.jpeg?1371057738)
 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Today’s Dissents
My scribbling on the president’s I do to gay marriage prompted a few dissents.
One reader suggests I switch sides:
I read most of your articles and Im disturbed that you favor same sex marriage since you claim to be a Christian. Do you think God accepts same sex marriage? If you read the bible its clearly stated what God thinks about this. I challenge you to Google this subject and see what the bible says. I dont want my grandchildren thinkin its okay to marry the same kind. And Obama just lost my vote for sure.
PS. Being influencial as you are you could be a great advocate for banning same sex marriage.
Very doubtful…that I’m influential or would ever advocate for a ban. Another:
You can’t be serious that our boy president who is the least qualified person in any room he enters, did something admirable by reversing himself yet again on same sex marriage. You write as if this was a nice linear progression up to his moment yesterday when he came out in support of it. If you were not so lazy and would look back a little farther you would find that he did support it before he came to the national stage, then he came out against it when he decided to seek national office so it was not a nice linear progression or growth as you imply, his decision was driven only by politics and I find nothing admirable about that!
Then you say “But how long does the right thing….” which is another point we do not agree on. For you to call it the right thing means you find the continuing moral decay of our culture to be a good thing, and that makes you one sick puppy! The concept of marriage came from God via the Bible so I take great offense when these messed up people want to use the term to try and clean up and receive approval for their perversion! Call it something else if you must allow them legal status but don’t call it marriage, that is a biblical term and its meaning should not be expanded. There are so many more things in your article I could comment on, such as “…it’s a path that leads forward…”, read above, but what is the point! If you think this is a parth the leads forward, again you are one sick puppy! I will pray for you!
Woof. Another:
Obama “evolved” on the debt ceiling too didn’t he Todd? He evolved on the Middle East when he kept all of Bush’s defense and military leaders. He evolved in Gitmo. He’s done a lot of evolving. I believe in November he’ll get to evolve back to other employment. Maybe someday he’ll get a clue about the economy. 31% believe country on right track according to Rasmussen. That’s a lot of confidence. Maybe he can take another Bin Laden victory lap. Don’t you love by the way when Dems still talk about water boarding being torture and this chump of President is whacking people right and left. I’d rather be water boarded than outright whacked. How is that not a human rights violation? Oh yeah when a Crat does it the media is fine with it.
Whacked or water-boarded. Is there a third option?
If supporting same-sex marriage is what now passes for political expediency in this country, I say that’s progress. I also hope Romney flips on the issue in a cynical ploy to get my vote. More cynical ploys for equality, please.
Keep those emails coming.
DOT says pond-building effort is working for turtles
State lawmakers and governor agree: county auditors can audit
New mobile apps give Iowans more information about outdoor activities
EPIC RESURGENCE: Five Years After the Flood
Spring runoff may fuel algae blooms in Iowa
Time Machine section debuts on TheGazette.com
Evolve means to change. One can evolve in both directions on this one. Watch your back.
Todd, you’re more influential than you think. I was firmly against it until I read your column. Then, I was firmly for it. However, now that I read these comments. I’m firmly against it and for it.
It is also in the bible NOT TO JUDGE ONE ANOTHER. But if you read the bible, you already know this
And if Obama announced to the public he supported equal rights for gays and lesbians simply as a campain stunt, should he have done it prior to the election knowing this will probally cost him alot of votes??
Pat,
I’ll go in reverse order to make it more fun. Obama didn’t do anything to expand drilling on private land and in fact made it harder. Federal land, which is managed by Hussein, is off limits. “The Energy Information Administration (EIA) just released its report, Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced on Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 Through FY 2011.[i] This report shows that total fossil fuel production on federal lands is falling, natural gas production on federal lands is falling, and oil production on federal land fell in 2011 ending two years of increase. Specifically the new EIA report shows:
Fossil fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas) production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years EIA reports data and is 6 percent less than in fiscal year 2010.
Crude oil and lease condensate production on Federal and Indian lands is 13 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.
Natural gas production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years that EIA reports data and is 10 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.
Natural gas plant liquids production on Federal and Indian lands is 3 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.
