Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
dp
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Mortrialus
Banned
You are asking the wrong question. The real question is why should Utah be allowed to deny marriage and all of the benefits that come with it to homosexuals:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Marriage is not just an issue of taxes and religion.
Again, why should Utah be allowed to revoke that from homosexual couples that move into their state? What good is that going to accomplish?
Yes, especially in cases like these. Ron Paul's championing of "States rights" is simply a smoke screen for allowing institutional discrimination.
Others in this thread have already addressed this issue to you multiple times. I am simply going to sum up that you sound profoundly ignorant of the social climate that lead to the Civil Rights Act and I would recommend fixing that.
That was a typo. I meant to say "pages." As far as criticism you have ignored, you have failed to address every single post addressing and attempting to correct your misunderstandings of the social structure of the 1960s.
I said nothing suggesting or supporting regulation in this specific case. I simply stated that corporations if allowed to do as they please can and will intentionally deceive their consumers, actively work to keep them ignorant and destroy their lives.
ViperVisor
Member
The Libertarians Lament
Their heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for them to accept that financial systems without vigorous government oversight constitute a recipe for disaster.
Their heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for them to accept that financial systems without vigorous government oversight constitute a recipe for disaster.
No, it's like saying Perry was hand-picked by Bush to be his successor. He was in Bush's Texas administration and originally became governor by succession from Lt. Governor when Bush was elected President.Mike M said:
These men aren't just incidentally tied by having the same office. Perry owes his job to Bush.
Did I ever give you my rant about how Krav Maga is bullshit?besada said:
Well, it is.
I can still most likely kick your ass though
.I have not, but you do realize that there are Jews that look like that, right?eznark said:
In fact, this is pretty much what fucking Jerusalem looks like.
I think we have a gang-rape.eznark said:
Big Baybee
Member
But he suggested that Texas secede from the union, which is like the ultimate form of treason. Can't wait to see the political ads calling Perry out on that.Clevinger said:
Do you see Congress passing a bill to get rid of unemployment benefits for President Paul to sign? Aren't unemployment benefits handled at the state?Chichikov said:
And it's better to have a system where insurance companies benefit by having laws require people to have health insurance or otherwise they'll be fined? Why push for a system that benefits insurance providers that drives patients and doctors further apart from each other?Chichikov said:
RustyNails
Member
Government interference is not the reason why the country is sitting on fire. What the fuck. Will you stop repeating crap? Your stupid fucking deregulated free market jesus crashed the economy. Free market when left unchecked will destroy everything it touches including the institution it belongs to. Ron Paul would've done jack shit. He'd have presided over an economy with 15% unemployment by not bailing out your free market entrepreneurs sitting in Wall St. He'd have watched the country burn while he slowly instituted young earth creationism in schools and chiseled away women's suffrage laws, civil rights act and americans with disability act. I mean, an establishment has right to build the itself however the hell it wants. Who wants to spend extra money for a ramp for wheel chair freeloaders?Mardak said:
Big Baybee
Member
eznark said:
Perry said:
Not even a hint, Ez?
TacticalFox88
Banned
Hey, you know logic shouldn't be used when creating policy!Gonaria said:
Byakuya769
Member
Needs Somdude as the wacko neighbor.eznark said:
Cyan said:
He suggested secession is a possibility, which it is of course. Unlike many posters here calling for the flyover/red/poor states to be split from the prosperous and forward thinking coasts, Perry never even said it was something that should be done.
If I say that it is possible for you to get raped by a raccoon, am I suggesting you cover your ass in jelly and run through the pines?
Mortrialus
Banned
Big Baybee said:
eznark said:
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
I hate Perry, but I'd rather others hate him for legitimate reasons. Perry suggested that it was legal for Texas to secede, and then made the comment above, which is something of a taunt and political posturing rather than outright endorsing secession.
RustyNails
Member
"That's a nice union you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it."eznark said:
empty vessel
Member
Big Baybee said:
Hey, he was just asking questions. Can't a guy ask questions? I mean, Perry said he thinks we've got a great union. It's just those crazy ass Texans who might want to secede. You know, the ones who voted him into office three times.
Seems some are conservatives are getting a little too nervous about Bachshit's chances at winning the nom, so they're already starting to nip things in the bud:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-g...ann-for-weaseling-out-of-submissive-question/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-g...ann-for-weaseling-out-of-submissive-question/
BertramCooper
Banned
Why are the Republicans too fucking stupid to realize that Jon Huntsman is the only decent candidate in this field?
Oh wait. Because they're Republicans.
Oh wait. Because they're Republicans.
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
Are we missing this part? Hate Perry if you want. But saying he suggested Texas should secede isn't accurate.
Are we missing this part? Hate Perry if you want. But saying he suggested Texas should secede isn't accurate.
empty vessel
Member
nateeasy said:
We're not autistic (not that there's anything wrong with that). We can understand what a person means by looking at more than the words literally coming out of his mouth.
