and such a statement from the people directly contradicts another, previous time that the humans got together and wrote documents and established ideals dealing with liberty and equality. and those prior statements, by virtue of being contained in the constitution, outweigh the recent ballot initiative. we've so enshrined these concepts within our highest law that it's become unquestionable and removes the question of any person liberty from ever being subjected to a popular vote, for people are fickle things, and left to a vote, the nation would still have slavery.
which is ultimately why its a good thing freedom isnt usually put up to a vote.
you try to sound erudite, you try to sound reasonable, but ultimately youre still just a troll trying to form the nation and its precepts to fit your mold for it based on your religious views, imposing them on others, Constitution be damned.
Huckabee and Santorum will, and already are. The others too, but a lesser degree.
But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right. Which actually saddens me a bit. Would prefer the choice weren't so slam dunk one sided. (not because I'm likely to actually vote GOP...but simply because I recognize that it's typically unhealthy for a single party, even the party I prefer, to dominate unchecked)
But eventually the drought will end, and they'll get that smarter candidate you mention. Someone who's a junior member of the part right now, and not yet already built a career and a history on the issue.
But the OP right. This saves the party from bloody and public infighting over a topic that could divide the party as they try to come to an understanding , since it's now been settled by outside agency, instead of internal dialogue.
then you should celebrate this decision, as it's not the end of the rule of law. Nor is freedom and equality is ever a state issue. (We kind of fought a pretty significant and bloody war over that...)
There are certain benefits granted to married couples. Many of these make perfect sense. For example, when you die, your spouse gets automatic legal claim to your property or half of the estate, as well being exempt from rules and taxes that otherwise apply to the transfer of ownership upon death.
At least as long as you're heterosexual anyways.
For the longest time the law treated homosexual couples as legal strangers, unable to assume their partners estate even after a lifetime together, or unable to make any medical decisions for their incapacitated partner, indeed sometimes even unable to simply BE with their partner in the hospital. Or assume survivor benefits. Or a host of other examples.
All simple and accepted benefits and privileges granted to one group of married people, and not another, simply on the basis of their gender.
the only laws being scrapped here are unjust and unconstitutional laws that impose a discriminatory burden upon a segment of society.
Indeed, it's the very same argument they did use against interracial marriage. Was also used to defend jim crow and segregation, as well as used against women's suffrage. in fact, half the country once went to war with the other half, using a variation of the argument as the basis of their defense of slavery.
it's basically been used every time someone has resisted accepting the equality of a as yet unequal group of people.
The court isn't telling all 50 states what to do. It's telling them what to STOP doing, which is stop banning gay marriage and unjustly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of a segment of the populace.
And the democratic process angle is bogus, besides being essentially the same argument the South eventually went to war over. Civil rights and freedoms cannot be left to popular vote. If we did that, the histories of slavery, jim crow, and interracial marriage would have been a lot different...specifically longer lasting.
Sometimes a society achieves progress through popular referendum. But sometimes it has to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.
Only because you are ignorant and don't truly understand freedom or equality.
It's really simple. And you can understand it. It's not out of thin air.
Government grants special rights and privileges to a certain class of couples. To deny those same rights, or even the basic recognition of their couple-ness, to others is a violation of the 14th amendment. It's no different than granting the Catholic Church special status while telling Baptists to take a hike.
The biggest reason, indeed the only reason, there has even been any opposition to gay marriage is because of religious and social conservative's desires to impose their beliefs on others in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments; to tell others how to live their lives and deny them granted rights privileges they had already granted themselves.
Indeed, this is no more "from thin air" than the decisions recognizing interacial marriages, civil rights, and other vital milestones.
In truth, the Constitution already recognized and accepted these things. It simply took time for society to grow up enough to recognize them too.
The Declaration is not a legal document of the United States, binding on its citizens in any way. It is simply, and only, a declaration of war against England and the reasons for such. Nor does it in any way embrace one set religion and it's dictates.
You should probably also reconsider your Founding Father's comment. It was written by Thomas Jefferson. It is his words, not "the Founders' " The Founder's were the group of people who got together later and wrote and approved the Constitution, which is a largely different group of people (and a much larger group), though there is some overlap, than those who signed the Declaration.
The same arguments are used against the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery in an effort to stop it too. And women's suffrage. And interracial marriage. And segregation.
Certain things are too important to be left to popular vote.
