we want to elevate ourselves above the nasty proles outside our doors, we are interdependent with them. They forge our steel, grow our food, and make our music.

Mike,
What “we” are you talking about? I personally have lived in multicultural settings and suburban settings and was raised in rural Ky. You can feel as you want, but my experiences have taught me that even the multicultural settings are segregated. That sounds harsh but it is a truth that I have found.
Chinatown, Little Italy, etc… are places that were forged due to people not thinking as you do while they live in a multicultural city …
I think your ideal is fine. Just not a reality.
Once again I see religion as the major negative factor in your belief system.(I am inclined to think this also is hidden beneath the people on both sides of the Lib/Conserv spectrum.)
Location, gender, lib/conserv, race, etc .. seems to be a symptom not the cause.
Could I be correct?

As for 2nd Amendment.
As it was written in the era it was written in, I support it completely.
Now, I think both gun control and right to bear arms is a necessary balance in our society.
To take it even further as you say … people are just be naturally fearful of “the nasty proles” outside their doors, because they DO exist. Fear is healthy … not wanting to be around a person is fine … assuming that everyone in any group is inherently evil … that is bigoted.
Does anyone here disagree with that?

Carry On.
T

The definition of marriage is not something that is or should be under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. By the 10th amendment, it is left up to the states. The Federalist approach is the correct one regarding the issue of defining marriage.

Agree or not, the people of Tennessee & California have spoken quite clearly regarding the definiton of marriage. It would not be good for either state supreme court to over-ride the will of he people. SSM proponents can put up another initiative in 2 or 4 years if they wish & see if they can get enough people to vote for it.

Interesting point Tony regarding the 2nd amendment. I think the “rub” comes in when “reasonable gun control” measures are defined. For some, any gun control measure that a jurisdiction says is resonable is ok. For me & most of those I know, resonable gun control would be not allowing guns to be used in crimes like robbery, murder, & drug dealing.

The gun control laws that have been put forth deal only with those who abide by the law anyway. The focus should be on those who commit crimes – a murder victim doesn’t much care whether or not a gun or a baseball bat is used.

So could you say the Second Amendment guarantees the federal law of the land prevents states from taking that right away?

Robin R,
No doubt that the laws have been a hassle for law abiding citizens. When a gun is used in a crime it is a tool not the crime itself. Concealing a weapon is a crime not owning it.

Mike,
You could say anything you want. The 2nd amendment is misquoted and misused, it is poorly worded and punctuated. A debate over where commas exist sparks different interpretations. States were originally sent one version… the other rests in the actual constitution. Some states have adopted and amended the 2nd Amendment in their state constitutions
.
My home state of KY: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Kansas on the other hand clearly says that a standing army in the time of peace is dangerous to liberty.
That can be interpreted several ways. Militia? National Guard? Marines stationed there?

If you are going to try to use this Amendment in the Fed/States rights argument twist away, the 2nd Amendment is the easiest place to go for that line of thinking. Check out several state constitutions and you will see revisions and post 2nd Amendment well…… amendments. So both John and I can use it on the states rights side.

The amendment was pre-cursed by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. You can use this in an anti-religious view simply because of it’s wording. “Protestant colonists had a conditional right to possess arms”. They actually gave the rights to Protestants as a group. Twisting the law is easy enough, especially when it was written in a different century.

Carry On.
T

Mike,

To go back a few posts… you wrote:
“One way or the other, you’re looking at a set of ideologies that excludes.”

That stuck with me as a huge stumbling block for most of your arguments.

Is it safe & fair to say that you will not accept or be happy with ANY ideologies that “exclude”?

If that is the case… I’m not seeing an easy path for you moving forward in life. Because quite simply… ANY rule, law, opinion or ideology is going to “exclude” some individual or group. It’s just not feasible to expect a scenario where everyone gets what they want & life is fair to all under all circumstances.

Unless it’s a Smurf cartoon.

I’m beginning to see that there is a HUGE segment of our population that simply cannot accept the basic concept of “winners & losers” on any level.

The “wussification” of America (and Canada, Europe, etc) is very real.

QUESTION: Do you support civil unions for same-sex couples instead of marriage? What rights of married couples should same-sex unions NOT have?

Gusty, I will never support an institution or mindset that tells people they are less than others—not as a consequence of something they succeeded at, but because of WHO they are.

I agree that wussification exists. No Child Left Behind has diluted the judgement of our school teachers, setting false standards and telling every child anything is possible and that they have succeeded when they fail.

I see wussification at work from customers in my past career—parents who’d create a bubble for their children, safe from the dangers of consequence, facing failure, and learning the value of work. These grow up to be the spoiled brats on that MTV Sweet Sixteen show, because they’ve been raised to believe everything’s owed to them.

Yes, I agree—bad, plastic parenting has fostered a world of wusses.