Because the people in that state have decided that they don't want their money spent a certain way. If you live in that state and want to make a difference, engage in the state-level elections. Until then, the rest of the states and their residents can choose not to subsidize Utah, and eventually enough people in the state will get fed up with the state's stupid policies and either leave or also take part in making a difference.Mortrialus said:
Better question, why would anyone want to move to Utah to begin with if that's their policy? California would be plenty happy to get increased revenues. California has a better coast line anyway.Mortrialus said:
I suppose one valid answer is that there could be work in Utah. However, Utah driving away potential employees just makes it harder for companies to find workers which increases costs and decreases competitiveness. Even the businesses will come together to push back against the state laws.
Sure, I claim that I did not grow up in that time, so I have no first-hand experience of what that was like. However, I did grow up with the rest of society starting to treat people equally independent of their sexual orientation, and I would argue that it was not that much different from what was happening in the 1960s in some aspects.Mortrialus said:
I can see that my parents are not as accepting, but it's hard for me to blame them when that's what the rest of society taught them -- especially so with regards to where they grew up as children (outside of the US).
Just as it is now, I would assume something similar was happening in the 60s where some states were more progressive than others. Pressure can be applied from people in these states to help open the eyes of residents of other states. Even if the parents are not convinced, the children will grow to change the mood of the rest of their society without needing states forcing their own laws on another state.
Sinoox said:
Whoops, conflated Ron Paul with the latest Tea Party darling, Michelle Bachmann. It doesn't really matter, it doesn't change the fact that countries like Pakistan represent the tea party ideal. Small government, virtually nonexistant regulatory environments, large militaries, and low taxes. The reality is that, much like the argument about how "raising taxes will scare the job creators away!", tea partiers lack the moral conviction to put their political philosophies into practice by actually moving to their so-called libertarian paradises (or at least those that aren't populated by english-speaking white anglo descendents of American cultural heritage).
Big Baybee
Member
Are you missing that part?nateeasy said:
Dude Abides
Banned
BertramCooper said:
It's not their fault Huntsman doesn't actually want to be the nominee.
BertramCooper
Banned
He's an awkward dude, but I admire him. I like that he's relatively moderate and doesn't let the LDS church dictate his politics.eznark said:
Yeah, calling his campaign anemic would be generous. It's practically nonexistent.Dude Abides said:
RustyNails
Member
Wasn't that bad in 1960's in some aspects? You're cuckoo. We still had lynching going on during the 60's, my friend. Have you heard about Mississippi Burning? 1964.Mardak said:
empty vessel
Member
Mardak said:
Aren't you a constitution fetishist? There's a clause for that.
Eh? The "big boy" the author focuses on spent 45 million over 21 years. Meanwhile the US Chamber if Commerce spent 144 million dollars lobbying in 2009 alone. Direct donations are a minuscule portion of overall political cash.eznark said:
It certainly doesn't surprise me that unions are among the biggest direct contributors, that he implies that the Koch brothers are somehow lightweights because their direct contributions are comparatively small is a disingenuous take away at best.
Edit: I am resisting putting words in your mouth but since you gave so little initially it is difficult for me to see what you meant by
"chuckling at the results if getting money out of politics". I hope you were not implying that that chart in any way demonstrated that liberal money constitutes any sort of majority in over all political spending, because that is not what it says.
RustyNails said:
I'm not here to judge that.
The important thing is that we approach this disparity like the nation did in the 1960's, by following a policy of states rights and federal noninterference.
Some states had more progressive policies towards racial equality, and as those states attracted more residents and businesses, it put pressure on the other states to adopt those policies.
This is the kind of marketplace of ideas that Ron Paul supports. Shouldn't you?
My deregulated free market? I'll assume you meant the bipartisan "free market" with FHLMC and FNMA.RustyNails said:
While the Federal Reserve initiated the housing bubble with extremely low interest rates, it was Freddie and Fannie following orders from HUD that pushed it to full speed. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development of the federal executive branch set insane goals of housing requirements that allowed -- required -- for even more subprime mortgages. This was initiated by the laws passed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
This circles around back to the Federal Reserve being allowed to purchase bad debts of these Government Sponsored Enterprises, so that Freddie and Fannie could continue buying up all these subprime mortgages without worry because the Federal Reserve would just print money and buy up any failures.
Just as there are good regulations that protect people, there are bad regulations that make things really bad. The market was far from deregulated and this was all pushed forward by both Democrats and Republicans with the Federal Reserve doing what it does best -- printing money out of nowhere.
WickedAngel
Banned
eznark said:
Not to sane people.
Dude Abides
Banned
Mandark said:
What? That isn't what happened. What "put pressure on the other states to adopt those policies" was the federal government.
This is my first encounter with a genuine Ron Paul supporter in the wild - is this a widely held belief about how racial equality (formal at least) came about in this country?
Edit: shit. Trolled.
So a system that requires everyone have insurance coverage "drives patients and doctors further apart from each other" than a system that currently leaves nearly one fifth of the US population uninsured? riggggggggggghtMardak said:
We do agree on one thing though, a system that forces people to buy a private product is a poor one, they should have kept the public option!
- Status