RustyNails
Member
He was at a LGBT fundraising dinner when he said that. I think the ticket was $35,000/plate.eznark said:
-
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
aronnov reborn
Banned
eznark said:
he'll even chime in on local police issues of possible racial tension
Invisible_Insane
Member
I'm proposing to use the whole of (American) society for "my" social experiment. Just because it doesn't get you what you want precisely the way you want it doesn't mean it's focused on you in any way.Gaborn said:
Whether we allow or continue to deny gays access to marriage, there's absolutely no pressure or impact for me either way. But talking about removing legal recognition of marriage altogether certainly does have direct impact for me, so I'm completely puzzled why you're trying to call my stance disingenuous. You're spending way too much time trying to impugn my motives rather than just discussing the merits of the argument, or lack thereof.
Legalizing same sex marriage doesn't achieve "unconditional equality for all citizens". There would still be forms of marriage many consider legitimate that wouldn't be legal. You have to do much more to achieve your stated goal than just legalize same sex marriage. What you're proposing puts sections of our society in separate boxes, uses certain sections as the focus of your social experiment much more than what I'm proposing.
speculawyer said:
...
Story Here
kaching said:
Look, if society wants to give everyone marriage, great. If society wants to give everyone civil unions, great. But your suggestion that we should deny gay couples marriage BECAUSE you want everyone to have civil unions is not great. That suggests that we shouldn't "add" to the marriage rolls because you want to advance the agenda of civil unions.
Government needs to treat the relationships the same with respect to the law. I frankly don't care about non-legal rights or recognition.
ElectricThunder
Member
That chart does nothing to move me in Obama's direction, especially given the stark omission of how the "contractor" population fits into this projection of these next few years.
The whole "Promises" thing is somehow utterly annoying---probably based on the notion of how many have been broken, fudged, and generally made. An outline of core and supplemental principles would've been much more palatable than a scattershot list where you just accept that some/many will not happen, even if they were actually legitimate ones.
The whole "Promises" thing is somehow utterly annoying---probably based on the notion of how many have been broken, fudged, and generally made. An outline of core and supplemental principles would've been much more palatable than a scattershot list where you just accept that some/many will not happen, even if they were actually legitimate ones.
besada said:
What I meant was, in reference to Bob Barr the vote wasn't because he wrote DOMA, I voted for him after he repudiated that stance (and his status as a drug warrior). Ron Paul is not perfect on gay marriage, abortion, or immigration. But he's got enough of a track record (hey, he voted for DADT's repeal even though he's not a big fan of that either) that I feel comfortable voting for him even where I disagree. I don't feel the same way about Barr. Though, frankly I wasn't a big fan of Barr in general.
This is similar to the situation regarding Operation Allied Force. The House voted against authorization in a close vote. Yet they appropriated money for the operation. I think it is a confluence of factors. Likely, some are political. Moreover, I think Congress, despite its bluster, is hesitant to challenge presidential authority on national security.Clevinger said:
That is the problem with the WPR. What constitutes hostility is terribly ambiguous. However, we are engaged in the naval blockade. I think we have a frigate involved. Moreover, yes, we have prosecuted drone attacks. And we have even prosecuted aerial strikes against air defense systems.Speculawyer said:
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I don't have a problem with combining the troops into one big blob to show decreasing involvement of boots on the ground in foreign wars. It's consistent with the message of bringing the troops home, consistent with the message that one war was more important than the other, consistent with the message that realignment would be required, and consistent that once certain extremely vague requirements were met we would bring them home.
The key to remember is that this entire process involves many more stakeholders than any of us could possibly count, that moves made are undeniably political, that certain realities are readily obvious (that of vague goals being somewhat impossible to realize), the personalities involved (Generals, Intelligence, etc), and the ramifications of every decision made -- esp. for a President elected on a wave of war protests and anti-torture promises.
And lets not forget that President Obama is the first Democrat since what, LBJ to preside over a major foreign war? Permanent and long-lasting impressions are at stake. None of this is easy, and every bit of this is political.
The key to remember is that this entire process involves many more stakeholders than any of us could possibly count, that moves made are undeniably political, that certain realities are readily obvious (that of vague goals being somewhat impossible to realize), the personalities involved (Generals, Intelligence, etc), and the ramifications of every decision made -- esp. for a President elected on a wave of war protests and anti-torture promises.
And lets not forget that President Obama is the first Democrat since what, LBJ to preside over a major foreign war? Permanent and long-lasting impressions are at stake. None of this is easy, and every bit of this is political.
kaching said:
I think it solves a good portion of the issue. Can you give me a situation you think is not solved by this? As it is adoption is a state issue (and as it stands generally states don't prohibit same sex couples from adopting). As I said I don't have a problem with private discrimination. If you're referring to government funded organizations discriminating against gays or gay couples then you're absolutely right, sexual orientation should, under federal law be treated like any other innate characteristic.
