Where’s my dignity?
The terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it. […]
The bill was authored by state Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, who said Monday the bill is necessary to update existing state law.
“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”
And Democrats are pushing to banish these H8 words from federal law, too.
More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words “husband” and “wife” from federal law.
Those “gendered terms” would be replaced by “gender-neutral” words like “spouse” or “married couple,” according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.
“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.”
My relationship to my husband is as a spouse. But my identity is as his wife as he is my husband
These wannabe Diana Moon Glampers can go fuck themselves.
In a gender-neutral way, of course.
Meanwhile the word they’re really redefining is “citizen,” to mean “subject-with-benefits.”
“Benefits” as in…now the government has droit du seigneur every day, on everybody.
The Hope N Change freight train will not be stopped. It will crush us all beneath its steel wheels of progress.
Subject-with-revocable-benefits.
Ooo, I can feel marriage strenghening already… /sarcasm
Seriously, we all knew this was coming. It’s queer they couldn’t come up with a new term for a new institution, and now old words accepted globally forever will have to be erased from the dictionary ‘cuz they are bigoted and illegal.
The world has become just too ridiculous.
When is California going to address the sexism and patriarchy in Spanish? What is the word for parents in Spanish? Fathers!
There are tons more. Spanish is a much more sexually regressive language than English, but no one talks about it.
The Other are exempt from charges of sexism and raaaaacism.
Hence, the Muslims get a pass on their savagery.
Somewhat tongue in cheek: this gets government out of marriage. If there are no husbands and wives, there is no marriage. LBascom (and RI Reds ‘garriage’ on display? I guess it might be….materslittlony?
Package: xxx-xx-xxx, with attachments.
BTW, no matter what it is called on the books, Darleen has made her position known. I doubt anything CA does will change it.
Huh? Does not compute, Tracy.
>More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words “husband” and “wife” from federal law.
Those “gendered terms” would be replaced by “gender-neutral” words like “spouse” or “married couple,” according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.
<
The manager of a fruit and vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
So when do we get a judge to overturn that particular piece of legislation?
this gets government out of marriage.
Right up until someone says they wish to exercise their freedom of association (First Amendment isn’t just speech, the press and religion, yanno) and not attend/support/promote/subsidize/supply a same sex wedding, then the government will be ALL UP IN marriage, punishing those who aren’t clapping loud enough.
An idea: Union of one man, one woman, etc. = marriage. Everything else: Living together. You can have all of the same benefits.
I don’t know, Tracy. Are you comfortable with the hyperbolic rate of change? Seems to me that this slippery slope has turned into a bobsled run. Wonder what’s at the bottom.
Red, I have been an advocate for individual rights. Even if the majority doesn’t like it. I am also a big supporter of consequences. I think people get to own theirs. So, I own the end game of ‘same sex marriage’ – of course that is easy to say as I will not bear the burden of that position in any way that will likely affect me. Still, once a leak springs in a dam it quickly spreads taking the whole thing with it. I think the Left does really well when it is a barking dog chasing a car – not so good when it catches it. And I think it caught a semi. Most of this junk will have no affect on people, like I suggested with Darleen. Her relationship and identity are unchanged regardless of what the government does to a bunch of documents.
It is going to end badly but neither of us will see it in our lifetimes (even if I get to my planned 137). I think lots of other bad things are likely to happen long before that. Still, I tend to support laws that establish well defined boundaries between the limits of our rights. I don’t support laws that keep some people from behaving in ways others object to (but in which don’t interfere in the liberty of others). We oppose most gun laws because how many different laws are necessary to say : don’t murder or rob people with guns….bats/knives/forks/cars/2x4s/fists/feet….?
The three SCOTUS cases two weeks ago illustrate
the first court rule: if you need the SCOTUS to save you, you lost a long time ago.
the second court rule: no one wins if guys in black dresses decide the outcome.
the third court rule: you can’t legislate morality/intelligence and the courts are not tasked with providing either.