Coal production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years of data that EIA reported and is 2 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.” http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/pdf/eia-federallandsales.pdf
Government spending is a drag on the economy. Any money spent by the government takes money away from productive use by businesses. See page 17-http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sedm1375/book.pdf
Long term fiscal security is critical to a long term growing economy and ss currently is a nuclear bomb on the horizon.
Eric,
Your opening statement there is false. If you look more closely at page 17 of the pdf you linked to, you’ll see the arrow go from households to government to firms. It shows government provides money to firms, not takes it away.
Not to mention your theory doesn’t make common sense, and if you look at historical data you’ll see that increased government spending is a crutch to a falling economy.
The Bush/Obama bailouts and stimuluses weren’t designed to bring the economy back, the gov doesn’t have that kind of money to spend. They were designed to slow the downfall and make the hole more shallow so we could bounce back more quickly. Considering we’re less than 4 years from the low-point, they worked as intended. I would add, I don’t like how the bank bailouts were conducted, but I do believe they were necessary to prevent complete meltdown.
Legalizing gay marriage would further help the economy as it opens a whole new market to access marriage licenses, wedding planners, photographers, banquet halls, booze distributors, caterers, dress makers, flower shops, and every other type of business involved in weddings.
Don’t feed the obvious troll that is obvious…
Several comments have been deleted because they were not on topic (same-sex marriage) and have monopolized the conversation.
Or were the comments really deleted because they used facts to highlight Obama failures and exposed Obama’s use of the media to hide his record and the real problems facing the country? 5 trillion more in debt in 4 years, 30% of people unemployed, are unemployed for more than 99 weeks, 4 million jobs gone, less people working than at any time in history, more people living off the government at any time in history, etc. the failures just go on and on.
You’re quite a piece of work there Eric.
Joel,
Thanks for the compliment, trying to attack a person instead of their arguments is typical of your kind.
What is a “piece of work” is an electorate so oblivious to what is going on around them, directed and manipulated by the liberal media, that a President with the worst performance ever may very well be re-elected.
Eric, you don’t know my kind so it would be impossible for you to know what is typical.
You’re a piece of work for coming into a forum and speaking off topic and disparaging the integrity of The Gazette for attempting enforce the guidelines that are clearly set for participating in discussions here.
I was implicating the liberal media, more than the Gazette, for allowing Barrack Hussein Obama to use them to hide his demoralizing record. What is your kind? Liberal, union socialist-communist, it network desk jockey, and/ or occupy anarchist?
Eric, you seem to place quite a bit of value on labels. Especially pejoratives. Too bad.
I don’t think the words have any negative connotation, do you?
The sad fact of the matter is Todd…you and the rest of the media..are being played for fools…and you’re eating it up like its some sort of “historic” moment.
NOTHING has changed, Todd. Obama still has the position that states should be the ones to decide whether to legalize gay marriage.
Obama refused to call for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Plus, Obama wont even call for legalization of gay marriage to be included in the Democratic Party platform this year!
Yet, this hasn’t stopped Obama from beginning to hock merchandise on his campaign website highlighting his “evolved” position.
The day after his announcement..Obama hauled in 15 million dollars at George Clooney’s house–5 million more than what was expected–attributed to Obama’s announcement.
So..once again..all this “historic” announcement has proven to be..is simply a sad ploy to pander to a section of the Democratic Party base…
Todd J:
Despite whatever reasons for his announcement, I’d say being the first US President in history to come out and directly say he supports same-sex marriage is pretty historical.
More symbolic than substantive, for most of the reasons you cite. But significant nonetheless. And courageous frankly, given how many states have experienced large numbers of reactionaries flocking to the polls in an effort to codify their discrimination. It takes a leader to make such a proclamation as Obama did at this time. Once you have a chance to wash down the vomit that just hit the back of your throat at reading that statement, I implore you to consider the trajectory we’re on and the inevitability of legal gay marriage in the near future.