Banning slavery would have mortified a large segment of the people who wrote it too.
Good thing intelligent people can remember that the Founder's were fallible men, and they knew it too, which is why they gave us a living document able to change with society.
Regardless of whether the State -should- be involved in marriage....it already -IS-. Specifically there are certain legal statuses and protections as well as financial benefits granted to married couples.
As long as those benefits are granted one class of married couples (heterosexuals) they must be granted to -ALL- married couples, and to not do so is an explicitly clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
there is something to the idea that if a company is too big to fail, its too big to exist, and should be broken up. those megabanks and financial institutions should be broken up, and restricted from activities they allowed to spread into through deregulation.
But that pain you mention also means misery and suffering for large swaths of the public dependent on them. the companies and rich folks can weather that a lot better than regular folks can. in the Great Depression there were two classes of people that were largely unaffected: the very rich, and the very poor. and also in the great depression, that wealth from the loser who did lose everything didn't really spread back out to the public; it was absorbed other powerful entities.
As for the bailed out auto companies, they not only got back on their feet, but returned a profit to the American taxpayer. There is a big difference between the megabanks that were bailed out and the car manufacturers. Chiefly in the number and type of employees they have. keeping them operating meant keeping people employed, people who spend large portions of their income (the more money people make, the less they contribute to the overall economy as a percentage of income) which keeps money moving through the economy, slowing (or even arresting) its collapse, just as the social safety nets do, and for the same reasons.
an intelligent society eliminates risks -BEFORE- they cause harm, not after. your "logic" (and that's being generous) is the stupidity that says we shouldn't regulate food producers based on the theory that if they poison and kill someone "the market will punish them"....but meanwhile some is still dead.
"Less than 10 kilos"...22 pounds. How many birds do you know that weigh 22 lbs? One of the most common birds involved in bird strike incidents is the common Canadian goose. They weigh ~10lbs. And they manage to damage aircraft. Particularly if they strike the engines, which is a serious threat. And they're made of a lot softer material than drones are. Metal and hard plastic into a turbine is bad news. You are an idiot.
"rental" includes the homes that are being bought up at above market prices, creating another housing bubble by the way, in order to be rented out by these investment groups repacking the revenue streams from the rent as securities on the stock market...again...just like they did with mortgage revenue streams...which you may recall eventually led to the crash in 2008?
People have to have a place to live. As such, much like medical care, rent is one of those things that people will tend to try their damnedest to come up with, even when the "perfect rational economic actor" would abstain from taking the deal.
this isn't a perfect theoretical market with people actually willing to walk away from any and all unreasonable deals. instead people find the least unreasonable deal they can, and then get a ton of roommates or three jobs, or whatever. the market is somewhat distorted by the fact that few people are willing to walk away from the transaction and be homeless.
not to mention there is work being done to equip wildfire fighting teams with their own drones to expand their spotting/scouting ability. right now that's done with spotter planes, like the ubiquitous Piper Cub, but the wind shears and smoke can put those spotters at risk, plus they also have to coordinate with the firebombers, refuel, etc. Drone scouting is a way to expand the firefighters capabilities and provide more immediacy, without risking a pilot's life or putting another pilot in the air. but these civilian drones can get in the way of that too. Or worse, because they're untrained in fire abatement, they might even help spread the fire, particularly by crashing and sparking, but even just stirring up embers is a no-no.
I worked for Publix once (and other retail and grocery stores). It was probably the "best" of the places like that that I worked at. Their manager pay does ramp up quite fast, and they almost entirely promote and hire from within, and give their salaried folks benefits like stock and such.
However they also expect a minimum 55 hour work week from department managers and assistant managers, and more from store managers. A couple guys with no lives did ok, but guys with families just got chewed up by it.
Our store manager typically pulled 80 hours a week, and developed two ulcers while I was there. For ~120k base salary, and another 50k-ish in benefits, maybe it was worth it for him.
But personally, I figure no job is worth killing myself over.
Slashdot Mirror
the three great religions you say?
you'll have to refresh me. I'm not very current on what islam, hindu, and buddism say about marriage.
