I was going to post something on how Carmack must have been talking about a simply console (as in text console) game like NetHack. But your comment really gave me pause.
NetHack is a game you can almost pick up and play, as is BattleField 1942. By almost I mean that you can move around and shoot, but annoying things like reloading, people killing you can get in the way of having fun.
NetHack has a really large spike in the learning curve between the first few levels, and surviving past 10 levels. 95% of my games didn't last past the first 6 levels (probably has something to do with playing a tourist all the time).
Quake, Doom, BF1942 have simular spikes, right between getting the controls down and getting a somewhat survivable strategy down.
Contrast that with Tetris, which you can master, and do pretty good at until the pieces come raining out of the sky faster than you can think. Its probably the secret to its addiction.
But back to NetHack, I remember pouring through spoiler docs, guides and howto's only to keep getting killed in that most rooted game. In fact reading the manuals can be half (if not 90% in cases like WarHammer) the fun.
some have been transfered to other countries so that they could be tortured.
Wrong, Look at where they went to. Very Muslim sympathetic countries. The only evidence that they were put there to be tortured are brought about by anonymous hearsay. Sorry bub.
Also, I don't know if you caught yourself doing a grossly missrepresentational spin job...
"[A]ll swarthy people should be locked up," has very little to do (other than topically) with the quote you provided, "Passports can be... checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." She's talking about checking with foreign nations to verify identity, not locking people up for skin color. In fact thats soo gross a misrepresntation I begin to think that you have no sincerity for the truth at all. Your just hunting your great white elephant with lies and conjectures.
You said you didn't know who he was not me.
Wrong. And if I'm not wrong, go ahead and show me where I said it. The problem about lying is that you will get caught, especially when you try to lie about what another person says. And so far your not doing a very credible job at all.
You keep bringing up hitler as if that absolves the right wing of anything.
Wrong, I bring up Hitler to provide context for your mistaken call for revolution. Its too much like the rise to power rhetoric of Hitler, Mousselini, Pol-Pot and Charles Taylor that turned out to be the worst rulers evar. Its very unlike the rhetoric of Ghandi, MLK, the Founding Fathers, etc...
Why do you think I am the only person who thinks the US is turning into a police state?
Again, another complete misrepresentation. This is getting rather annoying. I *never* said you were the only one, nor have I "thunk" it.
I would rather be a hammer then a nail anyday. If my choices are to be locked up in some prison or imprison other people what do you think I'll do? Damned right I would choose to be the guard outside the chain link cage that gets to go home at night.
Way too much like Charles Taylor there. Way too hungry for opression. Its chilling that such misguided people like you are out there ready to be a hammer and imprison people.
I am simply using the exact same tools that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and David Horowitz uses.
Even the very same words most often. Now if that isn't cause for pause.
You don't mind it when they use it because they are attacking liberals which you also hate but you mind it when I use it.
I've never seen them near as paranoid or desire as much control over others lives as I've seen from you. Its not a matter of direction as scale. You go way over the top on all this, and have proven to be seldom right. And as it stands David Horowitz is rather benign. Ann and Rush maybe, but David doesn't have a malignant bone in his body.
This entire thread has been about shutting me up
No its been about trying to help someone who's going off the deep end. I've engaged in discussion, not censorship. I'm rather sad that you take such conversation as oppressive and feel the need to be oppressive yourself. You really should see some nice professional who can help you get back in touch dude. Really, for your own good.
There are American citizens locked up right now without a trial. For all practical purposes these people have "disappeared" like in south America.
References please. The two US citizens at Guantanamo Bay were released, and the Taliban have been granted POW status there. Nothing "above the law" or dissapearing there. The other "detainees" are a different story, they are not citizens and have in large measure been deported. Their charges have been listed, and they are immigration violations, every one of them. Are you an immigrant violating your conditions for stay? Yes then you can be worried about detention. Otherwise relax.
They are not after you, they are after me and people like me.
Hey look, if you can really demonstrate that these people want you locked up based on your skin color then I would. But my independant investigation on the matter leads me to conclude that you are simply paranoid my friend. Did Ann say "all swarthy people should be locked up?" Where? I've not found that quote, and anything bearing any resemblance to fact that you've said has not washed out. Even simple things like accusing me of saying I don't know who David Horowitz is.
To me your ever paranoid mind is really warping your sense of reality, and that is dangerous. Thats what produces self-justified monsters like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol-Pot, Charles Taylor, etc... That is their one common thread. You need a real break and re-evaluation before you turn into one of those monsters (if it hasn't happened already).
I still find it facinating however that you object to me but don't object to the hate speech flowing out of both Horowitz and Coulter on a daily basis.
Whats to be fascinated by. David doesn't seem very hateful at all from what I've read. Ann I've not read or listened too. The difference is that simple. Like I said I won't join in your crusade becuase I don't have faith in you, or your reasons. Its as simple as that. I've never joined whatever Ann's crusade might be, or David's (except in his thourough and very relevant deconstruction of Noam Chomsky). So really, I'm treating you both the same by acting in my own interests, not in the interests of destroying someone else.
Does [the right to free speach] include me?
No it doesn't. Just kidding. I don't see where anyones tried to stop you yet. Pointing out its dillusional paranoia and that your facts are wrong is not censorship, its discussion.
I am reading history and seeing how people like you acted in the past when faced with similar circumstances. It does not take much research to figure it all out. You may want to give it a try.
One of your problems is your condescending attitude. That if people dissagree with you, it must be because of ignorance. Its the only accusation that you've ever made to explain why I don't agree with you. It seems inconsevable to you that another rational, well versed intelligent person does not see the forming police state around you.
Your talking to someone who's devoted quite some energy studying Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto as well as early speaches of the National Socialist Party leader Adolf Hitler, and the Communist party leader Lenin. I'm rather well versed (for an outsider) in the revolutionaries called the Zapatistas, and the Columbian civil war. I've studied the formation of police states throughout history, and the reactions of civilians and other countries to war time situations.
So please, feel free to lay your evidence on the table. I *should* be the type of person you can get a sympathetic ear to having such a background, but instead you seem to bludgeon me with insults, calling me ignorant, or accusing me of having my head in the sand. Those make very poor persuasive tactics, and honestly the tactics of a Hitler rather than say a Ghandi or MLKjr.
And if theres one thing I've learned in my studies its that he who checks behind the door, checks becuase he hid there once before. Or in o
What you suggest is just preposterous. I won't join your obsession with Ann Coulter or David Horowitz. Everyone has the right to free speach. And your obviously way too paranoid.
You have my sympathies. I'm probably not the only one who thinks your great white elephant is more a beast you've created to give your life purpose than a real monster. To put it very specifically, I don't see why Ann Coulter or the conservatives want to put you in a concentration camp, unless your Al Queida that is.
Really, this is an irrational fear. First it was funny, now I'm kind of worried about your well being.
Or you could be apathetic and bury your head in the sand like you are.
My time is precious to me. Why waste it on such drivel again? Becuase you want people around you to join in your wierd love/hate obsession with Ann Coulter? Like I said, no thanks. I seem to be doing fine with more elevated news sources.
I am glad I am sounding like [Bush]. He killed lots of people and I want to make sure my enemies are afraid of me as Bush's enemies are of him.
Hmmm. For you its coming across cartoonish and not very intimidating at all. You could work on that. But I don't suggest you become that which you hate.
So you were lying when you said you never heard of David Horowitz. Interesting.
Did I? Go read it again... You'll see the humor now that you know what to look for.
Only If there was a liberal TV channel so that they could give me coverage like FOX gives Horowitz and his ilk.
I suggest NPR. Its liberal, and pleasent. Perhaps CNN? Liberal and even in your face about it. CBS, NBC and ABC all to different degrees are among the liberal media. But probably the most liberal, most seething commentators are the morning shock jocks on your local music radio like Howard Stern.
Also, I remember seeing Geraldo give an interview to "litteraly" the stereotypical turtle neck wearing anti-US high-brow professor. I find lots of liberal commentary on FOX.
Once again you are mistaking self defense with attack.
Many a serial killers have used the "I'm the victim" defense. Many a Hitler have used the "I'm a victim fighting back" offence. This is a rather unhealthy obsession of yours.