“Im disturbed that you favor same sex marriage since you claim to be a Christian”
Isn’t the bottom line in being a Christian to follow Christ’s example? The quoted writer’s response certainly isn’t Christ-like. I don’t understand how one person thinks they can judge another’s Christianity based on their own personal, individual interpretation of the Bible.
Besides all that, why should any rights issue have to pass the “Bible test”? Our country wasn’t based on any particular religion.
The first dissent that Todd quotes makes references to the bible and God. I’d love to ask that person what that has to do with the issue. We are a secular country. The state is one entity and the church is another and, to the degree possible, one does not influence the other.
No one is asking any church to perform a marriage ceremony the church objects to. The church has no business telling the state to deny civil rights to certain people.
You may also note that there are many churches that support same sex marriage and an alternative lifestyle. In the last few years many churches have authorized openly gay and lesbian people to be ordained. Hence, no church can speak on behalf of the Christian Community as a whole.
Romney says the definition of marriage hasn’t changed in 3,000 years . . . that’s why his polygamist great grandparents moved to Mexico? One of his great grandfathers was killed by a relative of his wife #12. Yes, good-ole unchanging marriage one man, one woman or possibly many women . . .
While returning from a horseback missionary trip to the southern United States in 1857, Pratt was being tracked by Hector McLean. McLean was the legal husband of one of Pratt’s plural wives, Eleanor McLean. Pratt had met Eleanor McLean in San Francisco, California, where Pratt was presiding over a church mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_P._Pratt
Should we be held responsible for our great grandparents actions? How about Democrats actions in the last 50 years or so? “Mitt Romney was not at Chappaquiddick. Mitt Romney has not been accused of rape. Mitt Romney did not have an affair with a mob babe. He didn’t have an affair with an actress who committed suicide later on. Mitt Romney did not father a child out of wedlock. Mitt Romney did not support the tapping of Martin Luther King’s phone. Mitt Romney was never a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”
The point that you have missed is, making the statement that marriage has not changed in 3000 years. When in fact marriage has changed quite a bit. A fact that Mitt Romney should be well aware of given his family’s history.
A man having multiple wives was normal in ancient times and even today is accepted by Muslims (You can have up to 4). But it’s always been between men and women. And “How is marriage defined in the United States? Currently 37 states have passed laws which define marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman: 33 state legislatures have passed statutes to that effect, and 4 states (Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada) have, by popular vote, passed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) as constitutional amendments.”
Eric,
You continue to assert, incorrectly, that marriage has strictly existed between men and women. I suggest you do some serious research into ancient Africa, Rome, and Greece, as well as brushing up on your European History.
Is your contention that during recorded history marriage was generally viewed/seen/accepted as between humans of the same gender? I disagree with your hypothesis and challenge you to prove it.
You have stated things as fact and have not supported them. The burden of proof lies with the positive assertion. I have told you where you can go do correct your ignorance.
Would part of my European history lesson be that Vikings didn’t actually wear helmets with horns? Here’s what I learned today. “The Norse Gods are the mythological characters that, as far as we know, came from the Northern Germanic tribes of the 9th century AD. These stories were passed down in the form of poetry until the 11th – 18th centuries when the Eddas and other medieval texts were written.
Norse mythology comprises the pre-Christian beliefs and legends of the Scandinavian peoples including those who settled on Iceland where most of the written sources for Norse mythology were assembled. Norse mythology not only has it’s gods, goddesses and immortals but also a myriad of other characters and creatures that populate the stories including giants, dwarfs, monsters, magical animals and objects.”
I see that you learned of the only true gods. Not what I was suggesting, but definitely a good start…
I’m sure you understand what “mythological characters” means?
Yes, I do know what that phrase means and understand that your imaginary sky-fairy friend falls into the same category.
Actually Mr. Mxyzptlk (a comic book character) sometimes called Mxy, is a fictional supervillain who appears in DC Comics’ usually presented as a trickster, in the classical mythological sense, in that he enjoys tormenting Superman.
JRS,
Under the rules of engagement you are supposed to “Own your words. Use your real name.” so does JRS stand for Neil or Bob?
Hahaha, neither fortunately. JRS Jacobson is my legal name as has been discussed with the moderators of this board. Good to see that you have decided to surrender to a superior intelligence.
