posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (4:00 am)
is it a judicial fiat or a judicial fart????
government has gotten way off track and into everything. that, in my humble opinion, is WRONG! but, as a people, we cannot seem to make a unanimous choice, our voices do not blend, we are selfish and self-centered....so that gives govt. more strength to start interfering in everything....what to do, what to do????
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (8:24 am)
This seems to be a theme that plays on your mind often.
I find it extraordinary that a man of god would spend his time worrying, and trying to get other people to worry, about a couple of blokes quietly expressing their commitment to one another, when the world is in such dire straits with regards to human rights and injustice.
Are there not more important issues and battles to be fought and won, whether in the name of god, or the name of humanity?
How about the fact that children in the Sudan are so poor and desperate they are being forced to turn to prostitution. That there are still 11,000 child soldiers fighting in the DRC. That America doesn't see fit to provide her poorest and most vulnerable citizens with a healthcare service.. or that the US Congress effectively approves of human rights abuses and torture committed by America in this "war on terror"?
I find myself wondering if god is looking down, and is actively pushing his army of spokesmen and followers to spend time and energy getting uppity about gay marriage. If he is, he is a callous god who needs to get his priorities in order.
If he is not.. he must be shaking his head, and trying desperately to work out why, with all the appalling pain and injustice in the world, his people feel the need to fight such unnecessary battles in his name. Battles which, putting to one side the "rights" and "wrongs" of gay marriage, are just so far down the list of human issues in need of urgent action as to be literally insane.
However you react to this note, whether you find and quote the pertinent passages of the bible, or claim to simply be defending the democratic process, these kinds of notions do a great deal of damage to the cause of religion, and to that of humanity.
This doesn't make me angry, it merely saddens and distresses me.. and I know I'm not alone in such feelings.
ams
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (8:39 am)
Reply to: thejongleur
I'm wondering exactly when it became American government's responsibility solve all the world's problems, or to provide "the poor and underprivileged" with healthcare. Hell, half the driver's in my state are on the roads (illegally) without car insurance. Should Uncle Sam step in a buy that for them, too? Why don't we just give our lives and income over to our Imperial Federal Government and allow them do everything for us? That way, no one would ever suffer from lack of anything. We can just let the government run our lives for us. You know what, I can't afford to pay my income taxes, I think I need help from the Government. And my house note is a bit expensive. I could lose my home and then my children wouldn't have anywhere to sleep. Can I get help with that, too? Groceries are getting kind of steep and I believe will go through the roof if we raise the minimum wage 7.50 an hour as the President has proposed. I think the Government out to provide me with food, too. What else should my Government provide to me?
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (8:45 am)
Pastor Dave: It's just the liberal philosphy. If you can't get your way, turn to the judicial system to legislate from the bench. If it appears the people are against you, then get a judge to stop them. And now they run Congress, too! Bonus!
I think the issue of gay marriage should be up to the individual states. I don't think it's Uncle Sam's responsibility to regulate marriage one way or the other. IDEALLY, I don't even thing states should have a say over marriage (why do we have to get a license in order to get married?), Traditionally it was a union recognized by the church, and I think that's where the final say so should come from. The only thing the government should be concerned with regarding marriage is if you're going to file married or single. In that regard, I don't care if two guys get "hitched" if it means they pay less in taxes. The less in taxes we have to pay, the less power given to the government, the better off we'll be.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (8:45 am)
file on your tax return, I should say.
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (8:56 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
It doesn't surprise me, but you've missed the point of my comment. Whether it was deliberate or otherwise, I won't be engaging in a debate about "Uncle Sam". I was clearly expressing a view about the priorities of humankind, as opposed to the great white whale of America.
Cheers,
ams
posted by:
thejongleur (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (9:07 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
It doesn't surprise me, but you've missed the point of my comment. Whether it was deliberate or otherwise, I won't be engaging in a debate about "Uncle Sam". I was clearly expressing a view about the priorities of humankind, as opposed to the great white whale of America.