As to change. My parents are 83 – the world they grew up in is so far removed from the world CJ has grown up in that a person that died 80 years ago would barely understand it if they came back today. EVERYTHING is changing at increasing rates. I am spending my time trying to adapt, not trying to hold back the dam.
> EVERYTHING is changing at increasing rates. I am spending my time trying to adapt, not trying to hold back the dam. <
i will not "adapt" to totalitarianism even one that flies a gay confederate/demonrat flag.
Demands for compliance will get NelsonMuntzed.
newrouter: you WILL adapt or die. Even if that adaptation is to take out the offenders at 100 yds….
>newrouter: you WILL adapt or die. <
or THEY die miss 'cause i don't stand their bullshit!!11!! rebel flag flies, thank you demonidiot PARTY.
>newrouter: you WILL adapt or die.<
said "totalitarian ahole"
rebel flag – “Don’t tread on me.”
Uncles John’s Band
it is funny, outside of rap/hip hop( anti white
drum beating loser culture,) “popular music has” nothing to say about anything except their genitals.“Adapt or Die” is the motto of all life in the universe.
Or it would be, if all life in the universe bothered with fool things like mottos.
You dropped a zero.
As for subject-with-benefits, Rich and Bob each nailed a different one of a small multitude of intended connotations.
Funny, how?
McGehee, you can bet that even if all the subjects’ benefits get revoked, the *government’s* benefits won’t. Assuredly not that one.
Heh.
I have not seen a gay Viagra ad so, the world has not gone completely mad, yet.
BTW, no matter what it is called on the books, Darleen has made her position known. I doubt anything CA does will change it.
Oh, I’m allowed to refer to myself as wife in private – for now.
tomato tomahto
plus basil and mozz
and if you lucky enough to have some bible bread
bam
caprese sammich
Go make enough for everybody.
basil is jumpin’ out the pots
cause of it’s summertime and the livin’ is easy
there’s lots of bugs though
bitey ones
!jeb!
bugnewsIf Columba Bush Can’t Converse in English, Was Her Naturalization Fraudulent?
[…] Darleen Click on Protein Wisdom: California let’s me know I’m no longer a wife […]
Mrs. Jeb-Jeb’s language predicament is of mild interest to me. She’s not the one running for office though.
Still, I liked what one commenter had to say: at least we wouldn’t have to worry about her running for president someday. Then I think, “until the natural-born requirement is repealed (probably by Roger Taney Roberts) and the expectation of fluency in English is guilted out of the typical voter.”
Forbid it, Almighty God.
Tracy, I think you’ve confused the rate of technological change with the rate of social change. Tech – heck, I grew up in the 50s and lived the space program. Moore’s Law is a given to me at this point. But the change from traditional marriage to garriage to “we’re jamming this down your throats, bitchez” is happening in a much shorter time frame.
I doubt you think that the human race has matured/gained wisdom at an exponential rate, right?
Can I use ‘Roger Taney Roberts’, McGehee?
>She’s not the one running for office though.<
well the dude who is "running for office" certifies that naturalized "citizens" like her or it speak english. that !jeb! married a linguistically inept
stupidmexican is HIS problem.It should be trending on Twitter if there were any justice, Bob.
RI Red: societal change is always lagging, laws even further. The ‘majority’ like it the way it is because it suits them. Those that it doesn’t always agitate for change. No, I don’t think humanity has changed much at all over the last 1000 years. In most regards, I don’t think it will change over the next 1000 years. One of the reasons I do think Scripture is relevant is that the wisdom transcends time….BECAUSE we have not changed. Anyway, the Israelites demanded a King. We demanded the freedom to rule ourselves. Do you any hint of a parallel there? Once we removed the ‘status quo’ of needing a ‘God appointed ruler’, we changed the rules. If A, B, C, D and E were the status quo and we changed A, then what about B, C, D and E….couldn’t they be changed? If A was creating a government, then maybe B was recognizing all humans were ‘equal’ – four score and seven years later. And C, that the races were still ‘all humans equal’. God gave Adam and Eve the means to sin. Knowing full well they would. He gave the Israelites a King, knowing full well what they would do. We gave individuals the freedom to follow their own choices, knowing full well that some would choose badly, very, very badly. IF individual rights and liberties are to mean anything, then they have to mean people get to choose things most of us would think are bad choices. And in many of those cases, the will be.