Try Googling Neil, Bob, and Ford Fairlane.
“The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.”
I believe in science and evolution. Homosexuality would result in extinction and so is a defect. Defects should not be punished or ostracized; but they should also not be held up as the socially acceptable state of being.
Eric,
All fine points you make. What other defects should we hold as socially unacceptable?
I would submit: marriage is historically a religious institution. it has also become a government institution since government regulates it and subsequently punishes married people through the tax code. The government’s role is to be servant to all citizens under its jurisdiction, as such, it is not allowed to discriminate. By its very nature, government must allow the contract of same-sex marriage to be validated.
Besides, heterosexuals have damaged the value of marriage enough already with the prevalence of divorce. There is no danger to allowing two men or two women to marry. Heck, it might even bring back some of the luster of marriage, in addition to providing the benefits of the contract to loving couples, couples who deserve it as much as any hetero couple. Not to mention treating people fairly and not discriminating because of a “defect”.
Be truthful. Cite your sources when making claims of fact.
“Defect is the general word for any kind of shortcoming or imperfection, whether literal or figurative.”
Ignore the double post. I’m not going to discuss hypotheticals. I don’t believe society should promote gay marriage. People can do what they want, they can even have civil unions, but they do not get to be married. Governments punish people every day, an example would be tax policy. Is your contention every gay couple has a perfect relationship?
Eric,
That is your opinion- “don’t believe society should promote gay marriage” -and that is fine. We can disagree. Although, I don’t want society to promote gay marriage, we just have to accept that it exists and is legally sanctioned by the government. Its otherwise no one’s business anyway, except the couple involved.
You say they can have civil unions… would you be accepting of civil unions that provide all the same “benefits” as those that come with marriage? ie. for tax reporting, legal authorities, inheritance, etc. These are the practical benefits, IMO the only valid reasons to be married, so if you say yes to the question, I personally can tolerate your discrimination and wouldn’t object.
Frankly, I don’t know why you, or anyone, puts so much value in marriage. Nor why you make it your business to control the union of any other couple. A gay couple being married would not affect you one bit. Why don’t they get to be married?
Absolutely not do I contend every gay couple has a perfect relationship. My point was that hetero’s have treated marriage shabbily enough, maybe gay couples would do better on average and actually raise the value of the institution again.
If a vote by all of the people of Iowa were taken on the subject I think marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman, like most of the other states that have voted on it. I would ask the question back to you why does it have to be marriage and why can’t it be a civil union?
It is a very good thing that the Consitution does not support voting on the rights of a minority. Add high school civics to your list of studies.
If JRS Jacobson why don’t you show up in any of the people finder websites? Maybe because it’s not your real name?
JRS,
What about the vote in NC and 29 other states? “North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that makes marriage between a man and a woman the only kind of union recognized by the state. Thanks to the 60-40 vote, North Carolina is the 30th state to change its constitution to ban gay marriage, though the measure — called Amendment One — goes further than many other states’ laws by also banning civil unions and domestic partnerships for both gay and straight couples. “
I do not show up in people finder websites because I have requested that none of those sites list me. I don’t need creeps, like someone on this board, searching for my residence and other personal information online. Those laws and amendments will be struck down after the SCOTUS rules, yet again, that discrimination is not supported by the Constitution.
Nice story, there is no JRS Jacoboson. If you want to stay in the closet you shouldn’t post here. We’ll see, maybe if Obama gets tp [ick some more lib justices. I’m sure you libs will try the old |If you can’t win by democracy you can always just change the rules later”.
Eric, by your logic, any person choosing not procreate (or one who is not capable of doing so) would also lead to the extinction of humanity and is thus a a person with a defect; what are we to do about them?
One thing being true doesn’t mean another is. I wouldn’t do anything as they would remove the defect from the gene pool and I would refer you to my previous comment “Defects should not be punished or ostracized; but they should also not be held up as the socially acceptable state of being.”