Cheers,
ams
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (9:18 am)
Reply to: thejongleur
As I was posting this particular writing, I thought about the very point I think you are making. I don't want to be perceived as especially anti-gay. Of all the great issues of life, gay marriage isn't anywhere close to the top. As a pastor and Christian minister, I know there are many more compelling matters. Heaven and Hell. Love and Hate. World Hunger. AIDS. Etc. Etc. Etc. So when I write about this issue, I'm not wanting to say it is the most important or pressing issue. And it is not something I have prioritized in my life. I've lots of interests, even in addition to overt religion and spirituality, and this is something I've simply chosen to write about for the moment. And it seems lots of people who are pro-gay are particularly sensitive to any kind of opposition. I've encountered it in blogging. Some seem to think just because I write in opposition to their political or social point of view that I somehow hate them, and therefore deserve all kinds of hateful venom. They fail to recognize, and maybe it is because I do not portray it adequately, that I could like them as a person and even be a good friend if given the opportunity. So I've thought that maybe I should just leave controversial social/political issues alone, and thus try to make as many friends as possible. But another part of me says we are adults here, and should be able to debate these matters with integrity and respect. I want it- that's the best kind of conversation- and it should dominate a forum like this.
One more thing. My intent with this particular writing is to focus upon the need for open and transparent political process, something that seems to me to be lacking with the liberals in Massachusetts. Foremost it's not about gay marriage. If they were taking the same tact with anything else, I'd consider it to be just as worthy of lambasting.
Thanks for you thoughtful comments. I intend to write about stem-cell research in a few days, and would like your insights.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (9:22 am)
Reply to: mimi
I think the best choice, for all, is limited government. Provide for common defense, an infrastructure, and a safety net for the most vulnerable- and then stay out of my life. If George wants of wed Jack- fine. Find a church who will provide the ceremony. Live together. Share your assets. Just don't demand that the rest of society approve your lifestyle. You have the right to protection from the government, but not sanctioning.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (9:27 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
It would be most proper to leave it up to the states, except for the imposition of the imperial judiciary. When the government of Mass. insists that the will of the judges trumps the will of the people, then what do we do? I'm thinking, with this issue, we need a federal marriage amendment.
Interesting thought you have, that we do away with the government-sanctioned marriage license. Let the concept of "marriage" strictly be a matter of private interpretation. Get the government out of the marrying business. I'll admit I have put little thought into it, but initially it sounds like a great idea.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (9:28 am)
Reply to: thejongleur
And it doesn't surprise me that you missed my point. What business is it of the government of the state of Massachusetts to be more concerned with "the priorities of humankind" instead of simply the priorties of the citizens of that state? What you fail to understand is that some "priorties" don't fall under the responsibility the US government, the government of the state of Massachusetts, or ANY other government. Government does a notoriously poor job of looking out for anyone's "priorities" but its own.
posted by:
juniperflux (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (3:11 pm)
First off, I should say that I am not here to start a fight with anyone. Frankly, I am bored and exhausted by all the fighting that seems to be going on at tBlog these days. While I fully admit that I have done my fair share of sparring with people on these pages, I find the current level of venom being spewed on just about all corners of tBlog to be a little unpalatable. Debate and discourse are good, indeed vital. But, using the anonymity of an online community as license to let loose the most immature and base aspects of our personalities, on the other hand, is both dangerous and toxic.
That said, to thejongleur’s list of world issues that deserve more attention than gay marriage, I’d like to add the situation in Burma.
I doubt anyone who reads this blog is aware (because it is not overly reported – especially in the US) that over the last several decades, Burma’s dictatorship has managed to sustain itself primarily through brutal and unconscionable human rights abuses of its own citizens. I wonder if anyone here knows that over 200,000 Burmese citizens have had to flee their country due to wide spread ethnic persecution, enslavement and murder. Additionally, over 300,000 people living in Burma were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 2005, making it Asia’s highest growing victim of the pandemic. Burmese men, women, and children (chiefly from the country's ethnic minority populations) are routinely trafficked to (primarily) Thailand and China for forced labor, involuntary domestic servitude, and sexual exploitation. Burmese children are found consistently in prostitution on the border of China. Even Condoleeza Rice recently called Burma an “outpost of tyranny” in the world. Oh, and to those of you that would chalk this off as just another example of “islamo-fascism” run amok, I think it is important to note that Burma is a nation made up almost entirely of Buddhists. Christians make up the second largest religious group.