Tony, I don’t languish over politics daily, so I regret that what seems common-sense to me (for lack of hearing others say it more often) is dismissed as simply “easy,” or other times, “typical of liberals.”

Mentioning the Second Amendment isn’t twisting a law, but highlighting the basic idea that certain federal protections are needed. I’m not arguing against the idea of local interpretations or self-determination. In fact I’m all for it, just at a more grassroots scale than simply leaving everything in the hands of the state.

For me it’s not WHO decides something as much as WHY it has to be decided. I believe the state decides too many civil and personal issues. These issues do not require interference. I regret the civil libertarians out there can’t speak up on this common ground for fear of seeming complicit.

The whole answer seems to be “As long as it was voted on, I’m happy.” Okay, so you support the rule of law. Great. My digging has been to figure out WHY people vote the way they do. I’m not questioning the methods by which we make decisions.

Look at the ad that sometimes appears at the bottom of the screen: “Is gay marriage wrong?” So the question isn’t “Should gay marriage be defined as a new form of contract between persons?” It’s asking if the topic of the day jives with your moral taboos, and thus should dictate your politics.

I think “As long as it was voted on” is the hands-off vote of Present that feigns participation. It colludes with the taboos, bigotry, and exclusion of others without seeming to take a stance. Simply being satisfied with relegating a decision to “the people” pretends not to make your own decision. Appeasement?

Mike,

Of course I support civil unions for same-sex couples.

We established awhile back that “marriage” exists is two VERY different arenas:
1. The traditional/religious/spiritual arena (of which I am part of)
2. The legal realm. (Which in my opinion is demeaning to the very concept of marriage… thus rendering it to a simple business agreement between two individuals)

If two people want to enter into such an agreement… I personally could care less. Let them do it. If a man and his dog want to enter into such an agreement… let them do it. It’s not a realm that has any importance to me whatsoever.

I am married to my wife in the traditional sense. I could care less about any civil rights or privileges that go along with it. That is NOT why I got married.

Do you encounter much resistance with the concept of civil unions? Personally… I don’t know of too many people that have an issue with that concept. Just don’t call it “marriage” and take away the rights of those who subscribe to the traditional way of approaching the subject.

And I’m still puzzled as to why you would be so judgmental towards the man who wants to marry his dog by calling that desire “asinine.”

Please explain. By whose standards is it “asinine”?

Mike,

You wrote:
“Gusty, I will never support an institution or mindset that tells people they are less than others—not as a consequence of something they succeeded at, but because of WHO they are.”

So are you against:

Sports teams?
Colleges?
The Military?
The music industry?

Tony,

As much as it kills me to break this to you:

You are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that your dream of being the star forward for the Vanderbilt Lady Vols, winning “Female Country Vocalist of the Year” and then dashing off to be in the 4th Infantry Battalion of the Irish Army ain’t gonna happen.

It’s because of WHO you are.

Unless you move to The Island of Mike.

I’m here for ya bro.

PS: Mike… I hope you are getting the good-natured intent of my poke. Hopefully through all of this you might get a little broader understanding of what conservative/independent thinking actually is… aside from the “rich/white/Christian” stereotype so many are just frickin’ marinating in.

I’m glad you’re here.

Mike,
“Tony, I don’t languish over politics daily, so I regret that what seems common-sense to me (for lack of hearing others say it more often) is dismissed as simply “easy,” or other times, “typical of liberals.”

You post here quite often.
Languish? Are you aiming that at me, I don’t languish. Why so indignant?
My post was actually saying that both sides could use a poorly written law to their advantage in a debate, it meant nothing more. No dismissal, you are not a victim here it was just a post. That is all. Nothing personal. No need for a negative reaction.

I find it strange that you think I am being negative to you over gay marriage or the 2nd Amendment, we AGREE that GM is not legal due to religion.
Maybe your way of thinking isn’t others’ definition of common or sensible. (Not an insult.)
I know mine isn’t to some.

GUSTY,
Can I play in the WNBA if I shave my legs?

Carry On.
T

Tony, not intending it to have taken it personal. You may not need to shave your legs to get into the WNBA. You’ve already got the mood swings and eyeliner.

I have no problems with civil unions & don’t see how these cannot have the rights of a married couple in the legal realm, when it comes to dealing with government. I guess the biggest rub is benefits from employers, however most employers – at least the big ones – give domestic partnerships equal footing.

The 2nd amendment is a federal protection. Regardless of the wording before, the last clause stands by itself as the right of the people. Reading the Federalist papers, it was intended that way.

Robin… right on!

The 2nd amendment also addresses something (in my opinion) that is in a whole different ballpark and (also in my opinion) a bit more fundamentally important (the right to bear arms) than any of these modern & silly (again… my opinion) civil rights arguments & scenarios.