You said, “Homosexuality would result in extinction and so is a defect.” So, following your reasoning, the label of “defective” should extend to anything else that can’t/won’t reproduce. So yes, if it’s true that homosexuality is a defect because it would lead to extinction, then it’s true that any person with a lack of will or ability to procreate is defective in a similar way. We can ignore for the moment that homosexuality really wouldn’t ever lead to extinction, because 1) there are other ways to impregnate a woman and 2) I’m sure the gays would take one for the team and utilize “traditional” reproductive methods if the survival of humanity was at stake. Anyway, feel free to tell the gays, the celibate and the infertile that they are not “the socially acceptable state of being” in the same breath that you tell them you’re not ostracizing them and see what their defective minds think of that.
Dear gays, I do not believe society should promote or accept “marriage” between humans of the same gender as socially acceptable and you are an evolutionary aberration.
Eric, you forgot to say that to the celibate and infertile too. And you apparently missed my entire point.
People without knowledge of certain scientific topics should remain silent on those subjects. Recent findings show that homosexuality in a population promotes higher fertility rates. Also, mutations, or ‘defects’ as you incorrectly refer to them as, are the conerstone of evolution and natural selection. Please educate yourself before continuing to post unsubstantiated dribble…
“Be truthful. Cite your sources when making claims of fact.”
“Defect is the general word for any kind of shortcoming or imperfection, whether literal or figurative.”
The definition of the term does not excuse anyone from using it in incorrect context…
“Homosexuality would result in extinction and so is a(n) (imperfection or shortcoming) defect.”
“the parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc., that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning” Being gay is an imperfection or shortcoming. I understand the real issue here is gays want society to put the stamp of approval on their lifestyle by forcing marriage to be defined by them because in the back of their minds they always worry / feel they aren’t good enough.
Apparently, you still have no understanding of evolutionary theory. Until you educate yourself or produce credentials showing you do have more than an infants knowledge of science, your posts will remain laughable. Please, continue, I always get a kick out of people making fools of themselves.
Does reading Darwin count? What don’t I understand? My argument is that being gay is not the natural state of being and I’m assuming yours is that males are gay so they can help females with all of the extra work of raising children as they aren’t required to father children?
As homosexuality occurs in over 1,500 animal species, it is quite natural. Apparently, I have to clarify that an infant’s knowledge of science is not enough. I have already provided information and sources supporting that female fertility is strengthened by gay family memebers. Forgive me for not allowing uneducated people to wrongly invoke science that they do not understand.
“My argument is that being gay is not the natural state of being….”
Eric, check this video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhFImwpwPek
I even thought of a few myself: Air-conditioning manipulates our body’s natural state of metabolic functions/perspiration so it should be banned by the govt. It is an unnatural state for man to fly, so therefore airplanes should be banned too? If God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings. Soldiers wearing body armor to protect themselves from enemy bullets is unnatural, so America should not permit our soldiers to use armor when they go into battle. American troops shall only be outfitted with natural things like loin cloths and wooden spears.
If 90% of people are heterosexual and 10% are homosexual; then homosexual’s are abnormal.
10% of people are left handed. What rights do you suggest we withhold from those abnormal people Eric?
Using tools to make your life easier doesn’t make me think men having sex with each other is okay.
Marriage isn’t a right. Being left-handed isn’t the same a being an abomination.
“Marriage isn’t a right.”
Eric, Not true…..“Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”- Loving vs. Virginia (1967 SCOTUS decision) In this case the Courts have declared marriage to be a “basic civil right” fundamental to our existence.
With that said you could argue same sex partners cannot procreate, therefore SSM is not “fundamental to our existence.” Let me proactively head that argument off at the pass: If it is your position that the ability to procreate should be prerequisite for marriage then there would be no reason to permit infertile heterosexuals right to get married, or those who choose not to have kids, etc. Since we do permit/recognize non-procreating stright couples the right to get married that puts a hole in the ‘procreation argument’, making no legal basis to disallow other non-procreating citizens, such as homosexuals, to get married. You cannot say ability to procreate will be enforced against one class of citizens but not against another classification of citizens- that is the very definition of discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Thanks to the 60-40 vote, North Carolina is the 30th state to change its constitution to ban gay marriage.