I don't watch cartoons.
Perhaps another hobby might help balance out your daily rigemorol of red-eyed Ann Coulter watching.
There is a war going on. You can bury your head in the sand about it, you can surrender or you can fight back. You don't watch FOX, CNBC or other republican news outlets but millions of people do. These people are fed a 24 hour stream of hate speech aimed at democrats.
I know. I'm either for you or against you. I either need to join your crusade or risk being called really unimportant names like "head-in-sand". For someone who dislikes the Bush pre-war rhetoric you know you are begining to sound a lot like him. Perhaps if your diet of news does that to you I should probably lay off.
These news outlets are the madrasas of the western world where imams like Ms Coulter teach their students to hate democrats. One day one of those students will blow up a building with three thousand people in it or maybe even worse.
Yep, a lot like Bush. Are you even serious? Perhaps I've taken you too seriously in all my taking you not-so-seriously. But its been fun enough. Besides, I'm in the middle of my daily Rush... Ann and Bill have nothing on ol' Maha Rushie. (j/k I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh either, but I find it funny you don't even mention him).
And besides, don't think I didn't notice that you used that "Imam" dirty word thingy. You stoll that directly from David Horowitz's favorite playbook agains that tired old ideologue, Noam Chomsky. Yep, here's the quote...
Chomsky is, in fact, the imam of this religious worldview on today's college campuses. His great service to the progressive faith is to deny the history of the last hundred years, which is the history of progressive atrocity and failure. In the 20th century, progressives in power killed one hundred million people in the attempt to realize their impossible dream. As far as Noam Chomsky is concerned, these catastrophes of the left never happened. "I don't much like the terms left and right," Chomsky writes in yet another ludicrous screed called The Common Good. "What's called the left includes Leninism [i.e., Communism], which I consider ultra-right in many respects. Leninism has nothing to do with the values of the left in fact, it's radically opposed to them."
You have to pinch yourself when reading sentences like that.
Good ol' David. 'MalContent', if that is your real name, you have a ironic propendancy to sound exactly like the people you don't like that keeps me laughing. So your either a truely competant "jokes on you all" troll (and for some reason I seem to get it) or you are a truely twisted individual blinded by hatred and seeking after your great white elephant to destroy. Its cartoonish and fun, but hey everythings got its limits, right? If it is the latter, you need a break my friend.
Maybe some cartoons would do you good. I highly recomend the Disney cartoon lineup of "Recess" a prison camp motif in a elementery school, "Fillmore" a hard boiled detective motif in a Middle School, and "Kim Possible" just becuase its pretty fun to watch. For people that like very sophisticated humor wrapped up in childhood metaphors, those are the best. And they will only take up your saturday mornings leaving you with plenty of time to seethe over your great white elephant.
Judging by the quality of news you watch (with Ann Coulter and all) that would be a good thing. However it would be a mistake to say I am not abreast of politics becuase I don't watch the 6 o'clock or cable news.
My single biggest news outlet is NPR, which I listen to during my commute and on saturdays (becuase the programming is so good then). I listen to Peter Sagel, Daniel Shore, David Broncaccio, and probably the best of them all Garrison Keillor. Probably the biggest after that is http://news.google.com where I can evaluate a number of news sources immediately.
Other good sources are the Economist, Jerusalem Post, La Monde (from what French I can translate). So all in all, I still think you have an untennible (as in how can I take you seriously) position here berating the news outlets that you do, while complaining when people do not pay attention to them.
You don't see it but you are caught up in the "cola wars" of politics. So much energy, so little importance.
It's obvious that you are not up on issues. You are thoroughly unfamiliar with politics. You don't read the newspapers, you don't watch the news on TV, you don't watch news channels on cable. You are ignorant and seeming proud of that fact.
Just because I *don't* pay attention to Ann Coulter? I thought you said she was just a liberal hater and didn't say anything worth while. Oh well.
As far as politics I happen to be a volunteer and very active in real politics. When I was Libertarian I almost ran for a position (maybe will again soon). Participation is the best way to look behind the scenes at what is going on, not engaging in some trumped up for the masses cola war between Lib-psi and Conserva-Cola.
No I am not killing you. The US army killed lots of people in Iraq. Those people are dead. You are alive and well and writing on slashdot. Bush lied.
You do have issues my friend.
Ever read a newspaper? Ever read a news magazine? Are you totally oblivious anything she says? You have never read any of her commentaries in a newspaper, or on the web. Have you ever seen her on TV? Not even on one show?
Nope, haven't seen her around. Is there any reason I would want to see her? You really make her out to be larger than life. She better be cute if you really want me to see her this bad.
but how about David Horowitz[?]
The host of Fight Back!? He's right up there with Ralph Nader as my favorite anti-corporate watchdog.
Sean Hannidy[?]
Never heard of it.
Bill O'Reilly?
Yeah, the No Spin Zone! I watched it once. I thought it was pretty cool that you got to read what he was saying while he was saying it. I didn't see any horns or pitchforks. Probably would have been as entertaining as Andy Rooney if I watched much longer.
Just exactly how far do you have your head buried in the sand anyway?
Okay, 15 yard penalty and loss of down. Absolutely no useless accusations allowed.
If you think I'm not taking you seriously, ask your self what you are saying that I should take seriously. I'm feeling like you'd rather bludgeon me with insults to achieve your goals than produce any persuation whatsoever. Its as if my greatest sin was not agreeing with you, and should be punished... Not that I'm part of your sworn enemies because I don't think I am. Its just that I didn't know the signs and follow the queues to join in your hatred. I missed the point where I was supposed to say "right on brutha" or something.
What do you hope to achieve, and why should I take you seriously? Your charectarizations are cartoonish. Your commentary about as fast paced as a Bob Hope monologue. Your proponderances seem as rooted in reality as Bugs Bunny. How can I take this seriously?
Pointing out that Ann Coulter calls democrats traitors is hatred but Ann Coulter actually calling democrats traitors is not hatred. Am I getting correctly so far?
Not remotely. The first is correct, I read your statement and its hatred. The second statement is about a book I haven't read. Can't comment. Sorry. If you have a point, I can't tell becuase your not even trying to persuade any more. All I see now is ranting. An most of it about Ann Coulter who has nothing to do with the recall. This sounds more like you talking your pet peeves then actually discussing.
And all elements of politics in America today. Lies? Check. Media control? Well, the media pushes the status quo, that's for sure. Public officials getting great gain out of it? Are you kidding me? Check.
Being a volunteer in politics myself (not paid, not endorsed, but actively participating) I find this view overly jaded and (again) seething with hatred.
This is not a legitimate revolt. If this is legitimate, let's also recall Bush.
I hate talking US politics with people that have no knowledge or regard for the constitution. The State of California has a provision for a recall, it was brought about legitimately (no court has found error in it yet even). However the US constitution has no populace "recall" provision --it can only be accomplished through the Congress.
Becuase you do not agree with the reasons I want a recall does not give you any liscence to call them illegitimate. Even if they were becuase I think he has an ugly face. It may be a bad reason, but a legitimate reason being that enough people signed the petition, and 58% of the people (including a *large* number of democrats) sounds legitimate to me.
People are easily led.
Such a low view of the populace also. Are you a Democrat? I know you don't have to tell me but now I'm dying of curiosity.
For me, what Davis did, as corrupt and bad as it was, is not much different than what most politicians do.
Again, that is pretty jaded. There is some need for some underhanded things, and politics does do some of that as business as usual. But theres no reason the people can't (are aren't) stand(ing) up to say "I'm mad and I'm not going to take it any more".
but I am sorry to see constitutional order being set aside for personal gain
Actually the provision for recall is in the state constitution. The Federal constitution has no mention of states even needing govenors, let alone how they should be elected or whatnot.
FamilyFacts people are a bunch of f....ng bigots. And you should be ashamed of linking to them.
Now do you really expect such verbal abuse to persuade me? Should I really feel ashamed for my views? Are you just trying to make me feel bad or something?
Come on, theres been enough informed debate here that you don't need to resort to name calling and mockery.