*mic drop*
and such a statement from the people directly contradicts another, previous time that the humans got together and wrote documents and established ideals dealing with liberty and equality. and those prior statements, by virtue of being contained in the constitution, outweigh the recent ballot initiative. we've so enshrined these concepts within our highest law that it's become unquestionable and removes the question of any person liberty from ever being subjected to a popular vote, for people are fickle things, and left to a vote, the nation would still have slavery.
which is ultimately why its a good thing freedom isnt usually put up to a vote.
you try to sound erudite, you try to sound reasonable, but ultimately youre still just a troll trying to form the nation and its precepts to fit your mold for it based on your religious views, imposing them on others, Constitution be damned.
Huckabee and Santorum will, and already are.
The others too, but a lesser degree.
But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.
Which actually saddens me a bit. Would prefer the choice weren't so slam dunk one sided. (not because I'm likely to actually vote GOP...but simply because I recognize that it's typically unhealthy for a single party, even the party I prefer, to dominate unchecked)
But eventually the drought will end, and they'll get that smarter candidate you mention. Someone who's a junior member of the part right now, and not yet already built a career and a history on the issue.
But the OP right. This saves the party from bloody and public infighting over a topic that could divide the party as they try to come to an understanding , since it's now been settled by outside agency, instead of internal dialogue.
then you should celebrate this decision, as it's not the end of the rule of law.
Nor is freedom and equality is ever a state issue.
(We kind of fought a pretty significant and bloody war over that...)
There are certain benefits granted to married couples. Many of these make perfect sense. For example, when you die, your spouse gets automatic legal claim to your property or half of the estate, as well being exempt from rules and taxes that otherwise apply to the transfer of ownership upon death.
At least as long as you're heterosexual anyways.
For the longest time the law treated homosexual couples as legal strangers, unable to assume their partners estate even after a lifetime together, or unable to make any medical decisions for their incapacitated partner, indeed sometimes even unable to simply BE with their partner in the hospital. Or assume survivor benefits. Or a host of other examples.
All simple and accepted benefits and privileges granted to one group of married people, and not another, simply on the basis of their gender.
the only laws being scrapped here are unjust and unconstitutional laws that impose a discriminatory burden upon a segment of society.
Indeed, it's the very same argument they did use against interracial marriage.
Was also used to defend jim crow and segregation, as well as used against women's suffrage.
in fact, half the country once went to war with the other half, using a variation of the argument as the basis of their defense of slavery.
it's basically been used every time someone has resisted accepting the equality of a as yet unequal group of people.
The court isn't telling all 50 states what to do.
It's telling them what to STOP doing, which is stop banning gay marriage and unjustly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of a segment of the populace.
And the democratic process angle is bogus, besides being essentially the same argument the South eventually went to war over.
Civil rights and freedoms cannot be left to popular vote. If we did that, the histories of slavery, jim crow, and interracial marriage would have been a lot different...specifically longer lasting.
Sometimes a society achieves progress through popular referendum.
But sometimes it has to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.
Only because you are ignorant and don't truly understand freedom or equality.
It's really simple.
And you can understand it.
It's not out of thin air.
Government grants special rights and privileges to a certain class of couples.
To deny those same rights, or even the basic recognition of their couple-ness, to others is a violation of the 14th amendment.
It's no different than granting the Catholic Church special status while telling Baptists to take a hike.
The biggest reason, indeed the only reason, there has even been any opposition to gay marriage is because of religious and social conservative's desires to impose their beliefs on others in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments; to tell others how to live their lives and deny them granted rights privileges they had already granted themselves.
Indeed, this is no more "from thin air" than the decisions recognizing interacial marriages, civil rights, and other vital milestones.
In truth, the Constitution already recognized and accepted these things.
It simply took time for society to grow up enough to recognize them too.
The Declaration is not a legal document of the United States, binding on its citizens in any way.
It is simply, and only, a declaration of war against England and the reasons for such.
Nor does it in any way embrace one set religion and it's dictates.
You should probably also reconsider your Founding Father's comment. It was written by Thomas Jefferson. It is his words, not "the Founders' "
The Founder's were the group of people who got together later and wrote and approved the Constitution, which is a largely different group of people (and a much larger group), though there is some overlap, than those who signed the Declaration.
The same arguments are used against the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery in an effort to stop it too.
And women's suffrage.
And interracial marriage.
And segregation.
Certain things are too important to be left to popular vote.
Anti sodomy laws were already struck down as unconstitutional in Lawrence vs Texas.
Though several states or municipalities voted to keep them on the books, they are unenforceable due to the ruling.