It would be a bit hard for Stephan to marry Lance if the Feds held all the true power. We wouldn’t even be having the “same-sex marriage” discussion in Iran, Iraq or any number of other societies.

And as long as there is an armed public and the possibility of a revolution/take-back of power… things can only get so far out-of-hand before the public snaps.

I think we are currently on the precipice of that reality in all honestly.

Mike…

Still waiting on an answer to the “asinine” question.

By whose standards is it “asinine”?

Gusty,

Oh now you’re the one waiting for answers?

First of all, no you misunderstand me about exclusion. There are exclusions by merit and exclusions by identity.

Of course, you shouldn’t be allowed into colleges, the military, or to get a record deal if you aren’t qualified—if have poor marks, aren’t physically capable, or play awful music.

As for identity exclusion, you don’t qualify for a women’s team if you’re a man; you don’t qualify for the Irish Army if you’re an American.

However, denying someone equal access to college, the military, or fundamental human rights on the basis of their identity is NOT acceptable. Not sure anyone is arguing that it is.

With respect to gay marriage, it sounds like people who oppose it want same-sex couples to have the benefits of being married without the “weirdness” of sharing the name.

So what are the scenarios? Because a heterosexual couple is married, having to call a gay couple “married” seems perverse to them—so basically it comes down to whether you believe what they ARE is good or evil.

Who created our “decency and common sense” is another debate for another forum. However, it is indecent and nonsensical to pretend that people will marry animals. I suppose if animals were sentient beings capable of making their own decisions, I couldn’t justify opposing these people entering into some bestionuptial contract. I don’t think this is likely.

Of course Tony might know better than me. He’s from Kentucky.

JGusty,
“I think we are currently on the precipice of that reality in all honestly.”
Do you really think so?

Mike:
“So what are the scenarios? Because a heterosexual couple is married, having to call a gay couple “married” seems perverse to them—so basically it comes down to whether you believe what they ARE is good or evil.”
Christians will make the argument “the act is evil not the person”, I’ve heard it several times much to my chagrin. Once again, religion.
If you get lonely enough I know a few goats that are “looking”.

Carry On.
T

Here is one for everyone.
eHarmony has just settled with the New Jersey Attorney General. eHarmony violated New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws because it only serves heterosexuals.
eHarmony, Inc. will pay $50,000 to the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office to cover
administrative expenses and $5,000 to the original plaintiff who brought the case.

Anyone? Bueller?

Carry On.
T

Mike,

Yes… I’m still waiting.

Is there something that you’ve asked of me that I haven’t answered? If so… let’s have it.

You wrote:
“So what are the scenarios? Because a heterosexual couple is married, having to call a gay couple “married” seems perverse to them—so basically it comes down to whether you believe what they ARE is good or evil. “

Precisely why I want YOUR answer to why it’s “asinine” for a man to marry a dog.

“Asinine” by who’s standards?

You wrote:
“However, it is indecent and nonsensical to pretend that people will marry animals.”

By WHO’S STANDARDS?????????

You wrote:
“I suppose if animals were sentient beings capable of making their own decisions”

So are you saying that they are NOT?

So how about this one for ya Mike:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=not-tonight-dear-i-have-to-reboot

You call the animal/human marriage debate “nonsensical.”
This is all in the same ballpark my friend.

Consistency Mike. Consistency.

And Tony… yes…. I don’t just “think”…

I’m watching it happen before my very eyes.

And these are not “radical” people by ANY means.

Gusty, the question I’ll never get answered is why conservatism is largely the ideology of the religious. I just get answers from you and Tony, so I think I’m good on the opinion of the reactionary fallout-shelter armed-compound crowd. But I’d love to hear from the 200 that purportedly lurk here (are we sure that’s not just us refreshing?).

As for whose standards it is asinine to marry animals, first I said I won’t be trapped into a discussion about who created our “common sense and decency.” I am also not an anarcho-libertarian, meaning people should just do whatever nonsense they want (and the tired marrying animals or robots argument is out there).

So I believe it’s reasonable to say that animals are non-sentient, not able to work in society, cannot be legitimate parties in a contract, cannot reproduce or start a family (I’ll get to that in a second), not capable of showing the same love toward a human (some may argue), etc., and therefore this whole concept is asinine. Nevermind the whole beastiality/abuse aspect.

Now gays cannot reproduce with each other, but can love each other, can express that love before God and/or Justice of the Peace, can function in society, can adopt and raise families. These people can express to each other what marriage means to you and your wife. If it’s not the benefits of marriage you want them to have, then it’s either having to awkwardly face a new reality, not wanting to share the term, or institutional stagnation. I think institutional stagnation (religion) has too many in a vice-grip of backward thinking.