In recent years, it has become difficult to have serious discussions of the facts about homosexuality. Because of the intense politics associated with homosexual issues, people are afraid to suggest that there are serious and intelligent reasons for not wishing to condone that lifestyle. This page is Jeff Lindsay's personal attempt to break the silence and offer alternatives to the politically correct deceptions of our day.
Response of a former homosexual to this page:
As a former homosexual sex addict, I found your pages, "Homosexuality: Seeing Past the Propaganda," refreshingly insightful and consistent with what so many of us who have left homosexuality -- disillusioned and disgusted with the reality of so-called 'gay life' -- have experienced.
-- Ben Newman, PeopleCanChange.com
(Received April 8, 2001)
It's time to see past the propaganda - not to evoke hate or intolerance, but to foster reason and knowledge. When it comes to homosexuality, I fully agree that "ignorance = death." Unfortunately, deadly ignorance is being pushed by our schools, by the media, and the many politically correct organs that guide modern thought. So let's start the fight against ignorance right now!
I urge all people to be genuinely kind and loving toward each other, regardless of lifestyle, appearance, orientation, religion, race, etc. Real kindness does not require that we approve and celebrate harmful behavior. We can and must love those with whom we disagree, while still holding to truths that others may not accept. We should be civil and even cautious in how and where we express our opinions.
A note on the issue of hate: I am absolutely opposed to hate. Sadly, I find myself accused of hate for stating my view that homosexuality is harmful or that it can be cured. Please, there is a difference between disagreeing and hating! Many activists choose to ignore the distinction. Debate and honest discussion have been shut down by name calling and the tactics of intimidation. That is wrong, but it's inherent to "political correctness." For example, one well educated man contacted me and accused me of hate. I asked for an explanation and asked if explaining the harms of a behavior was tantamount to hate. His response:
"Yes, it is hate to say that being gay is harmful and can be treated. Because of people like you, too many people who are gay get the message that they are dirty and that being gay is wrong. Get a life!"
If I tell a smoking friend that I think smoking is harmful and curable, it's not necessarily hate. In fact, it can be an expression of concern and even love for that person. Civil disagreement and rational debate are not sins. Of course, many people assume that their homosexual behavior is unavoidably tied to a inherent orientation that they cannot change, that even may be purely genetic. If their behavior could not be changed, then criticizing that behavior might be futile and unkind. But humans are not animals - we can change and control our behavior. People have a choice about their sexual activities, in spite of the desires and temptations they face. Solid evidence shows that some homosexual activities are harmful, and solid evidence shows that change is possible. My message is intended to be one of hope as well of warning, with absolutely no hate. It will offend nonetheless, but I would ask the offended parties to deal with this intellectually rather than turn to name-calling and angry replies.
I know wonderful people in the homosexual community - kind
I DO think the reason for opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. And you, my friend, are a bigot, because you wish to deny your fellow man (and woman) privileges offered by the state purely on the basis of sexual orientation, and not on the basis of merit.
Ha, simply diffused. If someone considers themselves homosexual I don't care if they get married or not. I would not deny marriage to them. I am not a bigot.
But what does not make sence is allowing anyone to call whatever companionship they want, a marriage.
When Adam and Steve are crying in the corner that they don't get their way, or that its not fair they don't get anything they want I'm not inclined to listen to them. Becuase the world doesn't cater to them doesn't mean its not fair.
But let Adam and Steve tell me why a homosexual union is a marriage, and then I'll move heaven and earth to make sure they get their due. So you tell me what are the merits of a homosexual union that command the title "marriage". If its based on merits, then I'm sure that you can come up with them. Now merits of the people involved are not in question, a marriage is not a person. Its a union. What are the merits of homosexual unions that demand it to be called a marriage?
Unless of course the real reason you want to deny them these basic rights is that you just think it's wrong to be gay, and they should be punished somehow.
Nonsense, what utter and complete tom foolery. Calling whatever you want a marriage is not a basic right. As is mentioned previously, recognizing the unique abilities of heterosexual unions with the word "marriage" is not even considered a violation of civil rights by the UN, EU, US or any governing body.
The reasons other consenting adults get married are, to put it most delicately, none of your f....ng business. That's why they're called "adults" - they (we) get to make their OWN choices. Leave them alone!
For the most emphatic of the people trying to alter the definition of marriage comes a attitude of real entitlement, in the very purest sense of becuase I said so, becuase I'm an adult and an free to do what I want. Neither of those are good reasons at all.
No, your trying to avoid what is a legitimate revolt in the state of California by ascribing an alternate novella off as an explanation. A novella of propeganda lies and media control, and evil public officials getting great gain out of it. All elements of every spellbinding book on intrigue and conspiracy.
For myself, to dismiss all the discontent people in California really feel towards Davis (58% support the recall at this point) as a product of marketing is rather disengenious, wouldn't you think?
As for having a discussion about the right wing, if you don't see the damage they are doing a discussion won't do much good.
I've often likened this to a church. If you don't already believe in God then listening to a sermon on why he/she created trees is meaningless. Most useless rhetoric is the same way. If you don't already believe that republicans or democrats, liberals or conservatives are already evil then there isn't much use in trying to tell me how their evil natures are causing what I see in the world around me.
There is no doubt that the most vocal advocates of the republican party are all zealots. I don't know why you thought I was conveying some kind of "seething hatred" though.
I did a double take there. I'll enumerate them very specifically so that if you wish to avoid such a malady in the future you will be able to...
1) "Becuase he is a zealot!" This is a simplification of a very complex political issue. The complaints against Davis are legion for republicans and Democrats. There is no reason to believe (especially from your comments) that Issa is a zealot, or that it is required to be a zealot to "win big time" as you described. Since its purpose is not to explain the situation, its a natural conclusion that it was meant for perhaps your own zealous purposes.
2) "What does Ann Coulter benefit by saying democrats are traitors?" As you hopefully saw in #1, name calling is not benefiting anyone. But I'll add that name calling is entirely orthoganal to the situation of the recall. Since I haven't read her book "Treason" I cannot comment on its purpose or benefits she gains from it. But in both of these charectarisations I see a sense of "oh, the elephant smacks the donkey" cartoonish relevance. No real meat in the issues, just a partisen poke and jab contest. "As a man thinketh, so is he." And you my friend seem to have this notion of petty political grandstanding on the brain.
3) (to sum up, democrats lose and are picked on). As I said before I'm a non-partisen. I don't care if Democrats win or lose. I'm considering voting for Bustamante, and the Green candidate. Seriously considering them in fact. Why you assume that Issa or anyone else involved in this only gains political ground on this is rather margionalizing of the job I expect elected officials to be doing.
I went back and added bold typeface around "only" becuase it is an important word here. I acknolweged that there is some gain in the area, but was careful not to say it was "the" gain. And its the only gain you seem to be seeing, while to so many others just getting a loser out of office (Gray Davis) hopefully will bring about a better California for Issa and myself. It couldn't get any worse at least. But this is just an extention of #2, where you seem to only see or care about the partisen jabbing going on.
And as I said before, just aligning with what people want *is* what I expect an elected official to do, and the people do reward such officials plentifully when they do.
* * * *
So between straw-man like mischarectarisations, the weilding of partisen rhetoric, and crying foul (or even hurt?) for rhetoric used against something you identify with yourself just seems to scream to me that you have issues my friend. Issues of hatred toward a group of individuals that have a different ideology than yourself.
Also, that your sig is a personal attack against the Bush administration seems pretty much like trying to get back at them for going to war without your consent. Its that seething hatred I'm talking about.
Do conservatives have it towards liberals? Sure. I'd probably (having not read the book) say Ann Coulter needs to cool off for a bit also. The only reason you may feel singled out is that big "come at me conservatives" chip on your shoulder.
I guess the only point I could add is that homosexuals would also like to be able to start families, although admittedly they need to adopt or have some outside influence to do so (although apparently men are redundant now since they can fertilize an egg with a woman's DNA - I'm too lazy to look up the/. article though).
I've looked in Google for the reference you mention and couldn't find it. As far as I know there is no way to produce chilren in a homosexual union without donation of genetic material from a third party.
But other than that, I agree with you. For a number homosexual couples I've talked to, it is about them wanting to have a family and get married.