And to the specifically American issues he listed I would like to make just a quick mention of the growing problem of homelessness here in the US.
Again, I imagine most people don’t realize that although a totally accurate number is impossible to pinpoint, the last census estimated the American homeless population to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.7 million. 39% of the homeless are children under the age of 18. And 42% of those are under the age of 5. Families with children comprise approximately 33% of the original total. 34% of the male homeless population is made-up of veterans and 22% of the total homeless population suffers from some form of mental illness. (By the way, don’t forget the last census was taken pre-hurricane Katrina).
Like thejongleur, I find it… well, sinful, that an issue like gay marriage has become the focus of so much debate and resources (both financial and otherwise) when there are so many other far more important problems that deserve our attention. Having said that, I read both this post (the one before it) and your response to thejongleur, PastorDave, and while I respect your desire for transparency in government, a cause I too believe in, the issue that inspired you to rally the battle cry for such transparency cannot be removed from the equation. I’m reminded, I’m afraid, of those Southerners who claimed that the American civil war was fought over “state’s rights”, as though that somehow negated the reality of the “right” that they just happened to be fighting for. Let’s face it, had the Supreme Court of Massachusetts’ decision supported a cause that you believe in, this post never would have been written.
As thejongleur pointed out, there’s a heavy price to be paid for focusing our attention on issues that, in the grand scheme of things simply don’t matter that much. As a nation, indeed as a world, we are headed down a dangerous path, defined by selfishness, being paved by those (like heavyarms) who are so worried about someone having more than they do that they’ve lost sight of the fact that as a species we have a responsibility to look out for and take care of one another. Everything else is just nonsense and like thejongleur I’m both saddened and distressed for us all. But mostly I’m disappointed in those who purport to be leaders, whether they be political, social or spiritual. It behooves all of us, but especially those of influence, to use their voices to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves or whose cries go unheard.
j
posted by:
ruined (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (5:41 pm)
It's controlled anarchy... and the politicians are the cardholders. I think it's time for a coupe.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (8:20 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
I very much appreciate your desire for civil discourse. I am willing for you to point out flaws in my logic and what you consider to be a better way to view an issue. It is possible to convince me to see things differently. Anger and personal attack and namecalling will not do so. So, I'll try in future discourse to "pracice what I preach" with my interactions.
2 things:
I had no idea of the sorry situation in Burma. I'm irritated that my news media, church, and government have failed to bring it to my attention. I guess life in Burma is considered politically expedient, and thus "cheap". I plan to reasearch a bit about the matter.
If the legal recognition of gay marriage is such a non-issue, a matter of such low priority when compared to many other great needs of our nation and world, then why don't those who are incessantly pressing for legalization just drop it? Surely their energies and passions could better be spent fighting homelessness and world hunger. I know the reason- it's quite important to them. It's a matter of personal dignity and perceived inalienable rights. And I submit that those who press for a legally recognized traditional definition of marriage have the same convictions. They truly feel they are trying to preserve a fundamental building block of society. Healthy families, healthy children- these are very important issues.
posted by:
Lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (9:13 pm)
Reply to: heavyarms
'I'm wondering exactly when it became American government's responsibility solve all the world's problems'
Mid 1940s - wwII, Vietnam, Chili, Panama, Iraq, Iran.
We have a long and sordid history (and there's nothing noble about any of it) of sticking our noses in the business of others. Whether we agree with it or not, it's what we've done and continue to do - it's what the leaders we elect continue to do. You asked when. There's your answer. If ever you find yourself in an unthinkable position, out on the street, possibly homeless, I hope you run into someone like TheJongleur or Juniperflux, instead of someone who only thinks of themselves.
Reply to: pastordave
'Pro-gay' makes about as much sense as 'Pro-abortion.' Try 'Pro-human' on for size. One size fits all. The idea that democrats are manipulating legislature to get the outcome they want is not new. And it's not confined to the democrat party, despite efforts to make it appear so. This is not about one party verses another, but about corruption in our political system, which runs rampant. If it was common knowledge that a vast majority were for same sex marriage, I wonder if you'd be so eager for a vote.