Fear is also backward thinking. Fear is that element of religion that is the opium for the masses. I revel in the paranoia that is apparently gripping these not-so radical sudden gun buyers. I love the reactionary avalance. I love how Sean Hannity says that we should never “socialize” heath care, and in the same breath say we must keep Social Security solvent. Where’s the outcry there? Where’s the exaggerated delusion of a Socialist States of America? Did this happen when Bill Clinton was elected? Is it because we’re nearing the end of the 6,000 years this planet has been in existence that people are SURE the Antichrist is among us?

To answer another question, I’m not against the music industry, only its modern perversion, the record industry.

Tony, my plenty of friends keep me from getting too lonely, although I’ve been in the closet over donkeys for the longest. Hook it up, man.

I don’t agree with this eHarmony settlement. eHarmony is a private organization that should serve whomever it wants. There are single sites for gays, interracials, old, young, etc. As for equality, I support equal access, not even keel. This is where the government (in this case, STATE government) forces itself on you, and I don’t accept it. Here’s an example of frivolousness.

QUESTION: Would anyone oppose a federal court overturning this ruling and restoring the right of the private business eHarmony to serve its original target audience?

Mike,
“I just get answers from you and Tony, so I think I’m good on the opinion of the reactionary fallout-shelter armed-compound crowd.”

I am not a gun owner, never have been. Don’t hunt, not hiding out, nor am I afraid of tanks in the streets. Not religious. Check my past posts on this matter. Why do you seem to hold such contempt for me and others that simply don’t agree with you? Am I trying to change your view or take away your right to voice opinion? Not at all.

To answer your question, I would rather New Jersey repeal. Is that a viable option?

JGUSTY,
I checked the stats out and there is quite a surge in gun purchases. How do you feel about assault weapons being sold to civilians?

Mike,I’m one of the 200″lurkers”on here,and I have been reading for about three days,and even I can see that this animal marriage thing is a couple people making fun of you.

Mike,
“I revel in the paranoia that is apparently gripping these not-so radical sudden gun buyers.”

Why would you revel in someone else’s paranoia? Isn’t that mean spirited?
These are people that exist in the community that you rally for … we all are.

Carry On.
T

Tony – Since we love democracy here so much, perhaps we should draft and vote on the bylaws of who can and can’t make jokes here. We can do it on the Isle of Mike, and I’ll bring my Che Guevara shirt (i.e., lighten up).

Fred – Not sure how it makes fun of me, although I agree it’s just a couple of people. If it is just jest, then it’s even clearer conservatives are intolerant.

Mike,
Sorry, which parts of the post were a joke? ( i.e., where do you stand)
Why is every post so back handed and venomous? I am still making an effort to be civil.

Fred and Mike,
I never entered the animal discussion except after KY/goats, I am SURE we all knew THAT was a joke from Mike.. That is between GUSTY and MIKE.
Yes Fred, it is funny. Welcome.
Carry On.
T
T

Mike
Wait.So when you joke with Tony and Gusty,you tell them to lighten up,but when they joke with you,they’re intolerant?The”pop”that we all are gonna hear when your head comes outta your a**,it’s gonna be the other shot heard around the world.

Mike,

Neither Liberals, nor Conservatives have a lock on intolerance. ANYONE can be intolerant. (As you’ve proven numerous times on this very site)

Also: Does ANYONE really take Sean Hannity seriously? I mean… come on. Who exactly does THAT guy speak for? That’s about as relevant as referencing Howard Stern.

And to your question-that-never-gets-answered:
“Why conservatism is largely the ideology of the religious?”

I actually answered that basic question in the “about” section of this site.

The reason is very simple: rules & absolutes.

Those who appreciate structure, rules, laws, discipline and absolutes gravitate towards conservatism.
Those who operate in a mindset where there is always a “but” or exception to any rule, law or scenario gravitate towards Liberalism.

Religion is all about discipline, rules and absolutes.

So by its very nature… religion isn’t going to jive with Liberalism.

One final thing there Mikey: The constant jabs and insults about who is or isn’t on this site is simply childish. The constant jabs about what this site should or shouldn’t be are also immature. The only purpose of this site is to encourage “discussion.” Whether it’s two people or 200. All we’ve asked here is for people to be cool to each other. You’ve been one of the only people pushing the envelope of that request.

I’ve told you before that I’m glad you’re here. But I sincerely hope that you take a personal inventory of yourself sometime soon. You are extremely judgmental; you fire off contradictory statements frequently. And your tolerance for any other opinion other than your own is close to non-existent.

And for you to cast me as part of the “reactionary fallout-shelter armed-compound crowd” is ludicrous.

You have no idea who I am, what my home looks like or what possessions I own or do not own.

A perfect example of your knee-jerk/stereotype/intolerance.

How about we just discuss, learn and grow together. We can have fun doing so in the process… but the “I’m-more-enlightened-than-you” attitude needs to be left back on the college campus.