I acknowledge that there would be a social element to homosexual marriage as you described here,
It certainly won't be easy for gays even if they get this benefit though law, since it will take society a long time to adjust to kids with two dads or moms. But considering how many one parent families we have, I'd hope we can get over it, since two parents (no matter what sex they are) have to be better than just one. Plus it is not nice to see the kid suffer b/c of prejudice against his/her parents (some would argue that this is why gays shouldn't adopt or have families, at least not yet).
I'll add that if that were the main road-block then it should be torn down. I do not personally like such prejudices, and find it simular to the inter-racial marriage prejudices that I've seen.
But I don't find that to being a road block in my considerations however. A family institution is very interesting to look at from a government perspective. A father and mother have immediate guardianship of their children, and only through public intervention and means do those children recieve another guardian.
As a guardian, I am more responsible in disciplining my child than the state is. Except in cases labeled as abuse by the state, I am given charge and responsibility for the actions of my children and am expected to do the correcting as I see fit. That is a recognition not given to bosses over their corporations, states over their citizens (when dealing with other states) or religions over their members. A very unique trust and autonomy is granted to parents becuase a family is considered its own autonomous unit of sorts.
Then looking at families from a mother nature point of view. One would might predict that evolution would benefit from a single gender. After all, the requirement of two genders can sometimes prohibit propegation of the species. And while asexual reproduction would not produce DNA diversity, a bi-sexual person would have more advantages to produce than how we have it now.
But for some reason, nature has prohibited such arrangements. How did evolution produce the requirement, the absolute necessity of two sexes for propegation to occur? I do not mention this to say that "its natures fault live with it", but more to ask how much we really understand about the natural state of marriage that we feel inclined to change it?
As I've pointed out before, Homosexuals can and do get married, just not to people of their same gender. But that statement is a misnomer, in that homosexuality is not a condition or even an identity. "Is it wrong to require heterosexual unions to be marriages" to me is the same question of asking mother nature "Is it wrong to require heterosexual unions for reproduction". Can we really forward a reason why it would be wrong with what we understand about nature and the natural state that marraige is?
But you did ask that also...
So is it a progressive society to change our ways, or are we going against 1000s of years of tradition and possibly nature itself? Compromise with legal definitions or change all of society? It seems in the end that no matter what the law says it will be a matter of personal opinion anyhow, so as long as the law treats everyone fairly and justly
Not too different from what I said. Of course as a Non-Partisen I didn't convey the seething hatred or straw-man style charechtarisation of "the other party" you seem to have found necessary.
We got the petition on the internet, which was then legally passed around that house. No one was paid in that exchange.
Then what happened?
We sent it to the address taken off the website, not Issa's address but the headquarters for the "Recall Gray Davis" campaign. I know no Issa money was involved becuase, well he hadn't donated any money at that point. It was at that time staffed by volunteers (and continued to be staffed in part by volunteers even after Issa donated money).
Somebody verified they were legit.
The State secretaries offices in many counties did that without Issa donations. It is part of their duly designated job to just what they did.
Somebody got paid.
As they should have. Refer to the other person who more explicitely claimed that I was pretending no money was involved for a proper responce.
Thanks for playing, you can recieve a prize at the door.
That is a very honest response, I appreciate it and agree with it. Homosexuals are looking (IMHO) to legitimize their relationships by calling them the same name thats stood as a respectable institution for ages. And DP's directly avoid providing that. It would appear to be almost a torpedo directed straight at Homosexuals to provide.
That plays on my theory that the "least resistance" force of politics is the one being played here. "Least Resistance Politics" to me is where you tend to go where you feel the least resistance to your policies would be. One one side you have a very sad and offended people in homosexuals that homosexual unions are not marriages. On the other hand you have a heterosexual community with a firm view of what a marriage is. It just seems like the path of least resistance to just let the very hurt and offended people get solace in some sort of inclusive comprimise. After all, both sides still get "marriage", so it should just be happy for everyone around.
Of course DP's are a comprimise, but it still offends the homosexual community. It could be taken as a lesser thing. It is seen as a "rights" issue, that their civil rights are being violated with the differences.
Allow me to quote the following also from the FamilyFacts.CA FAQ on the matter...
MYTH #5
Equality provisions of international law and human rights codes require the state to allow homosexuals to marry.
REALITY
Documents from the United Nations and other international bodies assert the heterosexual nature of marriage:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the foundational human rights document at the United Nations and around the world. While the Universal Declaration makes no mention of rights based on sexual orientation, Article 16 does state:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." [9]
Other United Nations documents also describe and affirm the opposite-sex definition of marriage:
"The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized." (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 23-2)
"Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses, and husband and wife should be equal partners." (Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), 31)
"Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses, and husband and wife should be equal partners." (International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo), Chapter II, Principle 9)
"equal sharing of responsibilities for the family by men and women, and a harmonious partnership between them are critical to their well-being and that of their families as well as the consolidation of democracy;" (Fourth World Conference on Women-Beijing, Declaration, 15)
Other International Documents
In addition to the United Nations, other international bodies have clearly indicated that an opposite-sex definition of marriage provides for full realization of human rights. Courts in other countries have reached the same conclusion. [10]
In 1998, the European Court of Justice ruled that recognizing same-sex partners as different from opposite-sex common-law partners was in full compliance with the European Community Treaty (Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd., C-249). This issue has not come before the European Court of Human Rights, however, the European Court of Justice noted that the European Commission for Human Rights considers different treatment of same-sex couples to be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights:
[I]n the present state of the law within the Community, stable relationships between two persons of the same sex
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply the reason for opposition to gay marriage is bigotry.
You know what? Thanks, I appreciate you saying that.
What is "the natural state of affairs"? Both the original poster and you cite this as a justification for the state of marriage, yet presumably homosexuality came about by some natural process as well.
That one is easily cleared up. Homosexuality could be said to be a natural state. Heterosexuality could be considered a natural state. But Heterosexuality has the natural endowments that make marriage a natural state in it. In other words marriage is natural to Heterosexuals becuase if its capacity for producing families from the very union between the man and woman.
Note I say "capacity" not "requirement". Thats important to note because (to use a flawed comparison) simular recognition by the goverment of the capacity of a gun to kill or save a life is not mandated by the requirement to do so.
What makes the historical institution of marriage a unique determinant of social health and future prosperity?
The afore mentioned capacity to produce offspring is that determinant. Children born to families, strong families with a woman and a man, are far more likely to become beneficiaries of the society rather than detrimants (criminals, etc...) Having children is the number one thing you, I and a vast majority will do to impact the future. Wheter you raise the child well or not (and a marriage helps that immensely) has a major impact on social health and prosperity.
This has the potential to be a feedback loop
Socially we call those "inter-relationships" or at least a good sign of a inter-relationship. And its that inter-relationship that makes marriage so important as an institution to recognize properly. And they can behave like feedback loops going wildly from one end to the other feeding off itself.
Banning homosexual marriage won't get rid of bad reasons to get married.
Correct, but that is a false converse of what I am saying, which is that removing from the definition of marriage the uniqueness it has in order to extend "marriage" to homosexuals will in fact be an indorsement of the "bad" reasons to get married, and a total margionalizing or ingoring of the good reasons to get married.
So you're saying people don't vote for who they see on TV. They really look at the candidates, read the issues and make an intelligent decision at the polls?
Wow, I didn't know I said that.
I'm not saying its wrong or right, I just don't know where I could have said that.
Marriage is two distinct things right now though - what the church perceives and what the law perceives.
I don't see it as that way. In Canada the law may disagree with what the Catholic church sees as the definition of marriage, but in the US popular reforendums have passed the definition of a man woman relationship in 37 US states. Its under the name "DOMA" (Defence of Marriage Act) and its being enacted in countries all over the world as we speak.
Also, I think you are rather unfair in considering this a religion vs state issue. Some do consider it that, but it is not entirely so. Many see that marriage as a man-woman relationship transends any particular religion or state. Its a natural condition that exists as universally as any human condition and institution. Whether "nature" or "God" set it up is rather mute in the evidence of the definitions integrity throughout the history of mankind with its varied religions and societies.
Legalizing gay marriage does not force churches to do gay marriages if they do not want to. What it does do is give gays fair rights under law, mostly with regards to taxation laws.