Funny how you tend to change your own statements when asked to support them. You have shown a tendency to contradict yourself as well. A few examples:
“I believe in science and evolution. Homosexuality would result in extinction …” – Yet the world population continues to grow.
“Defects should not be punished or ostracized; but they should also not be held up as the socially acceptable state of being.” Uh, Eric, by not allowing social acceptance of homosexuals, they are being punished and ostracized.
“I don’t have any issues with gay people, do what you want;… Being gay is an imperfection or shortcoming.”
1-90&% of people aren’t gay
2-Not accepting marriage as being between two people of the same gender isn’t punishment,
3-Gay people are here, it’s not their fault they were born defective,
Eric, I see that you still havwe not fully educated yourself in the area of evolution. I suppose, by your lack of logic and reasoning, that you have not benefited from the defects that have made Homo Sapiens the dominate species of Earth. I am surprised that anyone of the apparent Homo Inferior species would have the ability to use our advanced technology…
I’m not interested in the pseudo-science you peddle in. I know you (and others) will try and find (use) anything to justify your deviant behavior.
Pat,
Sorry, I missed your post before. The SC has created “rights” out of the air before and I’m sure we will see how they will rule in the future.
Is your “recent” research really an Italian study done in 2004 that included 200 subjects? That’s funny.
Actually, a 2008 study by Brendan Zietsch and his colleagues of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research:
http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/ZietschetalNGM597Evol&HumBeh424-433.pdf
Here you go, you smug ignoramus. Now, do you plan on actually learning something about evolution and biology or are you simply going to continue to butcher the subjects? Also, let’s see some of you, more than likely nonexistent, sources to back up all of the unsubstantiated claims you have made?
Here is the result of your link: “The web page http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/ZietschetalNGM597Evol&HumBeh424-433.pdf cannot be found.” Can you only respond by name calling now?
Sorry, you may need a Mac or, at least, adobe acrobat to read the study. Can you form a logical argument without resorting to fallacy?
Didn’t know of the 04 study, so thank you. Regardless of what you may think, if you have the ability, the study is peer-reviewed and accepted. Some more education for you:
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html
It’s still just a hypothesis and peer review means nothing. What we “know” tends to change over time and even the best minds make all kinds of mistakes. See the faster than light debacle.
It’s funny how the researcher felt the need to state he wasn’t gay. “Prof Camperio-Ciani emphasised that he had no particular axe to grind in conducting his research. “I am very heterosexual,” he said.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1474047/Homosexual-link-to-fertility-genes.html
The concept of ‘God’ is much more complicated than the primitive ” cut and paste ” procedure early Christians used when they plagiarized the myths of other religions to create “Christ”. Those who attempt to apply some of the intolerant principles of their so-called “Sacred” religious texts do us all a disservice. With nearly seven billion people on Earth, survival requires that we evolve beyond religious mythology and make a better, more just and tolerant society. Burying your head in the sands of past misunderstanding will not lead us to the light.
Eric suggested …”being gay is not the natural state of being…”. I argue that there is no one ‘natural state of being’. Nature permits many states. As a very simple example, think of the many states nature permits for the orbiting electron around atoms. There is no one ‘natural state’, but several alternatives. Through the process of evolution, nature has permitted several types of sexual behavior and bonding. Accept and celebrate this diversity. It is wondrous.
Gary,
If 90% of people are heterosexual then I would say that is the normal state of being. I don’t have any issues with gay people, do what you want; just don’t force me to accept marriage as between two people of the same sex. You can have a civil union. My problem with the article was Obama using social issues to hide his abysmal record. If Bush had failed as Obama did then you libs would be screaming all day, every day for his head. Did you see Obama’s book biography? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
Here’s an article I stumbled across that may lend a little insight into the debate:
http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/who-says-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
I’m not a bible thumper and I’m not interested in playing semantic games with you.
Who said this was directed at you? Notice it’s not shown as a reply to any of your posts. I entered this post to the thread for the benefit of all. Geez. At least it’s ON TOPIC!