All,
I am guilty of reacting to posts negatively as we all have at one point or another. But I have and will continue to make an effort to discuss issues. We have missed an opportunity to discuss the eHarmony thing.

Fred any comment on eharmony?
JGusty… assault rifles?

Carry On.
T

And to be clear on the animal/marriage thing:

I’m trying to make a point to Mike. I just want him to say it on his own. (I obviously harbor no desire to wed my dog)

HE WAS THE ONE who deemed that concept “asinine.”
I believe he also used the phrases “deviant, unacceptable, and ridiculous”

Those are HIS standards that he’s inflicting upon the topic of marriage. If he stepped back and thought about it a minute… he’s doing the VERY SAME thing that he accuses others of.

We established awhile back that marriage exists in two VERY DIFFERENT realms. Religious & legal.

The realm Mike plays in is the legal realm. Fine. In that realm, marriage is a contractual agreement between two parties. If we are going to allow those contracts to exist… then there simply have to be some rules. WHO can enter into these contracts? Can there be more than two involved? Where are the lines drawn?

What Mike doesn’t acknowledge (or understand) is that the discussion is much bigger than just same-sex couples. Once THAT is allowed… what about the other groups, individuals and scenarios that will use the same argument that was used to push same-sex “contracts” through?

Where will it end?

It’s at least worthy of discussion Mike.

Tony/Gusty, honestly did not expect either of you to take personal offense at something so brazenly exaggerated as saying you were hiding in a fallout shelter—although the talk of “non-radicals” buying guns because of heightened paranoia of a presidency got me going.

Commenting on the number of participants was an attempt to draw responses from those people, not a sleight toward the site. If for parity you need participants, I’ll be happy to recruit.

The most frustrating thing is when Tony in his now-rare direct interactions with me admits he doesn’t want to be seen as being soft because we know each other; then when I try to reciprocate, I’ve stepped on toes. I apparently can’t play the victim when others can. There is a vicious double standard. I can only apologize for your misunderstandings so many times. I can’t push an envelope if it doesn’t let me. I took the “college campus” comment as well is I was sure you’d take the “armed-compound” one.

Sure, anyone can be intolerant. But that would be another point for conservatives if Fred’s statement that I’m being made fun of (rather than having the “discussion” I thought you wanted) was true. That’s a conditional statement, so it doesn’t apply, Gusty, if Fred was wrong.

As for the idea of rules and absolutes, it implies that conservatives can’t admit they don’t know everything. Critical searching for “but”s is crucial to advancing. Perhaps conservatives are content in this country’s stagnation? And I would like to believe religion is about discipline, rules, and absolutes — except when it teaches life requires faith without effort, you can kill people if it’s in the name of God/Allah, or that the minor but significant differences of doctrine between denominations is negligible.

What is not acceptable: “…I sincerely hope that you take a personal inventory of yourself sometime soon,” followed by “You are extremely judgmental.” Ironic to call me judgmental after judging me. By the way, I never spent much time on a college campus. There are things about ideologies that I judge for myself to be wrong, and I seek to find out what drives people toward them. I don’t judge people, only the beliefs, indoctrination, and institutions that blind them.

I have been very clear when I agree, but no one (except Rob) has taken a chance to acknowledge it. I am tired of the line-item replies.

Gusty, I think I spelled out some parameters for marriage in the legal realm, but let me restate:

“So I believe it’s reasonable to say that animals are non-sentient, not able to work in society, cannot be legitimate parties in a contract, cannot reproduce or start a family (I’ll get to that in a second), not capable of showing the same love toward a human (some may argue), etc., and therefore this whole concept is asinine. Nevermind the whole beastiality/abuse aspect.

“Now gays cannot reproduce with each other, but can love each other, can express that love before God and/or Justice of the Peace, can function in society, can adopt and raise families. These people can express to each other what marriage means to you and your wife.”

Mike,
I am never going to be a victim here.
Asking if you are being serious or not, is a way of determining what a post was intended to do.
You would never speak to anyone face to face as you do here.
We know each other and my point was to keep things out of our private lives.
I have NEVER said I do not want to be seen soft, you are misunderstanding or lying, I think the former. I don’t mind being seen as a nice guy.
I said: I do not want to come off as overly aggressive to you because of a level of social knowledge of one another, but I am not going to be a P***Y either.
Maybe the misunderstandings are due to your posting style.
Let’s talk politics. Period.

So here is the truth.
I directly interact with you less because I like you less than I thought I would. Simple.
Your political views when deciphered through all of the posts are more antagonistic than an actual line of liberal thinking.
I STILL want to discuss your views with you.
If you go away and pout that is your choice. If you post personal insults that is your choice. If you get it through your head that we are not enemies and can have discourse amicably that is your choice and mine also.
Carry On.
T

Tony, I’ve had it through my head that we are not enemies and have tried to post as such, except your reactions to what I say undermine that effort. You’ve allowed this site to do what you hoped it wouldn’t.