Theres two things here. One, gay marriage is being forced on Churches in Canada now. From the FAQ at FamilyFacts.CA,
MYTH #4
If the definition of marriage is opened to include same-sex couples, religious leaders-pastors, priests, rabbis-will not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages.
REALITY
There are already examples of Christians being forced to violate their beliefs to accommodate the gay rights movement:
One example is the case of printer Scott Brockie in which he was punished for refusing to carry out a print job for the Gay and Lesbian Archives. Also, the Marc Hall case in which a Catholic school was forced to allow a teen student to bring his older male companion as his prom date. It would be naive to think that the recognition of same-sex unions as equal to heterosexual marriage would not increase the likelihood that such violations of religious freedoms would occur.
The sanctioning of same-sex marriage will most predictably be enforced by human rights tribunals. The potential implications for Christians are broad and far-reaching:
> Churches that do not allow gay marriages could be punished. For instance, they could lose their charitable status
> The ability to grant marriage licences could be conferred only upon churches and ministers who promote an inclusive new definition of marriage
> Charitable organizations (such as Focus on the Family) who support the definition of marriage could be penalized for discriminatory language, and lose their charitable status
> School curriculum could not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual unions in marriage
> Parents teaching their children that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, would face marginalization and possible public reprisal
The second problem is that this ignores the efforts of the ACLU, Howard Dean and others to create a domestic partnership to provide for simular tax benefits (as far as homosexual relationships are simular to heterosexual relationships). No one has ever yet answered the question of what Marriage is more than a Domestic Partnership, that Homosexuals require it. No one has ever answered the question of what marriage is to homosexuals that they feel they have an inherent right to re-define it.
Homosexual community claims (among other things) to the logical extention of the civil rights movement of the 60's. If so, they should be able to do what the Civil Rights leaders did. Namely show their own inherent entitlement to the rights that whites had denied them. In the end, racial prejudice was shown to be baseless becuase of those arguements. But I have yet to see the homosexual community able to show how they have marriage as their own natural state also. Most of the arguement requires a degredation of
Don't try to pretend money wasn't a factor, though.
I don't think I am saying it wasn't a factor. There is a rather important difference between "purchasing" and "facilitating" this election. If you wish to charge Issa with the high crime of "purchasing" the election then there is a great burden of proof you need to do.
1) Explain how it was the will of Issa and not the will of the people. 2) Prove that the money went in exchange for signatures, as in to the signature givers rather than to legally paid signature gatherers. 3) Show how Issa has benefited from this. Party issues aside, three million dollars is a lot to spend on something he found so unimportant as to decide not to run anyway.
So show that money facilitated the election is rather benign, and in no wise unfair. Money facilitates people running for office, charity work to third world nations and a host of other good causes. Probably petty political gain is why people then choose to say it was "purchased" rather than facilitated. To say I suggest that money has no role is entirely over-simplifying the issue.
I'd be interested in your opinion of just how Issa, who is no longer running, is benefiting from the recall effort. So much so that you accuse him of taking advantage of a downed Davis.
If you were to ask me the same question, I'd say his gain is as simple as this. To Californians (58% in the latest polls) who support the recall of Gray Davis, he is a seem as a benevolant beneficiary helping them out with money to achieve what they want. I know I don't care what Issa wants with the election, he's brought about an election that I want, and 58% of Californians want. He's now someone I respect a like more for helping me, and a majority of Californians get what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to post something on how Carmack must have been talking about a simply console (as in text console) game like NetHack. But your comment really gave me pause.
NetHack is a game you can almost pick up and play, as is BattleField 1942. By almost I mean that you can move around and shoot, but annoying things like reloading, people killing you can get in the way of having fun.
NetHack has a really large spike in the learning curve between the first few levels, and surviving past 10 levels. 95% of my games didn't last past the first 6 levels (probably has something to do with playing a tourist all the time).
Quake, Doom, BF1942 have simular spikes, right between getting the controls down and getting a somewhat survivable strategy down.
Contrast that with Tetris, which you can master, and do pretty good at until the pieces come raining out of the sky faster than you can think. Its probably the secret to its addiction.
But back to NetHack, I remember pouring through spoiler docs, guides and howto's only to keep getting killed in that most rooted game. In fact reading the manuals can be half (if not 90% in cases like WarHammer) the fun.
Oh you are entirely full of lies now...
... checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." She's talking about checking with foreign nations to verify identity, not locking people up for skin color. In fact thats soo gross a misrepresntation I begin to think that you have no sincerity for the truth at all. Your just hunting your great white elephant with lies and conjectures.
Fist of all nobody in Guantanamo bay is granted POW status.
Wrong.
some have been transfered to other countries so that they could be tortured.
Wrong, Look at where they went to. Very Muslim sympathetic countries. The only evidence that they were put there to be tortured are brought about by anonymous hearsay. Sorry bub.
Also, I don't know if you caught yourself doing a grossly missrepresentational spin job...
"[A]ll swarthy people should be locked up," has very little to do (other than topically) with the quote you provided, "Passports can be
You said you didn't know who he was not me.
Wrong. And if I'm not wrong, go ahead and show me where I said it. The problem about lying is that you will get caught, especially when you try to lie about what another person says. And so far your not doing a very credible job at all.
You keep bringing up hitler as if that absolves the right wing of anything.
Wrong, I bring up Hitler to provide context for your mistaken call for revolution. Its too much like the rise to power rhetoric of Hitler, Mousselini, Pol-Pot and Charles Taylor that turned out to be the worst rulers evar. Its very unlike the rhetoric of Ghandi, MLK, the Founding Fathers, etc...
Why do you think I am the only person who thinks the US is turning into a police state?
Again, another complete misrepresentation. This is getting rather annoying. I *never* said you were the only one, nor have I "thunk" it.
I would rather be a hammer then a nail anyday. If my choices are to be locked up in some prison or imprison other people what do you think I'll do? Damned right I would choose to be the guard outside the chain link cage that gets to go home at night.
Way too much like Charles Taylor there. Way too hungry for opression. Its chilling that such misguided people like you are out there ready to be a hammer and imprison people.
I am simply using the exact same tools that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and David Horowitz uses.
Even the very same words most often. Now if that isn't cause for pause.
You don't mind it when they use it because they are attacking liberals which you also hate but you mind it when I use it.
I've never seen them near as paranoid or desire as much control over others lives as I've seen from you. Its not a matter of direction as scale. You go way over the top on all this, and have proven to be seldom right. And as it stands David Horowitz is rather benign. Ann and Rush maybe, but David doesn't have a malignant bone in his body.
This entire thread has been about shutting me up
No its been about trying to help someone who's going off the deep end. I've engaged in discussion, not censorship. I'm rather sad that you take such conversation as oppressive and feel the need to be oppressive yourself. You really should see some nice professional who can help you get back in touch dude. Really, for your own good.
Why do you spell out your punctation questionmark
There are American citizens locked up right now without a trial. For all practical purposes these people have "disappeared" like in south America.
References please. The two US citizens at Guantanamo Bay were released, and the Taliban have been granted POW status there. Nothing "above the law" or dissapearing there. The other "detainees" are a different story, they are not citizens and have in large measure been deported. Their charges have been listed, and they are immigration violations, every one of them. Are you an immigrant violating your conditions for stay? Yes then you can be worried about detention. Otherwise relax.
They are not after you, they are after me and people like me.
Hey look, if you can really demonstrate that these people want you locked up based on your skin color then I would. But my independant investigation on the matter leads me to conclude that you are simply paranoid my friend. Did Ann say "all swarthy people should be locked up?" Where? I've not found that quote, and anything bearing any resemblance to fact that you've said has not washed out. Even simple things like accusing me of saying I don't know who David Horowitz is.
To me your ever paranoid mind is really warping your sense of reality, and that is dangerous. Thats what produces self-justified monsters like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol-Pot, Charles Taylor, etc... That is their one common thread. You need a real break and re-evaluation before you turn into one of those monsters (if it hasn't happened already).
I still find it facinating however that you object to me but don't object to the hate speech flowing out of both Horowitz and Coulter on a daily basis.