If the status quo in big things can be changed, then the status quo in other things can be also and the people most affected by the status quo will be those agitating for it most. IF individual rights and liberties are to mean anything. WWII gave women the chance to have ‘jobs’ outside the home. Some liked that liberty. Birth control gave women the liberty to choose when to have a baby – or if to have one at all. Some liked that liberty. Technology gave all of us greater freedom to pursue ‘individualistic’ choices. Most liked that liberty.
Evolution, revolution, change. 98% of people won’t change much if at all. Do we want our children to live like we did? Did our parents want us to live like they did? More, better, different. My parents left their country and came here. They were quite surprised by my bringing home Victoria and surprised again when we introduced them to CJ. But, they adapted to RADICAL change from what their parents experienced.
“Are you comfortable with the hyperbolic rate of change?”
More please.
“…and the band played on.”
Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history. — Thomas Sowell
See also: Chesterton’s fence
de Tocqueville, DiA, V. II, sec. 4, ch 6: *** I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. ***
…were tried at some point before the historical horizon of the persons proposing them, failed miserably (and probably bloodily) and were discarded.
But I know Dr. Sowell’s referring to genuinely new ideas, at least one of which does come along every generation or two.
There is nothing new under the sun… (Eccles. 1:9)
I am reminded of the last time progressives tried to legislate morality on an unwilling country…
I wonder how many deaths will occur this time around?
As long as the right people die.
– Some progressive
Drumwaster: for better or worse, we don’t have one man or woman making those judgments, but 7 billion experimenters. What’s the old estimate: half of everybody that ever lived, is alive today.
sdferr: In the beginning your quote also sounds like Mills:
But ends up sounding a lot like Burke:
Oh and Drumwaster: there MAY not be anything new under the Sun, but man has not yet discovered all of it. Are you talking about Prohibition or the Drug War?
I hesitate to say Tracy — given my high expectation of your discernment and low regard of my own — but say I must, that this from Tocqueville sounds to me nothing like that from Mill at all. So I believe that you could not be more mistaken about them.
As to Burke’s remarks to the addle-headed French revolutionaires, again, I see little in common with Tocqueville’s prescient prospective vision of the future, our own present situation: Burke comments upon ghastly deeds already accomplished, errors already made. Tocqueville looks toward the implications of a new regime not yet brought to life when he writes, one existing in potentia only for him, and all to unhappily completed for us.
Drumwaster: for better or worse, we don’t have one man or woman making those judgments,
Well, in the latest decision, it was a vote of only six, not 7+ billion. Why would those six believe they are smarter than the 330 million they were deciding for?
Are you talking about Prohibition or the Drug War?
Why not both? It wasn’t Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who began the war on drugs. It was the Progressives who passed the 18th Amendment, and the Federal Laws started in 1938, using that (even though it had failed dramatically) as a backdrop of the government-as-protector, a role it had no legal authority to assume. Let’s see, who was President in 1938? The same guy who created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, that’s who. (See also W.R. Hearst – yet another Democrat – and his habit of connecting every death where even the tiniest trace of marijuana was found, and blaming the death on it, with the actual cause ignored.)