Mike,
So let’s just not post at one another. This site is all of ours in my opinion. This is a work in progress it is still to be determined what this becomes. Once again you blame others and shoulder none of the burden.
Liberal.

Carry On.
T

Tony.
I want to first say that I have many gay friends,and am in no way anti-gay.I do think E-Harmony got screwed on this one,though.I thought that any business had the right to refuse service to anyone.So E-Harmony is in the business for hetero’s only.Ok.What would a gay person want to do with someone on a straight site?Convert them?I have seen many specialty dating sites(believe me),so I don’t get it.I guess the deal is,is someone got 5K outta E-Harmony for being gay.If E-Harmony wanted to make a point,they could always pull out of New Jersey.I think it’s kinda a stupid law,but what do I know?

Fred,
“Pull out” very funny. But true. Leave the state and locate elsewhere.
I am thinking of suing gay.com for the lack of vaginal content. This is a ridiculous decision for New Jersey.
I guess that eHarmony weighed the options and found the cheapest solution instead of doing the strong and noble thing to do and relocate a whole business.
For complete disclosure Fred is another of my liberal friends. He has a warped sense of humor …. obviously.
Damn, I am so intolerant.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Aren’t you talking about a specific kind of vagina?One that is more”receptive”?This site (as well as yourself)isn’t intolerant.There’s a gay dating site add at the bottom of the page.’Nuff said.

Mike,

I have absolutely no problem being judgmental. EVERYONE is. I suppose I should’ve added an adjective such as “tactlessly” before the word “judgmental” in my comment to you.

Being judgmental is like anything else… there’s a way to do it respectfully and tactfully.

And I don’t recall stating that the sole reason for a surge in gun acquisition was due to a “heightened paranoia of a presidency” – YOU added that part. There are many, many reasons for the surge. We can discuss the particulars if you like.

Tony,

The eHarmony situation: Yet another example of political correctness & government gone wild & absurd. It surprises me that they caved and paid the fine. That can only be chalked up to good PR. They certainly don’t want to be seen as anti-gay… which of course would be EXACTLY what would happen if they fought it.

Assault weapons & civilians: I need to do a bit more research before I commit to a stance on this one. Honestly… I haven’t been asked that before. I know my gut would be to take a good hard look at what the actual parameters are re: what can and cannot be sold to the public.

But since I’m not a big gun-guy… I’m not that well-versed on the topic.

Schooling myself on the subject now.

Tony… where do you stand on the issue?

PS: Fred! Sorry for not formally saying “Hello!” Damn glad you’re chiming in.

J. Gusty.
Nice to meet you too,man.

Gusty,
Assault rifle sales are skyrocketing right now, as I research, the most common reason given was the fear of a new ban.
I have a friend in prison for life due to his murder of a man that I also knew. He used an assault rifle, and shot up the entire neighborhood.
My gut reaction to assault rifle sales is not much good can come from it. However, the rifle is just an object the person in control is the good or bad. Good people make bad decisions….
Banning seems to do little to curtail ownership. If it is wanted it is available.
My answer is a reluctant no ban. It makes me sick to have to choose.

Carry On.
T

Long time reader, first time poster.

Tony- about this eHarmony thing. eHarmony’s own website states that they match participants with “our patented Compatibility Matching System® [which] narrows the field from millions of candidates to a highly select group of singles that are compatible with you. Unlike other sites where you can post a picture and paragraph and then browse the profiles of other users, eHarmony does the matching for you based on 29 Dimensions of personality that are scientifically-based predictors of long-term relationship success.”

With sexuality/moral issues aside, couldn’t eHarmony have made the point that their website’s “patented Compatibility Matching System” works for heterosexual couples wouldn’t be as accurate in finding results for homosexual couples? Couldn’t they say that until they have a matching system for finding compatible same-sex couples they aren’t going to waste the time & membership funds of participants they can’t serve as well?

Shay,
Hello and welcome.
That sounds like a great idea. But I’m not sure if that would have not also drawn the ire of a politically correct lawsuit. But it DOES seem an intelligent alternative to the cave-in that they went for.

Never been to the actual site, thanks for the info.

Carry On.
T

I’m glad I wasn’t in on the aninmal marriage discussion.

Welcome to Fred & Shay.

I don’t know how far we in the US are from regarding armed revolt. As long as we have a say at the ballot box, I think we’ll be ok. The problem would occur when government entities & courts ignore what we choose at the ballot box. & I don’t think that’s a big problem for TN right now. SSM in California seems to be heading toward more conflict, as those who lose at the ballot box refuse to take no for an answer & try to have the will of the voters overturned. On a national level, I believe the problems caused by illegal aliens & the lack of enforcement of our immigration, border security & employment laws are smoldering. This has been a huge issue outside of election years, however major candidated from neither major party have addressed this issue in a way desired by most voters.