Whats to be fascinated by. David doesn't seem very hateful at all from what I've read. Ann I've not read or listened too. The difference is that simple. Like I said I won't join in your crusade becuase I don't have faith in you, or your reasons. Its as simple as that. I've never joined whatever Ann's crusade might be, or David's (except in his thourough and very relevant deconstruction of Noam Chomsky). So really, I'm treating you both the same by acting in my own interests, not in the interests of destroying someone else.
Does [the right to free speach] include me?
No it doesn't. Just kidding. I don't see where anyones tried to stop you yet. Pointing out its dillusional paranoia and that your facts are wrong is not censorship, its discussion.
I am reading history and seeing how people like you acted in the past when faced with similar circumstances. It does not take much research to figure it all out. You may want to give it a try.
One of your problems is your condescending attitude. That if people dissagree with you, it must be because of ignorance. Its the only accusation that you've ever made to explain why I don't agree with you. It seems inconsevable to you that another rational, well versed intelligent person does not see the forming police state around you.
Your talking to someone who's devoted quite some energy studying Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto as well as early speaches of the National Socialist Party leader Adolf Hitler, and the Communist party leader Lenin. I'm rather well versed (for an outsider) in the revolutionaries called the Zapatistas, and the Columbian civil war. I've studied the formation of police states throughout history, and the reactions of civilians and other countries to war time situations.
So please, feel free to lay your evidence on the table. I *should* be the type of person you can get a sympathetic ear to having such a background, but instead you seem to bludgeon me with insults, calling me ignorant, or accusing me of having my head in the sand. Those make very poor persuasive tactics, and honestly the tactics of a Hitler rather than say a Ghandi or MLKjr.
And if theres one thing I've learned in my studies its that he who checks behind the door, checks becuase he hid there once before. Or in o
What you suggest is just preposterous. I won't join your obsession with Ann Coulter or David Horowitz. Everyone has the right to free speach. And your obviously way too paranoid.
You have my sympathies. I'm probably not the only one who thinks your great white elephant is more a beast you've created to give your life purpose than a real monster. To put it very specifically, I don't see why Ann Coulter or the conservatives want to put you in a concentration camp, unless your Al Queida that is.
Really, this is an irrational fear. First it was funny, now I'm kind of worried about your well being.
Or you could be apathetic and bury your head in the sand like you are.
My time is precious to me. Why waste it on such drivel again? Becuase you want people around you to join in your wierd love/hate obsession with Ann Coulter? Like I said, no thanks. I seem to be doing fine with more elevated news sources.
I am glad I am sounding like [Bush]. He killed lots of people and I want to make sure my enemies are afraid of me as Bush's enemies are of him.
Hmmm. For you its coming across cartoonish and not very intimidating at all. You could work on that. But I don't suggest you become that which you hate.
So you were lying when you said you never heard of David Horowitz. Interesting.
Did I? Go read it again... You'll see the humor now that you know what to look for.
Only If there was a liberal TV channel so that they could give me coverage like FOX gives Horowitz and his ilk.
I suggest NPR. Its liberal, and pleasent. Perhaps CNN? Liberal and even in your face about it. CBS, NBC and ABC all to different degrees are among the liberal media. But probably the most liberal, most seething commentators are the morning shock jocks on your local music radio like Howard Stern.
Also, I remember seeing Geraldo give an interview to "litteraly" the stereotypical turtle neck wearing anti-US high-brow professor. I find lots of liberal commentary on FOX.
Once again you are mistaking self defense with attack.
Many a serial killers have used the "I'm the victim" defense. Many a Hitler have used the "I'm a victim fighting back" offence. This is a rather unhealthy obsession of yours.
I don't watch cartoons.
Perhaps another hobby might help balance out your daily rigemorol of red-eyed Ann Coulter watching.
I know. I'm either for you or against you. I either need to join your crusade or risk being called really unimportant names like "head-in-sand". For someone who dislikes the Bush pre-war rhetoric you know you are begining to sound a lot like him. Perhaps if your diet of news does that to you I should probably lay off.
These news outlets are the madrasas of the western world where imams like Ms Coulter teach their students to hate democrats. One day one of those students will blow up a building with three thousand people in it or maybe even worse.
Yep, a lot like Bush. Are you even serious? Perhaps I've taken you too seriously in all my taking you not-so-seriously. But its been fun enough. Besides, I'm in the middle of my daily Rush... Ann and Bill have nothing on ol' Maha Rushie. (j/k I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh either, but I find it funny you don't even mention him).
And besides, don't think I didn't notice that you used that "Imam" dirty word thingy. You stoll that directly from David Horowitz's favorite playbook agains that tired old ideologue, Noam Chomsky. Yep, here's the quote...
Good ol' David. 'MalContent', if that is your real name, you have a ironic propendancy to sound exactly like the people you don't like that keeps me laughing. So your either a truely competant "jokes on you all" troll (and for some reason I seem to get it) or you are a truely twisted individual blinded by hatred and seeking after your great white elephant to destroy. Its cartoonish and fun, but hey everythings got its limits, right? If it is the latter, you need a break my friend.
Maybe some cartoons would do you good. I highly recomend the Disney cartoon lineup of "Recess" a prison camp motif in a elementery school, "Fillmore" a hard boiled detective motif in a Middle School, and "Kim Possible" just becuase its pretty fun to watch. For people that like very sophisticated humor wrapped up in childhood metaphors, those are the best. And they will only take up your saturday mornings leaving you with plenty of time to seethe over your great white elephant.
It's obvious you don't watch the news.
Judging by the quality of news you watch (with Ann Coulter and all) that would be a good thing. However it would be a mistake to say I am not abreast of politics becuase I don't watch the 6 o'clock or cable news.
My single biggest news outlet is NPR, which I listen to during my commute and on saturdays (becuase the programming is so good then). I listen to Peter Sagel, Daniel Shore, David Broncaccio, and probably the best of them all Garrison Keillor. Probably the biggest after that is http://news.google.com where I can evaluate a number of news sources immediately.
Other good sources are the Economist, Jerusalem Post, La Monde (from what French I can translate). So all in all, I still think you have an untennible (as in how can I take you seriously) position here berating the news outlets that you do, while complaining when people do not pay attention to them.
You don't see it but you are caught up in the "cola wars" of politics. So much energy, so little importance.
It's obvious that you are not up on issues. You are thoroughly unfamiliar with politics. You don't read the newspapers, you don't watch the news on TV, you don't watch news channels on cable. You are ignorant and seeming proud of that fact.
Just because I *don't* pay attention to Ann Coulter? I thought you said she was just a liberal hater and didn't say anything worth while. Oh well.
As far as politics I happen to be a volunteer and very active in real politics. When I was Libertarian I almost ran for a position (maybe will again soon). Participation is the best way to look behind the scenes at what is going on, not engaging in some trumped up for the masses cola war between Lib-psi and Conserva-Cola.
No I am not killing you. The US army killed lots of people in Iraq. Those people are dead. You are alive and well and writing on slashdot. Bush lied.
You do have issues my friend.
Ever read a newspaper? Ever read a news magazine? Are you totally oblivious anything she says? You have never read any of her commentaries in a newspaper, or on the web. Have you ever seen her on TV? Not even on one show?
Nope, haven't seen her around. Is there any reason I would want to see her? You really make her out to be larger than life. She better be cute if you really want me to see her this bad.
but how about David Horowitz[?]
The host of Fight Back!? He's right up there with Ralph Nader as my favorite anti-corporate watchdog.
Sean Hannidy[?]
Never heard of it.
Bill O'Reilly?
Yeah, the No Spin Zone! I watched it once. I thought it was pretty cool that you got to read what he was saying while he was saying it. I didn't see any horns or pitchforks. Probably would have been as entertaining as Andy Rooney if I watched much longer.
Just exactly how far do you have your head buried in the sand anyway?
Okay, 15 yard penalty and loss of down. Absolutely no useless accusations allowed.
If you think I'm not taking you seriously, ask your self what you are saying that I should take seriously. I'm feeling like you'd rather bludgeon me with insults to achieve your goals than produce any persuation whatsoever. Its as if my greatest sin was not agreeing with you, and should be punished... Not that I'm part of your sworn enemies because I don't think I am. Its just that I didn't know the signs and follow the queues to join in your hatred. I missed the point where I was supposed to say "right on brutha" or something.