Banning slavery would have mortified a large segment of the people who wrote it too.
Good thing intelligent people can remember that the Founder's were fallible men, and they knew it too, which is why they gave us a living document able to change with society.
Ummm. No.
Regardless of whether the State -should- be involved in marriage....it already -IS-.
Specifically there are certain legal statuses and protections as well as financial benefits granted to married couples.
As long as those benefits are granted one class of married couples (heterosexuals) they must be granted to -ALL- married couples, and to not do so is an explicitly clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
there is something to the idea that if a company is too big to fail, its too big to exist, and should be broken up.
those megabanks and financial institutions should be broken up, and restricted from activities they allowed to spread into through deregulation.
But that pain you mention also means misery and suffering for large swaths of the public dependent on them. the companies and rich folks can weather that a lot better than regular folks can. in the Great Depression there were two classes of people that were largely unaffected: the very rich, and the very poor. and also in the great depression, that wealth from the loser who did lose everything didn't really spread back out to the public; it was absorbed other powerful entities.
As for the bailed out auto companies, they not only got back on their feet, but returned a profit to the American taxpayer. There is a big difference between the megabanks that were bailed out and the car manufacturers. Chiefly in the number and type of employees they have. keeping them operating meant keeping people employed, people who spend large portions of their income (the more money people make, the less they contribute to the overall economy as a percentage of income) which keeps money moving through the economy, slowing (or even arresting) its collapse, just as the social safety nets do, and for the same reasons.
the Kmax is a converted heavy lift manned helicopter.
that's not what he's referring to and you know it.
and if he killed someone? or his drone, not being hardened against smoke and fire, crashed and ignited another fire?
you're an idiot.
an intelligent society eliminates risks -BEFORE- they cause harm, not after. your "logic" (and that's being generous) is the stupidity that says we shouldn't regulate food producers based on the theory that if they poison and kill someone "the market will punish them"....but meanwhile some is still dead.
how likely do you think is that birds hang around a raging wildfire?
"Less than 10 kilos"...22 pounds.
How many birds do you know that weigh 22 lbs?
One of the most common birds involved in bird strike incidents is the common Canadian goose. They weigh ~10lbs. And they manage to damage aircraft. Particularly if they strike the engines, which is a serious threat. And they're made of a lot softer material than drones are. Metal and hard plastic into a turbine is bad news. You are an idiot.
Free markets distribute capital according to how much people actually contribute to society.
Seriously, what fantasy land are you living in?
"rental" includes the homes that are being bought up at above market prices, creating another housing bubble by the way, in order to be rented out by these investment groups repacking the revenue streams from the rent as securities on the stock market...again...just like they did with mortgage revenue streams...which you may recall eventually led to the crash in 2008?
People have to have a place to live. As such, much like medical care, rent is one of those things that people will tend to try their damnedest to come up with, even when the "perfect rational economic actor" would abstain from taking the deal.
this isn't a perfect theoretical market with people actually willing to walk away from any and all unreasonable deals. instead people find the least unreasonable deal they can, and then get a ton of roommates or three jobs, or whatever. the market is somewhat distorted by the fact that few people are willing to walk away from the transaction and be homeless.
not to mention there is work being done to equip wildfire fighting teams with their own drones to expand their spotting/scouting ability. right now that's done with spotter planes, like the ubiquitous Piper Cub, but the wind shears and smoke can put those spotters at risk, plus they also have to coordinate with the firebombers, refuel, etc. Drone scouting is a way to expand the firefighters capabilities and provide more immediacy, without risking a pilot's life or putting another pilot in the air. but these civilian drones can get in the way of that too. Or worse, because they're untrained in fire abatement, they might even help spread the fire, particularly by crashing and sparking, but even just stirring up embers is a no-no.
I worked for Publix once (and other retail and grocery stores).
It was probably the "best" of the places like that that I worked at.
Their manager pay does ramp up quite fast, and they almost entirely promote and hire from within, and give their salaried folks benefits like stock and such.
However they also expect a minimum 55 hour work week from department managers and assistant managers, and more from store managers.
A couple guys with no lives did ok, but guys with families just got chewed up by it.
Our store manager typically pulled 80 hours a week, and developed two ulcers while I was there.
For ~120k base salary, and another 50k-ish in benefits, maybe it was worth it for him.
But personally, I figure no job is worth killing myself over.