I don’t look to the Obama Adm. to over-reach & try to ban huge numbers of firearms, not at least right away. From the Democrat congress, I see potential for great over-reaching on this & other issues. The time may likely come, also quite possibly sooner than later, that Obama will rue the existence of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, & Waxman. These bailouts are getting on folk’s nerves very quickly.

Many people are buying firearms in anticipation of a re-instatement of the Clinton gun ban – perhaps his worst mistake politically & one of the worst policy wise. People are also buying ammunition, as some of the avenues open to the anti-2nd crowd are restrictions & onerous taxes on ammo.

If Obama &/or the Democrat congress attack the 2nd amendment, I would expect to see the ranks of the NRA swell even more than they are now. Lord love him, there wasn’t much else that could be done with McCain. The NRA is tremendously successful in Congressional & local races, where the elections of 2010 will focus. It would be a politically strategic mistake for Obama/the Dems in congress to attack the 2nd amendment further, however I think especially for some of the Dem Congressional leadership the intoxication of power will be too great.

Robin R,
I’m with you on small chance of armed revolt.
Obama’s course of action regarding the 2nd is interesting to me because of his lack policy revelations during the campaign. He should already rue the existence of many congress members over the bailouts, this is going to haunt him his whole term.
I am still going to support him as my President and hope my misgivings are in error.
What employment laws in specific are you referring to?

BTW, the “rub” I was thinking of in gun control/right to arms, is such issues as mental health check etc… I agree the focus is on law abiders but circumstances like: a law abiding paranoid schizophrenic for one example.

Gusty,
From my research, the main reason gun sales across the board are on the rise, is fear of a ban.
Perhaps a more detailed view of other reasons that you have come across?
Assault rifles still make me ill.

Carry On.
T

JGUSTY and Robin R,

A bill was introduced on June 12 2008… H.R. 6257 by Mark Kirk R IL… it seeks to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban indefinitely as well as to expand the list of banned weapons.
It has four co-sponsors (as of November 5, 2008) :
Rep Castle, Michael N. – R DE
Rep Ferguson, Mike – R NJ
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana -R FL
Rep Shays, Christopher – R CT

You’ll notice ALL Republicans. Is there a conservative left in Washington? (Rhetorical question.)

Carry On.
T

Tony,

Everything that I have seen points towards the same thing you’ve found… fear of a ban. I was waiting for Mike (He’s been awfully quiet… kitchen get too hot for him?) to reply to his inference that the reason for increased sales were due to paranoia over the Obama presidency. (Ridiculous)

As for the assault rifle ban bill (H.R. 6257) and the fact that all who are signed on have “R”s next to their name is yet one more shining example of how there is nothing remotely conservative about the GOP.

BTW: The theme of the next piece will be around the worthlessness of the Republican brand and the ripeness of the landscape for a true, independent/non-typical Washington (At least slightly conservative please ) party.

There are an awful lot of us without a political home. (Isn’t that right Senator McCain?)

I want to make sure that I have “the bench” as I see it featured as comprehensively as possible.

Reply with your favorite representative hopefuls as I don’t want to forget anyone.

I did think this was a bit funny concerning Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat from NY and sponsor of HR1022 (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007)

On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC’s program, Tucker, the conservative/libertarian pundit Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act. She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity “clips” used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers.

After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, “I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.”

Would there have been a rush on gun sales if McCain had won? I equate fear of a ban to paranoia of a presidency. It’s the same thing.

Mike,
I equate the fear of a ban to a disproportionately Democratic Congress coupled with a new POTUS.
Add in the few remaining Republicans positioning themselves for leverage in future negotiations on other bills and …. a ban worry ensues.

Anyone else interested in what Paul Volcker will do as the chairman of the new Economic Recovery Advisory Board? He was Fed. Reserve chairman through Carter/Reagan era.

Carry On.
T

I can only imagine the sheer brilliance that one would witness at an “Economic Recovery Advisory Board” meeting.

How about this concept: “Hey Feds… step the hell back, get out of the way and let the economy (the ups & the downs) work itself out.”

And hey big business… how about subscribing to some old-skool biz etiquette like:
Live within your means.
Borrow only when absolutely necessary.
Accept failure if & when it comes.
Adjust accordingly.

And Mike… I certainly don’t subscribe to your Obama presidency = gun paranoia.

But in my ongoing effort to make people like yourself get off the “Republican = Conservative in any-way-shape-or-form” bandwagon, when you get a chance… check out this fine piece that outlines rather eloquently that McCain is/was/nor shall be any friend of the passionate gun owner or 2nd Amendment:

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

And just a general Team Obama observation:

For all the talk of “CHANGE” that we were subjected to… the Obama team so far sure looks to be made up of tried & true Washington familiar faces.