By the way, your 'annoy a liberal' banner is very strange. It's difficult to believe someone is for the good of all people with stuff like that hanging about. Oh, and if you feel like playing a fun little game with your comments.. count the number of times the word 'I' gets used in each comment.. it's quite illuminating (be sure to take into account the length of each comment too).
Reply to: TheJongleur
It's embarrassing that the idea of human rights gets slung around between democrats and republicans as a way to score points with the home team (and scorn the opposition), that helping others gets branded as 'liberal philosophy' and that ubiquitous selfishness has become acceptable, even common place. I'm pretty disheartened by what I see here as well.
Reply to: Juniperflux
Thank you.
I don't read this blog, but I'm glad I came along to read your thoughts on what I consider far more important than keeping people apart. :)
posted by:
TheRockSays (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (10:14 pm)
Actually, Dave, democracies do have various technical checks and balances to protect against the instability of the instantaneous will of the people. That is, if an ideaology enjoys 50% + 1 popularity for a very short time, it might still encounter resistance before being codified. This is an argument for why abortion on demand shouldn't have become a reality overnight.
However, if this is as you say, then it seems more like one group trying to prevent the popular expression of something they disagree with. Our unelected courts up here have been busy redefining marriage and family for quite some time now. It took much less time than I expected for judges to create innovations that are as outrageous as gay marriage was 10 short years ago. Just this week an Ontario judge ruled that a lesbian couple and a sperm donor are all parents of the same child. When gay marriage was becoming a reality here, I didn't take the argument too seriously that gay marriage could lead to all kinds of definitions of marriage. Looks like my thinking was too liberal.
posted by:
TheRockSays (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (10:34 pm)
Reply to:
Where does it say Dave can't be in favour of a vote if he expects his vote to be with the majority? That's the thing I don't get about some liberals: they deny your right to be for something if you are for it--if you are a conservative. Your comment has plenty of illumination itself.
BTW, Dave blogs for the same reason most of us do: so he *can* be for what he's for, and only suffers accusations of political incorrectness by anonymous posters.
posted by:
69whisper (
reply)
post date:
01.06.07 (7:53 am)
If this is the state in the United States, which claims to be the most democratic on the planet, you can well imagine what will be the state in third world countries.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.08.07 (6:33 am)
Reply to: Lindy
Most people would argue that your examples above, the US intervened because of possible direct effects on the US, thus OUR problem and not just problems of that particular country or region. It may sound callous that I believe the US should concentrate on its own problems before trying to fix the Sudan or Darfur, but we only spread ourselves so far.
As to your other comment. I've worked hard enough in my life that my family is comfortable. Should something happen where I would not be able to provide, the rest of my immediate family would be more than willing (and capable) to step in and help. I'll never need "the kindness of strangers" in that way, nor would I ever ask for it. In any event, I'd rather rely on charity from private individuals than "charity" that is seized from citizens and managed by our Imperial Federal Government.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.08.07 (6:53 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
"When the government of Mass. insists that the will of the judges trumps the will of the people, then what do we do?"
The answer is "Revolution." Not necessarily an armed Revolution. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Of course, the people of the state of Massachusetts will probably act like the rest of Americans, maintaining the status quo and remaining fat, dumb and happy because they're getting their way. This is symptomatic if our population. They turn to the government to get their way, turn to the judiciary when they don't, and never question if what they're asking of the government should even fall under its realm of responsibility.
It all started with FDR, right? ;-)
posted by:
kaschard (
reply)
post date:
01.08.07 (10:03 pm)
I think of it this way.
God doesn't call us to suppress all the bad that might be going on, but rather to add something beautiful. (The whole salt and light thing)
What would be accomplished with a ban on gay marriage besides further dividing a torn country. (There's something about loving your neighbors, and your "enemies")
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (8:53 am)
Reply to: Lindy
Sadly, it's true. Much of the business of government, these days, is blatant manipulation of the system for purely selfish purposes. What is good for the people is mostly an afterthought. So for Republicans, so for Democrats.
The banner is simply a tiny little thing, intended as a "wink" and not a hammer.