What do you hope to achieve, and why should I take you seriously? Your charectarizations are cartoonish. Your commentary about as fast paced as a Bob Hope monologue. Your proponderances seem as rooted in reality as Bugs Bunny. How can I take this seriously?
Why spend two million dollars of your own money if you have nothing to gain? Either he does have something to gain or he is a zealot.
Oh please you aren't even reading now. By the way this is called a "false dillema". Look it up.
Once again. Me pointing out that Bush lied to take us to war (he did you know)
Stop it, your killing me!
Pointing out that Ann Coulter calls democrats traitors is hatred but Ann Coulter actually calling democrats traitors is not hatred. Am I getting correctly so far?
Not remotely. The first is correct, I read your statement and its hatred. The second statement is about a book I haven't read. Can't comment. Sorry. If you have a point, I can't tell becuase your not even trying to persuade any more. All I see now is ranting. An most of it about Ann Coulter who has nothing to do with the recall. This sounds more like you talking your pet peeves then actually discussing.
And all elements of politics in America today. Lies? Check. Media control? Well, the media pushes the status quo, that's for sure. Public officials getting great gain out of it? Are you kidding me? Check.
Being a volunteer in politics myself (not paid, not endorsed, but actively participating) I find this view overly jaded and (again) seething with hatred.
This is not a legitimate revolt. If this is legitimate, let's also recall Bush.
I hate talking US politics with people that have no knowledge or regard for the constitution. The State of California has a provision for a recall, it was brought about legitimately (no court has found error in it yet even). However the US constitution has no populace "recall" provision --it can only be accomplished through the Congress.
Becuase you do not agree with the reasons I want a recall does not give you any liscence to call them illegitimate. Even if they were becuase I think he has an ugly face. It may be a bad reason, but a legitimate reason being that enough people signed the petition, and 58% of the people (including a *large* number of democrats) sounds legitimate to me.
People are easily led.
Such a low view of the populace also. Are you a Democrat? I know you don't have to tell me but now I'm dying of curiosity.
For me, what Davis did, as corrupt and bad as it was, is not much different than what most politicians do.
Again, that is pretty jaded. There is some need for some underhanded things, and politics does do some of that as business as usual. But theres no reason the people can't (are aren't) stand(ing) up to say "I'm mad and I'm not going to take it any more".
but I am sorry to see constitutional order being set aside for personal gain
Actually the provision for recall is in the state constitution. The Federal constitution has no mention of states even needing govenors, let alone how they should be elected or whatnot.
Now do you really expect such verbal abuse to persuade me? Should I really feel ashamed for my views? Are you just trying to make me feel bad or something?
Come on, theres been enough informed debate here that you don't need to resort to name calling and mockery.
From Jeff Lindsay...
I DO think the reason for opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. And you, my friend, are a bigot, because you wish to deny your fellow man (and woman) privileges offered by the state purely on the basis of sexual orientation, and not on the basis of merit.
Ha, simply diffused. If someone considers themselves homosexual I don't care if they get married or not. I would not deny marriage to them. I am not a bigot.
But what does not make sence is allowing anyone to call whatever companionship they want, a marriage.
When Adam and Steve are crying in the corner that they don't get their way, or that its not fair they don't get anything they want I'm not inclined to listen to them. Becuase the world doesn't cater to them doesn't mean its not fair.
But let Adam and Steve tell me why a homosexual union is a marriage, and then I'll move heaven and earth to make sure they get their due. So you tell me what are the merits of a homosexual union that command the title "marriage". If its based on merits, then I'm sure that you can come up with them. Now merits of the people involved are not in question, a marriage is not a person. Its a union. What are the merits of homosexual unions that demand it to be called a marriage?
Unless of course the real reason you want to deny them these basic rights is that you just think it's wrong to be gay, and they should be punished somehow.
Nonsense, what utter and complete tom foolery. Calling whatever you want a marriage is not a basic right. As is mentioned previously, recognizing the unique abilities of heterosexual unions with the word "marriage" is not even considered a violation of civil rights by the UN, EU, US or any governing body.
The reasons other consenting adults get married are, to put it most delicately, none of your f....ng business. That's why they're called "adults" - they (we) get to make their OWN choices. Leave them alone!
For the most emphatic of the people trying to alter the definition of marriage comes a attitude of real entitlement, in the very purest sense of becuase I said so, becuase I'm an adult and an free to do what I want. Neither of those are good reasons at all.
I'm talking simple marketing techniques.
No, your trying to avoid what is a legitimate revolt in the state of California by ascribing an alternate novella off as an explanation. A novella of propeganda lies and media control, and evil public officials getting great gain out of it. All elements of every spellbinding book on intrigue and conspiracy.
For myself, to dismiss all the discontent people in California really feel towards Davis (58% support the recall at this point) as a product of marketing is rather disengenious, wouldn't you think?
As for having a discussion about the right wing, if you don't see the damage they are doing a discussion won't do much good.
I've often likened this to a church. If you don't already believe in God then listening to a sermon on why he/she created trees is meaningless. Most useless rhetoric is the same way. If you don't already believe that republicans or democrats, liberals or conservatives are already evil then there isn't much use in trying to tell me how their evil natures are causing what I see in the world around me.
There is no doubt that the most vocal advocates of the republican party are all zealots. I don't know why you thought I was conveying some kind of "seething hatred" though.
I did a double take there. I'll enumerate them very specifically so that if you wish to avoid such a malady in the future you will be able to...
1) "Becuase he is a zealot!" This is a simplification of a very complex political issue. The complaints against Davis are legion for republicans and Democrats. There is no reason to believe (especially from your comments) that Issa is a zealot, or that it is required to be a zealot to "win big time" as you described. Since its purpose is not to explain the situation, its a natural conclusion that it was meant for perhaps your own zealous purposes.
2) "What does Ann Coulter benefit by saying democrats are traitors?" As you hopefully saw in #1, name calling is not benefiting anyone. But I'll add that name calling is entirely orthoganal to the situation of the recall. Since I haven't read her book "Treason" I cannot comment on its purpose or benefits she gains from it. But in both of these charectarisations I see a sense of "oh, the elephant smacks the donkey" cartoonish relevance. No real meat in the issues, just a partisen poke and jab contest. "As a man thinketh, so is he." And you my friend seem to have this notion of petty political grandstanding on the brain.
3) (to sum up, democrats lose and are picked on). As I said before I'm a non-partisen. I don't care if Democrats win or lose. I'm considering voting for Bustamante, and the Green candidate. Seriously considering them in fact. Why you assume that Issa or anyone else involved in this only gains political ground on this is rather margionalizing of the job I expect elected officials to be doing.
I went back and added bold typeface around "only" becuase it is an important word here. I acknolweged that there is some gain in the area, but was careful not to say it was "the" gain. And its the only gain you seem to be seeing, while to so many others just getting a loser out of office (Gray Davis) hopefully will bring about a better California for Issa and myself. It couldn't get any worse at least. But this is just an extention of #2, where you seem to only see or care about the partisen jabbing going on.
And as I said before, just aligning with what people want *is* what I expect an elected official to do, and the people do reward such officials plentifully when they do.
* * * *
So between straw-man like mischarectarisations, the weilding of partisen rhetoric, and crying foul (or even hurt?) for rhetoric used against something you identify with yourself just seems to scream to me that you have issues my friend. Issues of hatred toward a group of individuals that have a different ideology than yourself.
Also, that your sig is a personal attack against the Bush administration seems pretty much like trying to get back at them for going to war without your consent. Its that seething hatred I'm talking about.
Do conservatives have it towards liberals? Sure. I'd probably (having not read the book) say Ann Coulter needs to cool off for a bit also. The only reason you may feel singled out is that big "come at me conservatives" chip on your shoulder.
I've looked in Google for the reference you mention and couldn't find it. As far as I know there is no way to produce chilren in a homosexual union without donation of genetic material from a third party.
But other than that, I agree with you. For a number homosexual couples I've talked to, it is about them wanting to have a family and get married.