It sure would be nice to see some new blood get in there and mix things up a bit.

Is this just wishful thinking, or am I missing something?

Gusty,
WISHFUL THINKING.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Carry On.
T

I gots a question.Does it bother anyone that some idiot(Toby Keith)calls people out for being “patriotic”,but plays a Japanese guitar?Like Lee Greenwood doing that song with a Takamine?This is kinda a art/politics question,but I’m always mad as hell when it happens,and wanted to know whether it was just me.Happy Thanks,everybody!!!

Also,just so that I don’t look like a COMPLETE moron,I’m not a gun fan.I don’t wanna ban them,but I think that there should be some sort of “proof of intelligence”.That being said,I am now an assault rifle friendly person,and I am not happy about it.I don’t understand them,they’re only good for three things.You can kill (1)people,(2)animals,and(3)shoot at wrecked cars to make you fell like a”man”.Well,(4)you can kill yourself,but that,technically falls under(1),depending on what kind of person you are.Oh,I forgot.(5)protect yourself from some cock that wants your crap.But even then,there’s a whole host of police”insider tips”that you hafta pay attention to.What do I know?Not a lot.

Amen Fred!

Toby Keith certainly has the potential to be a massive tool.

And yup… assault weapons are mighty useful in the “killing” department. Several of my buds recently became AR15 owners. Awesomely scary weapons that definitely command respect. (intelligence too!)

JGusty, I’m not on that bandwagon. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

fred,
Sorta like a PETA person that drives a car with leather interior.

Carry On,
T

Tony,

The employment laws I referenced require someone be legally in the country to be hired.

It’s far too true that Republican does not equal conservative. I’m part of the local party to do my part to change that. We have it pretty good here in South Cheatham. Phillip Johnson is as strong-spined a conservative as I’ve seen in a while. It may come as a surprise to those who don’t know me well, but not to those who do – I actually like our 2 party system. As long as both parties are not too far out of kilter & are competitive, we get more stable government than a multi-party system where coalitions are needed to govern. This actually gives more power to the party bosses, who weild votes as a bloc. The individual representative has virtually no choice but to vote as the party bosses tell them. With the 2 party system, that problem is not as pronounced.

I believe that the Democrat party has gone too far left. Their recent electoral success is not because of what they’ve done – it’s been caused by Republicans who didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Now that the Democrats have full responsibility (at least after Obama’s sworn in) the Democrat agenda will be in full view, with little to hide it. If they lurch left, I would expect great losses in 2010 & perhaps 2012 – especially if Republicans get leadership that reclaims limited government & fiscal responsibility, & is bold in how they present their views.

Robin R,
We agree on most subjects. A spine would be nice from some Repubs.
On the other hand, and I am not asking you to agree with the action simply acknowledge the course, If the Dems lurch farther left and Palin’s 4000 year old dinosaurs swing way right there will be several more people feeling as I do. No representation. My hope is a viable 3rd party. Your stance on a 2 party system works for you if you are feeling represented by either. More and more simply do not. I am politically way conservative and socially fairly liberal. What am I to do… not vote when neither party candidate represents my view? I feel that MOST anti-third party people are firmly entrenched in a party. Competition is frowned upon. Take GA for instance there is a run off for senate because of a pesky Libertarian. I feel that made more people look closer at the DEM/REP candidates and a more informed vote will take place. I will vote for Dems and Pubs depending on the individual stance. Where do you see the party bosses having more sway except to those in a specific party? Stay Indie and vote your conscience is my approach.

Like I said, cool to see you posting again.
Carry On.
T

Tony,

Trust me, from a number of the national level Republicans they’ve not done a good job representing me. Locally, they’ve done a good job. I’m working within the party, doing my part to move them back to the right..

You are definitely right, people should examine the candidates more than just what comes on TV or a blurb in a mailer.

When one looks at countries where there are numerous political parties, the bosses do have much more power – weilding votes as a bloc. The coalition governments are unstable, & the individual rep has little ability to vote his or her conscience. If he or she votes against the bloc, then he or she is usually removed at or before the next election.

I post when I can – not enough hours in the day to get everywhere.

Robin R,
Thanks for an answer. Let’s keep babyreagan on the pulse. Great that you are involved… however, consider where the ‘PUBS are going… if Palin is the figure head, more will come to the middle with me.

Dinosaurs were not here a few thousand years ago … simple.
Anything called a bloc… think about it… fight it …even if you start as 1….. which is my vote.

Carry On.
T

Robin R

I also live in south Cheatham. You don’t have to worry about a third party in Tennessee in general. The deck is so ridiculously stacked against them through legal twists by the corporate politicos that it would pretty much take a miracle for a third party to even win a local election in Tennessee.