Now, as to my use of the word "I" and the length of my comments. I was thinking that, at it's core, blogging was about the exchange of conversation- sort of a cyber coffee shop where we can sit around and "shoot the bull". I try to be semi-thoughtful in doing so, so sometimes the comments are more than one-liners and insults, but actual engagement in conversation. If you and I were to sti down and share a cup of coffee, you'd find my conversation to be similar.
Now, you've brought up what you see as my excessive use of the word "I' a couple of times. I think it is an itent to enduce guilt, because you know at the core of the Christian faith is the understanding that Self must be submissive to Christ and love for others. And I do not think my use of "I" while blogging is an indication of an excessively self-centered person. I could easily, if such were deemed important, arrange my words in such a way as to totally exclude the word. But why? It's much simpler and more enjoyable, in this writing exercise, to just let the words flow and not worry too much about proper grammer and what some critic might try to seize upon.
"This blogger commonly called Dave" is glad you've at least made a stab at conversation. Who knows, maybe sometime we will be able to have a real talk.
posted by:
lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (12:00 pm)
Reply to: TheRockSays
Reply to: TheRockSays
Since I'm the only person who has commented without being logged on, I'm assuming that your comment was directed toward me. If it wasn't, my apologies in advance.
'Where does it say Dave can't be in favour of a vote if he expects his vote to be with the majority?'
I have no idea what you are talking about. No one has claimed that Dave isn't allowed to be in favor of a vote if he expects his vote to be a majority. If you'd like to clarify your comment, perhaps others too will be interested in what exactly you are trying to say.
'That's the thing I don't get about some liberals: they deny your right to be for something if you are for it--if you are a conservative.'
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are inferring that I am a liberal, kindly take your generalization and stick it back in your head and rattle it around some more until you are able to find supporting evidence of such a notion. You've managed to align my opinion with some political affiliation that I likely have nothing to do with. It also seems you are implying that those politically affiliated with a 'liberal' party take more heavily into account one's position in an opposing party as opposed to their actual objection to whatever the issue is, in order to register their disagreement. I hope you are kidding. It also seems you've made an assumption that I was annoyed with Dave's liberal banner' because I am one? Try seeing just a little bit further than your own nose and realize that I find this whole 'liberal' verses 'conservative' thing rather odd and I'd have left that same comment if he had a banner that poked fun at conservatives. Got it yet?
Admittedly, I've saved my favorite part of your comment for last.
'BTW, Dave blogs for the same reason most of us do: so he *can* be for what he's for, and only suffers accusations of political incorrectness by anonymous posters. '
Firstly, the idea of blogging with any kind of accountable identity is laughable. Stop and think about what you said. Just for a second. Blogging is anonymous. Duh. Secondly, the idea that Dave only suffers accusations of political incorrectness by anonymous bloggers is probably one of the funniest things I've read in a while. If your definition of 'anonymous bloggers' is someone who comments outside the tblog system, than you would, again, be incorrect. Dave suffers accusations from quite a few tbloggers (logged in), as do any others who open themselves up for debate in this particular forum. And lastly, 'rock'.. one other tiny little dent in your logic.. there ain't nothing anonymous about me if we're applying your definition of the concept. I've been a tblogger since June of 2004 and proudly wave my tblog high in the air for anyone who wants to spend a few minutes being bored (I advise against this of course). Dave knows who I am and where to find me and you, clearly, need to do a bit more homework before trying to lay into someone with a few half baked notions.
I hope this was illuminating enough for you.
Please give my regards to Ontario.
posted by:
lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (12:01 pm)
Reply to: heavyarms
Reply to: Heavyarms
'possible direct effects on the US'
I realize you haven't picked up this torch and taken off running, but.. it's a shaky excuse for killing people. The only reason I can think of for taking up arms is because someone wishing to do bodily harm to you and yours is within close proximity. So far, all I've seen in terms of justification to go to war (in all of them save the war of independence) is a long trail of money. The government, like any corporation, never does anything unless there is some kind of monetary gain in it for them.