I acknowledge that there would be a social element to homosexual marriage as you described here,
I'll add that if that were the main road-block then it should be torn down. I do not personally like such prejudices, and find it simular to the inter-racial marriage prejudices that I've seen.
But I don't find that to being a road block in my considerations however. A family institution is very interesting to look at from a government perspective. A father and mother have immediate guardianship of their children, and only through public intervention and means do those children recieve another guardian.
As a guardian, I am more responsible in disciplining my child than the state is. Except in cases labeled as abuse by the state, I am given charge and responsibility for the actions of my children and am expected to do the correcting as I see fit. That is a recognition not given to bosses over their corporations, states over their citizens (when dealing with other states) or religions over their members. A very unique trust and autonomy is granted to parents becuase a family is considered its own autonomous unit of sorts.
Then looking at families from a mother nature point of view. One would might predict that evolution would benefit from a single gender. After all, the requirement of two genders can sometimes prohibit propegation of the species. And while asexual reproduction would not produce DNA diversity, a bi-sexual person would have more advantages to produce than how we have it now.
But for some reason, nature has prohibited such arrangements. How did evolution produce the requirement, the absolute necessity of two sexes for propegation to occur? I do not mention this to say that "its natures fault live with it", but more to ask how much we really understand about the natural state of marriage that we feel inclined to change it?
As I've pointed out before, Homosexuals can and do get married, just not to people of their same gender. But that statement is a misnomer, in that homosexuality is not a condition or even an identity. "Is it wrong to require heterosexual unions to be marriages" to me is the same question of asking mother nature "Is it wrong to require heterosexual unions for reproduction". Can we really forward a reason why it would be wrong with what we understand about nature and the natural state that marraige is?
But you did ask that also...
Not too different from what I said. Of course as a Non-Partisen I didn't convey the seething hatred or straw-man style charechtarisation of "the other party" you seem to have found necessary.
So you signed with out a petitioner present.
We got the petition on the internet, which was then legally passed around that house. No one was paid in that exchange.
Then what happened?
We sent it to the address taken off the website, not Issa's address but the headquarters for the "Recall Gray Davis" campaign. I know no Issa money was involved becuase, well he hadn't donated any money at that point. It was at that time staffed by volunteers (and continued to be staffed in part by volunteers even after Issa donated money).
Somebody verified they were legit.
The State secretaries offices in many counties did that without Issa donations. It is part of their duly designated job to just what they did.
Somebody got paid.
As they should have. Refer to the other person who more explicitely claimed that I was pretending no money was involved for a proper responce.
Thanks for playing, you can recieve a prize at the door.
That plays on my theory that the "least resistance" force of politics is the one being played here. "Least Resistance Politics" to me is where you tend to go where you feel the least resistance to your policies would be. One one side you have a very sad and offended people in homosexuals that homosexual unions are not marriages. On the other hand you have a heterosexual community with a firm view of what a marriage is. It just seems like the path of least resistance to just let the very hurt and offended people get solace in some sort of inclusive comprimise. After all, both sides still get "marriage", so it should just be happy for everyone around.
Of course DP's are a comprimise, but it still offends the homosexual community. It could be taken as a lesser thing. It is seen as a "rights" issue, that their civil rights are being violated with the differences.
Allow me to quote the following also from the FamilyFacts.CA FAQ on the matter...
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply the reason for opposition to gay marriage is bigotry.
You know what? Thanks, I appreciate you saying that.
What is "the natural state of affairs"? Both the original poster and you cite this as a justification for the state of marriage, yet presumably homosexuality came about by some natural process as well.
That one is easily cleared up. Homosexuality could be said to be a natural state. Heterosexuality could be considered a natural state. But Heterosexuality has the natural endowments that make marriage a natural state in it. In other words marriage is natural to Heterosexuals becuase if its capacity for producing families from the very union between the man and woman.
Note I say "capacity" not "requirement". Thats important to note because (to use a flawed comparison) simular recognition by the goverment of the capacity of a gun to kill or save a life is not mandated by the requirement to do so.
What makes the historical institution of marriage a unique determinant of social health and future prosperity?
The afore mentioned capacity to produce offspring is that determinant. Children born to families, strong families with a woman and a man, are far more likely to become beneficiaries of the society rather than detrimants (criminals, etc...) Having children is the number one thing you, I and a vast majority will do to impact the future. Wheter you raise the child well or not (and a marriage helps that immensely) has a major impact on social health and prosperity.
This has the potential to be a feedback loop
Socially we call those "inter-relationships" or at least a good sign of a inter-relationship. And its that inter-relationship that makes marriage so important as an institution to recognize properly. And they can behave like feedback loops going wildly from one end to the other feeding off itself.
Banning homosexual marriage won't get rid of bad reasons to get married.
Correct, but that is a false converse of what I am saying, which is that removing from the definition of marriage the uniqueness it has in order to extend "marriage" to homosexuals will in fact be an indorsement of the "bad" reasons to get married, and a total margionalizing or ingoring of the good reasons to get married.
So you're saying people don't vote for who they see on TV. They really look at the candidates, read the issues and make an intelligent decision at the polls?
Wow, I didn't know I said that.
I'm not saying its wrong or right, I just don't know where I could have said that.
I don't see it as that way. In Canada the law may disagree with what the Catholic church sees as the definition of marriage, but in the US popular reforendums have passed the definition of a man woman relationship in 37 US states. Its under the name "DOMA" (Defence of Marriage Act) and its being enacted in countries all over the world as we speak.
Also, I think you are rather unfair in considering this a religion vs state issue. Some do consider it that, but it is not entirely so. Many see that marriage as a man-woman relationship transends any particular religion or state. Its a natural condition that exists as universally as any human condition and institution. Whether "nature" or "God" set it up is rather mute in the evidence of the definitions integrity throughout the history of mankind with its varied religions and societies.
Legalizing gay marriage does not force churches to do gay marriages if they do not want to. What it does do is give gays fair rights under law, mostly with regards to taxation laws.
Theres two things here. One, gay marriage is being forced on Churches in Canada now. From the FAQ at FamilyFacts.CA,
The second problem is that this ignores the efforts of the ACLU, Howard Dean and others to create a domestic partnership to provide for simular tax benefits (as far as homosexual relationships are simular to heterosexual relationships). No one has ever yet answered the question of what Marriage is more than a Domestic Partnership, that Homosexuals require it. No one has ever answered the question of what marriage is to homosexuals that they feel they have an inherent right to re-define it.
Homosexual community claims (among other things) to the logical extention of the civil rights movement of the 60's. If so, they should be able to do what the Civil Rights leaders did. Namely show their own inherent entitlement to the rights that whites had denied them. In the end, racial prejudice was shown to be baseless becuase of those arguements. But I have yet to see the homosexual community able to show how they have marriage as their own natural state also. Most of the arguement requires a degredation of
Don't try to pretend money wasn't a factor, though.
I don't think I am saying it wasn't a factor. There is a rather important difference between "purchasing" and "facilitating" this election. If you wish to charge Issa with the high crime of "purchasing" the election then there is a great burden of proof you need to do.
1) Explain how it was the will of Issa and not the will of the people.
2) Prove that the money went in exchange for signatures, as in to the signature givers rather than to legally paid signature gatherers.
3) Show how Issa has benefited from this. Party issues aside, three million dollars is a lot to spend on something he found so unimportant as to decide not to run anyway.
So show that money facilitated the election is rather benign, and in no wise unfair. Money facilitates people running for office, charity work to third world nations and a host of other good causes. Probably petty political gain is why people then choose to say it was "purchased" rather than facilitated. To say I suggest that money has no role is entirely over-simplifying the issue.
I'd be interested in your opinion of just how Issa, who is no longer running, is benefiting from the recall effort. So much so that you accuse him of taking advantage of a downed Davis.
If you were to ask me the same question, I'd say his gain is as simple as this. To Californians (58% in the latest polls) who support the recall of Gray Davis, he is a seem as a benevolant beneficiary helping them out with money to achieve what they want. I know I don't care what Issa wants with the election, he's brought about an election that I want, and 58% of Californians want. He's now someone I respect a like more for helping me, and a majority of Californians get what they want.