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/my-take-the-bible-condemns-a-lot-but-heres-why-we-focus-on-homosexuality/
My mistake. I thought you were trying to get me to validate your lifestyle since all of the other Sallies writing comments agree with you.
“If Bush had failed”? I find that quite funny. Would you mind telling me exactly what success he had and although I am speaking of George W. I would be happy to see what success either of them had. If starting wars counts as success you are right. If claiming victory on a ship years before the war ends then again you are correct. If spending billions on tax relief and the confusing prescription Part D or whatever his program was called then I would have to say he must be considered to be successful but if those are not his high points I hope you can tell me what they were. I listen the you “conservatives” bash Obama for 5 trillion more in debt since he took office but I don’t here 1 of you say the wars had already started. Did you all want Obama to pull out the troops your wonderful President Bush committed? If he had you would have had a great time bashing him for that. I would also like to add that in America the President really doesn’t have the power you all seem to blame Obama for exercising. It seems to me that we have a House and a Senate who seem to have the absolute final say. I didn’t think America had became a dictatorship but to hear you Limbaugh worshippers you would think we were. You are quick to take credit and even quicker to blame. In closing I would add that if two people who are of the same sex love each other and want to have the same constitutional guarantees that I do than I say they should and no one should stand in their way
By the way Kurt Thanks for the link to that great article.It is too bad that everyone won’t take the time to read it and learn from it
Frank,
Firstly, “here” and ‘Hear” don’t mean the same thing. Regarding the first war let me properly refresh your memory. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
Introduction
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 – Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Congressional votes
House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. “
Thanks for the spelling lesson Eric. I sometimes get in a bit of a hurry but you can rest assured that I know the difference and I am quite proficient in spelling. I have noticed you are great at diverting attention from the issue so I will remind you that I had several points and I am still waiting to see answers to those. I do believe that you made one of my points when you said that the war was a result of a Joint Resolution. That seems to make my point that it would have been impossible for Obama to actually have put America in the shape it is in all by himself. I have no doubt you know quite a lot about the issues you address. It’s too bad your hatred of gays and Obama and your love of Rush Limbaugh have skewed your beliefs to the point you are unable to see things clearly. I do not claim to be the debator (or is it debater?) that you are. I added that to have my new spellchecker do it’s job and of course I am referring to you.
The Obama Presidency by the Numbers
1. U.S. sovereign debt downgrade: first in American history
2. Federal spending (25% of GDP): highest since World War II
3. Budget deficit (10% of GDP): highest since World War II
4. Federal debt (67% of GDP): highest since just after World War II
5. Employment (58.1% of population working): lowest since 1983
6. Long-term unemployment (45.9% of total): highest since 1930s
7. Increase in nonfarm payroll employment (0.5%) since recovery began 26 months ago: slowest job growth 26 months after a severe recession since World War II
8. Home-ownership rate (59.7%): lowest since 1965
9. Percentage of taxpayers paying income tax (49%): lowest in modern era
10. Government dependency (47%). defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments: highest in American history.
Sources: Standard & Poor’s, Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Morgan Stanley, Joint Committee on Taxation,and the U.S. Census
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544712358583844.html
Eric,
I forgot to tap into that mountain if intelligence of yours. Since Obama has ruined the economy and put America at risk how many jobs did the Bush tax cuts create? I never see any statistics about that and I am sure you are the go to guy for positive spin (ooops I mean info) on any republican hero. It seems as if we have strayed a bit from the original conversation but I imagine you enjoy that since you seem to dominate this site.You must have a lot of time to listen to Rush to come up with all of your information.
Frank,
Where is the love? I think you are a Master debater! Now say it fast several times. We all make errors when debating, even me so don’t get so wound up.