As for your family being able to provide in case you can't.. it's a good thing, but there are never any gaurantees in this world. No matter how much you prepare, you never know when everything you and your family have will be taken away. That goes for all of us; it's just part of the human condition and the nature of this world. I'm sure there are people out there who never thought they'd have to depend on the kindness of strangers. I hope you are never one of them. I'd like to think that our empathy for the plight of others would lead us to be more giving in general. We are not unsocial, self-sufficient creatures. We lean on each other. The more personal the connection, the more willingness to help. It's exactly that that lack of connection that stands in our way in terms of helping folks more in need of us. Clearly, I'm not going to get you to change your mind in helping strangers out, but if you can consider the idea that what you send out in the world is what you get back, perhaps that will help you see that we're all in this together. I really don't have any other way of putting it without sounding like a total flake or tree hugger. :/
posted by:
lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (12:03 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
Congrats, you've managed to show restraint. It seems the comment manager function has improved, given that I commented from outside tblog and this comment landed in my account, oddly enough.
The use of 'I' and 'I'm' isn't at all about grammar or the intentional ommitance of the terms in order to appear less selfish. I point it out (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) because it's become clear that often, you lie at the heart of much of what you speak of - not sure you can see it and not trying to be offensive, merely stating an observation, as well as the reason why I tend to steer clear of you. Rushed judgements, defensive posture, an often elevated smugness/righteousness cloaked under Christianity, the occassional moment of awareness and a generally surface level crowd are what I've come to know of you, regardless of what you may be like over a cup of coffee in more favorable surroundings. You have prejudices that surface within your words that you may not be aware of.. I've seen tendencies to chauvinism, sometimes extremely subtle, but pretty clear and I've seen you 'say' the right thing that your actions don't always hold true. Keep in mind that we see the world through our own eyes, which means I *recognize* these things from within myself. Like always sees like. And it's often what irritates us most. I find it difficult to speak to people who don't own up to their faults or try to see them, which is why I've butted heads with several folks around here. People who prefer to keep it light don't weigh much. I have a sincerity-meter that seems to be in a constant state of alert around here. It didn't start malfunctioning when I noticed you for the first time. From what I can tell, you have sincere moments, but your motivation is suspect. Personal accountability is sorely needed and extremely lacking anymore. Guilt is not at the heart of my intentions as it does nothing to promote forward movement - more like self-awareness. All of what I've collectively witnessed, including your 'wink of a banner' create an anvil for folks who possess a modicum of intuition and/or awareness. Again, I'm not trying to be insulting, though I admit, I'm about as blunt as your anvil. That doesn't sit too well with some folks.
Please forgive the multiple comments, apparently my two cents generated a few more.
'Who knows, maybe sometime we will be able to have a real talk.'
Heh, that would be a bit of a stretch, Dave, but I begrudgingly admit it's not impossible. *smirk*
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (2:17 pm)
Reply to: TheRockSays
You write of the proverbial "slippery slope" of moral decadence. I think you make a valid point. It is necessary to draw the line, and maybe legal sanctioning of gay marriage is that place.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (2:25 pm)
Reply to: lindy
So, does this mean I'm invited to your Valentines Party?
posted by:
TheRockSays (
reply)
post date:
01.09.07 (4:16 pm)
Reply to: lindy
Something tells me you've guessed that I don't have nearly as much time on my hands as you do, and you're trying to overcome by word-volume. I guess I'll have to make the words I use count.
You questioned Dave's "eager"ness to be in favour of a vote that you assume would be against his preference. Since the answer is obviously that he wouldn't be so eager, you are clearly denying him the right to be in favour of what he favours.
Yes, I do think you are a liberal. I don't usually make such bold generalizations, unless the person I am addressing has given me license to do so, by making similar comments just as overly general.