sdferr: Thank you. His characterization of mankind is not so different than Hobbes or Locke – the natural state of man being at all times at war with each other. Pretty much the state of affairs in Europe from the 1300-1900s. But I think our Founders felt, and I personally feel, there were more, or at least a significant minority that considered more than just themselves and their private friends. Hobbes wanted a God to cast awe and fear, Locke suggested government. Mill agreed with the need for government but considered it a necessary evil. As long as government is willing to assume the responsibilities of the individual (and the power associated with doing so), there would be lots of people willing to abdicate those responsibilities and grant that power. Hence the growing government menace.
but, ! if you assume (as I do with regards to most here) that God is the point and the authority referenced at the beginning of his (the quoted) second paragraph, he confuses it in the middle by referring to it as ‘this government’. But the purpose of our government was never to secure or protect or provide ‘happiness’, but to secure rights. So, the switch suggested to me that ‘above this race of men’ was the monarchy and nobility of Burke’s chastisement of France’s Revolutionaries. Burke argued that the ideal of individual rights/liberty was a lie – that most men could not live up to the liberty and the responsibility and therefore needed to remain in their station of life and let their betters decide the important things for them. Tocqueville sees that as the root of depotism, Burke thinks the monarchy and nobility can be adequately restrained and are necessary.
His ‘supreme power’, is government? is certainly descriptive of our own current progressives. But isn’t that kinda what we have said – that man has been pretty much unchanging. The wisdom of Scripture, Shakespeare continues to today. Revolution in Egypt via Twitter. Our culture is changing, has been changing for the 80 years, at breakneck speed, society lags, laws even further behind. To me, the ‘supreme power’ is not government but society – IF you are to ignore God which he clearly is.
So, the nature of man – lazy, willing to abdicate his responsibilities for a little security, petty, vain, willing to war over the immaterial – seems pretty unchanged to me and visible to anyone that cares to look.
if you wanna do right all day woman you gotta be a do right all night man and that’s the truth of it right there
Drumwaster: it was 9 votes, no matter what we think of the ideological bent of some of them. And they were not deciding against 330 million, or for 330 million. They voted on a specific matter of law. Yes, it had implications and consequences – but the 330 million are certainly not uniform in their opinion about the good or bad of those implications/consequences. Your position certainly doesn’t speak for me, nor does mine speak for yours.
as to the 7 billion. I don’t want the 1.1 billion Moslems making ANY choices on my behalf – with all due respect to those Moslems in this country that support our Foundation and ideals – and I don’t want the 1.4 billion Chinese doing so. Both groups continue in traditional ways to do exactly what sdferr and Tocqueville suggest: eliminate individual liberty.
I know this: I can act responsibly and you pointing out that 100 million other adults CAN’T, is not reason to prevent me from being free to do so. Our founding is not based on group control but on protection of individual rights.
So, as to legislating morality. Progressives began the war on drugs, now want to end it, but conservatives didn’t start the war but want to keep it going. I’ve always considered the ‘legislating morality’ as imposing restrictions upon individual choice: the idea that there is a strong right/wrong choice line that needs to be enforced. So, prohibition and the drug war are both attempts to limit the choices of the individual by creating a legal line that enforces the moral line established by a majority. Now, you can suggest that I have carefully constructed Roy Bolger in order to light him up, but it is what it is and I think gay marriage is an attempt to restrict individual choice to an accepted ‘moral’ limit.
“. . . if you assume . . . ”
I do not. Tocqueville is referring not to God (in no way to God), but to the immense institutional edifice of bureaucracy, of government, in the second paragraph. He points to the machinations of Lois Lerner one-hundred and twenty years before Lois Lerner is born. Tocqueville seeks there to outline the implications of an over-arching democracy in its fullness; what Kafka will eventually depict in nightmare.
Madison: Federalist 51
By far, in my opinion, the best and greatest summation of any hope at keeping government in check. Lose this, lose all.
it’s just a couple forms let’s not overthink it kids
Just a form. Right.
A form that by necessity exclude words that translated into every language for all history. I bet even Neanderthals had a word for ‘wife’.