Frank,
Educate yourself here – http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/02/03/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-january-2012-jobs-data/
You still give absolutely no responsibility or blame to Bush. You act as if America was on top of the world when Obama took office and I think any reasonable person knows better. I have talked to Rush Limbaugh groupies before and I realize they are much the same as the Jim Jones followers who drank the Kool Aid. Don’t drink any Kool Aid Eric. You are very clever with your master debater one liner. Gee I wonder if you made that one up?????? I doubt a link to a republican propaganda site would educate me since I often can tell the difference between the facts and the bull**** that they so often like to talk about. I do find it hilarious that a Mormon who,s grandfather had multiple wives now claims marriage is between one man and one woman. He should join the Circus Solei since he is so flexible. The truth is Obama inherited Bush’s problems and mistakes. Bush was an embarrassment to all American’s.He then had to deal with a republican congress who vowed to make Obama a one time President and refused to compromise or even consider what was best for the country. Our political system has failed and needs an overhaul and it is not just the republicans or the democrats.It is a system that seems to encourage waste. Our local Mayor (a republican) said to me that he didn’t understand why I was concerned about all the projects here in Cedar Rapids. He said it was “all federal money” and would I “rather it go to other states” Every congressman or woman and every Senator fights to get a larger share to build their own bridges to no where while the republicans cast all the blame on Obama. The republican have stonewalled every project and personally I am tired of all the crap coming from ALL politicians. I say throw them all out and start with sending Rush Limbaugh to live in China so we can be rid of his toxic ignorance Once we get rid of people like him just maybe politicians can get back to doing things that are good for the country and not just good for their party. We have lost sight of the ball and until we change we are doomed to repeated failure no matter who sits in the hot seat.
Frank,
1-Did Bush sit around and cry about the recession and terrific attack he inherited from Clinton? No, he got to fixing the problem. The result? AFG free, Iraq free, no more attacks on US soil, rebounding economy.
2-The MD line is not mine, I did borrow it from someone else.
3-Even if i disagree with you Sallies I give your arguments due consideration and read them.
4-It was his great-grandfather and I don’t hold great-grandchildren responsible.
5-Your opinion on Bush is, just that.
6-Barrack Hussein Obama choose to ignore the economy and do everything in his power to pass health care for his “legacy”. The Dems ran Congress for two years, FACT. Then the people voted the libs out in an ELECTION.
7-CR Mayor=RINO.
8-The lib social agenda has been going on since FDR and the same percentage of people are still poor. Your social safety net doesn’t work but you keep on thinking if we spend a little bit more and more and more the “poor” will be saved.
9-The budget could be cut 20% across the board and nothing would change.
10-Rush is a radio personality.
11-Rush is right!
Frank,
1-Did Bush sit around and cry about the recession and terrorist attack he inherited from Clinton? No, he got to fixing the problem. The result? AFG free, Iraq free, no more attacks on US soil, rebounding economy.
2-The MD line is not mine, I did borrow it from someone else.
3-Even if i disagree with you Sallies I give your arguments due consideration and read them.
4-It was his great-grandfather and I don’t hold great-grandchildren responsible.
5-Your opinion on Bush is, just that.
6-Barrack Hussein Obama choose to ignore the economy and do everything in his power to pass health care for his “legacy”. The Dems ran Congress for two years, FACT. Then the people voted the libs out in an ELECTION.
7-CR Mayor=RINO.
8-The lib social agenda has been going on since FDR and the same percentage of people are still poor. Your social safety net doesn’t work but you keep on thinking if we spend a little bit more and more and more the “poor” will be saved.
9-The budget could be cut 20% across the board and nothing would change.
10-Rush is a radio personality.
11-Rush is right!
Frank,
The following is a great explanation of our differing worldviews. You can review the whole article at the WSJ.
“The conflict between growth and austerity is artificial and framed to favor bigger government. Growth comes from economic freedom within a framework of sound money, property rights, and a rule of law that restrains government overreach. Businesses won’t invest or hire as much in an environment where governments dominate the economy. Thus, government austerity is absolutely necessary for economic growth in both the short and long run.
Economics has often ignored the critical distinction between austerity for the government and government-imposed austerity on the private sector. In the former, governments which are over-budget sell assets, restrain their hiring, and limit their mission to essentials. That’s growth-oriented austerity.
In the private-sector version of austerity, governments impose new taxes and mandates on the private sector while maintaining their own personnel, salaries and pensions. “