This is a complicated issue.Kosmo said:
First, Brewer cannot appoint a replacement. For vacancies in the House, the Constitution prescribes that a special election must be implemented; thus, I think allowing it to remain vacant would be prohibited. Moreover, I think it requires a comprehensive cycle including the nominating process. It is quite laborious.
Regarding a possible solution, I think a law that would remove a Congressperson would violate the Constitution. To my knowledge, a Congressperson can only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote in their chamber. I think a constitutional amendment, similar to the 25th Amendment, would be necessary. Otherwise, House and Senate members could expel someone because they are incapacitated. I suppose that would suffice.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
TacticalFox88 said:
WWII was different. It made EVERYONE work. 100% employment, rationing, war bonds, people were full of cash spending them in the brothels and the taverns and so on. Factories were built overnight when a day before the government (here in Canada anyway) told the provinces there was not a penny left in the coffers. The Montreal port doubled in size every few damn months. So-called war-time housing was built all over the place, good houses which are today littered among more recent constructions.
With another big war, I somehow doubt we would see anything similar. You don't need as many boots and vehicles on the ground. You'd just end up with a big debt.
WWII didn't save the economy back then, it was just the perfect pretext for the governments to start spending massively and rebuild themselves for the 20th century. Helath care, unemployment benefits, retirement savings funds, all of that came as a result of this.
Today it's the opposite. Governments want to cut all spending and privatize everything. A big war today would just lead to some bigger deficit and nothing to show for it.
kaching said:
Separate issue from gay marriage, but I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, I just don't think it's as simple because it would complicate inheritance laws and potentially create long complicated familial chains. I mean, imagine a situation where man A is married to Woman Z, and Woman Z is married to Man B who is married to woman Y. Woman Y is married to Woman X, and Woman X is married to Man A as well. None of the others are linked in marriage. Depending on who died (and who has children by whom, etc) it could get REALLY complicated really fast.
But I don't think any of that has anything specifically to do with equal treatment under the law unless you really stretch things.
RustyNails
Member
Cousin marriages!
kaching said:
Sure, and that's why I said I'd support polygamy. I just want to make sure you're not trying to say gay marriage is not the same as polygamy. They're two different concepts on similar footing but with sharp differences. I think it's entirely possible for example to support one and oppose the other for historical, religious, or even structural reasons based on the differences between the two.
TacticalFox88
Banned
1st or 2nd?RustyNails said:
Of course there's differences, Gaborn. But the differences don't represent any reason to discriminate under US law against one form of marriage any more than the other. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either form of marriage and denying anyone access to either form if that's there desire, for any period of time, should be regarded as equally untenable if your goal is unconditional equality for all citizens.
Walker is going to veto the moronic "cops get paid while appealing their firing" provision in the budget (put in by jackass republicans after they fought tooth and nail to get the same fucking provision killed a few years ago). It's very possible he will kill the craft brew thing as well, though no one can really seem to agree that it would have an effect one way of the other.
In regards to that graph of governors, how does Obama compare?
In regards to that graph of governors, how does Obama compare?
adamsappel
Member
It's funny you don't feel this applies to wealthy people.Kosmo said:
TacticalFox88
Banned
Yeah, I'm sure that billionaire is going to go broke if his taxes are increased 10-15 percent.Kosmo said:
state-of-the-art
Member
Fox News headlines compared to other sources.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines
Edit: Fox Nation headlines, not Fox News
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines
Edit: Fox Nation headlines, not Fox News
ViperVisor
Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
And give it to billionaires who fucked up the entire economyOblivion said:
ChoklitReign
Member
I trust them a helluva lot more than Huffington.eznark said:
worldrunover
Member
ViperVisor said:
LOL what. That could honestly pass for an Onion article.
Joel Was Right
Member
state-of-the-art said:
Had to take a second look. Fox uses the same articles but changes the article title whilst sourcing the original link. Why doesn't AP and Reuters simply forbid them from using their articles after this
RustyNails
Member
I wonder how long before Texas legalizes gay marriage. I don't know if I'll be alive that long to witness it.
RustyNails
Member
bubu state rightsGaborn said:
TacticalFox88
Banned
That's a concept that shouldn't even exist right now.RustyNails said:
TacticalFox88 said:
Yes it should, but a state's right is not unlimited. States historically have been and should remain "laboratories for Democracy," that's why states can legally pass medical marijuana laws, or laws allowing physician assisted suicide, or have a different age of consent than what the federal government mandates.
What the states CANNOT do and what RustyNails should know the states should NEVER be able to do is interfere with citizens fundamental right to equal treatment under the law. The argument at this point usually comes when a state believes something (such as marriage) may not be a fundamental right, or may not be a fundamental right in the form we're discussing, whether same sex marriage or interracial marriage for example.
- Status