The whole political incorrectness thing is part of the liberal philosophy. Political correctness is a liberal tool, and one that undermines the right to say something that has been said, rather than the intrinsic value of what has been said.
posted by:
lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.10.07 (6:28 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
Hahahaha, nice one. I'm a frayed knot. I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I refuse to participate in Valentine's day. :)
posted by:
lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.10.07 (6:54 am)
Reply to: TheRockSays
I'd stop listening to 'something' if I were you. I'm afraid they're lying to you. I haven't made any guesses in reference to you other than that you might be living in Ontario. You mistake me for someone who has bothered to pay attention to you beyond the ill-thought droppings you've left behind. Sorry. It may be that I have less 'time on my hands' but I type faster. ;) Brilliant. There's nothing to over come, but I seriously doubt you are about to have an epiphany that might reveal the assumptive manner in which you form your thoughts. I write the way I talk. Get over it. I'm not denying Dave the right to be in favor of anything he is in favor of.. which, by the way, makes so very little sense. My point is that he is quick to point out the stall tactics of his opposing party when it's a known fact that both parties (if not all) employ the exact same tactics. I find the American Democrat party just as disgusting and unworthy as I find the Republicans. Try to process that for a moment. I'm accusing Dave of jumping up and crying 'foul' because he feels he has a good chance of winning, not because his party plays fair. It's called being a hypocrite and it's on both sides of the spectrum. Whatever tangent you are aiming for is really out in left field, but feel free to continue using what little time you have on the topic. The only one discussing political correctness here is you, but since you are so comfortable making generalizations, I'll give you one as well.. based on the collective comments you've left around here, I've deduced that you're a bit light in the logic department. So does that make you a lamebrain, dodohead, an outright idiot, a conservative or a liberal.. I'm not sure which category to slot you into over this one, so feel free to come up with your own (out of the obvious and known choices when calling someone a tool, of course). Naturally, anything you dish out isn't going to scare me off, so feel free to take my ensuing silence as dismissal.
posted by:
Unmutual (
reply)
post date:
01.10.07 (7:32 am)
feel free to take my ensuing silence as dismissal.
BWA HA HA HA!!!
THEROCKSAYS GOT PWNED.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
01.10.07 (12:08 pm)
Reply to: lindy
I think you mistunderstand me. I am not against someone "depending on the kindness of strangers." I'm all for charity from private individuals and organizations. All I am against is the government coercing me to be charitable.
See if you can follow this trail. The government gives "handouts" (1 billion for AIDs relief in Africa, welfare, "subsidized" housing, etc.) That "handout" eventually boils down to money. Where does the government get its money? From taxpayers. If I don't pay my taxes, my private property can be seized, my wages can be garnished, I can even be imprisoned. Essentially, I am being forced to fight AIDs in Africa. I am being forced to support that single mother of 5 who won't or can't get a job to support her family. My money, my personal property, is being seized from me in order to subsidize housing for the "less fortunate."
I'm against seizure of my property in order for it to be redistributed to others who did nothing to earn it. I'm NOT against members of our society "leaning" on others for support. I AM in favor of preventing my government from forcing me at the point of a gun to stand there as someone leans on me.
And that is WAAAAAY OT from PastorDave's original post. Sorry!
posted by:
MrAnonymousWuss (
reply)
post date:
01.10.07 (3:42 pm)
Reply to:
LINDY GOT ANOTHER ANONYMOUS ACCOUNT
You know, one doesn't need to have too much time on his hands (or imagination) to create another account, and pretend to be another poster. See? Even someone with a job, like me, has plenty of time for that.
It takes even less time to get some lackey to shill for you (and even less imaginination)
posted by:
Unmutual (
reply)
post date:
01.11.07 (6:03 am)
Reply to: TheRockSays
Funny. I click on (reply) after MrAnonymousWuss and look up popped up at the top of my message! What right do you claim to police tBlog again? I think I missed that memo.
posted by:
TheRockSays (
reply)
post date:
01.11.07 (6:33 pm)
Reply to:
Policing? I never said anything about policing. I'm just calling attention to a shill pretending to be a more popular position than she really is.
posted by:
lindy (
reply)
post date:
01.11.07 (7:09 pm)
Reply to: Heavyarms
Ah, I see where you are coming from and agree with you in that respect. It's not about wishing to hoard one's wealth, but about having the choice regarding how one gives back, when, where, etc. And you are quite correct in that it sucks to have a government so far up our butts that we have little choice but to take it.. makes me wonder if the Unibomber was really all that crazy.. thank you for patiently sticking with it..
and yes, we are hopelessly off topic, though not off target. (Dave, thanks for the forum.)