But no worries, it’s just a bit of legislation from the bench. A Totally constitutional means of repressing bigots and all that, I’m sure.
sdferr: I agree that despite his use of ‘supreme’, ‘overreaching’ he was ultimately talking about ‘the State’. If you look at the Federal Government Budget line items, you will find almost 200 committees, departments, agencies not under the headings of the dozen or so cabinet departments – these are ‘independent’ from administrative oversight and only subject to Congressional appropriations – most mandatory, not discretionary. It is governance without representation oversight. We have two unions being run by the government, overseen by the government, in part funded by the government and yet, all the members of the unions work for private companies. It’s insanity.
But NO ONE wants to chop it down. Every single line item has a constituency that fights for it anytime someone even remotely suggests we jettison it. Even with my axe, I only managed to get rid of about 60%, the rest went to reside under specific cabinet departments.
the structure of our government is such that the violations are going to be similar over and over again. Only an educated and informed citizenry can change it – and us few that are paying attention, didn’t for way too long.
a rose by any other name….
sdferr: so, you agree that he was not talking about God, but government. Do you see that I might think that he was referencing a monarchy or already existing State structure? Or Society….Mill:“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them;”
Mill sees the tyranny of the majority and the magistrate. Burke sees the necessity of a monarchy and nobility. Both see Tocqueville’s overreaching ‘State’, one as a bad but necessary thing, the other as a good and necessary thing. I agree that we need government – at some carefully controlled levels, but that the lazy will give it more power than it can be trusted with. And society gaining control of government seeks to impose it’s own brand of tyranny. Government being always evil it can do nothing else but be evil, however necessary.
Madison (and Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams) and Tocqueville saw the risk – Madison and the Founders took the risk – it was the lesser of two evils. It took a long time for the risk to manifest itself and it has done so as Tocqueville suggested – but he didn’t predict Lerner, or even the IRS.
So was the French Revolutionary Calendar, hamster-boy.
let us pray
Dear God please to spare us from the malevolence of the pernicious California forms, for as we love thee so you also loveth us, no?
C’mon we had a deeeeeel
Not a good idea to renege on a deal with God…
wifey stuff
Assimilation, Bush-style
Go sit on the Group W bench, crappy.
California forms? Of course you must mean Federally mandatrd forms for all fifty states. Also no doubt. Puerto Rico and Guam.
Federalism is dead in the USA silly boy…
I don’t know why my links don’t work…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kRpZJ9EgJho
“Go make enough for everybody.”
None for me, thanks.
Sugimori only knows where dudleyfoot’s fingers have been.
when mr. !jeb! is presidente we a need drink called “the columba”
Here on la-la land 12 y olds can get an abortion without parental knowledge, and 15 y olds can get a sex change without parental knowledge. But let’s pretend this new law making marriage all about the emotion of love will end at “adult consent”.
Proggs like Happyfeet are pervs, and they will not be happy unless we all are. It’s who they are, it’s what they do.
Watch your children…they are.
Really LBascom? You think they will pass a law and require you to be a pervert?
I get that many here think I am a terrible sinner trying to either justify/defend/explain away my sinful nature. Exactly how does that make me different from anyone else here? If your position is that by having government approve something it condemns all citizens to their sins, then we’ve got 50 million abortions, killing of innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and several other places on our ledger – not to mention the financial theft of billions….trillions.Of course, one more straw is not just ONE more straw. Nor does the fact that thousands more proceeded it (or will likely follow it) – it is THE straw.
They already did pass the law making the constitution into a oerverted document.
Course I’m a cake baker at heart, maybe the less sensitive will require further compliance laws to become oerverted under the law.
Pretend some o’s are p’s. I know you can…
LBascom: f t’s mprtnt fr yu t spll wth o’s, t dsn’t ffct m. Yur blfs, but th Cnsttutn nd lw r just tht.
See….I left U in it.
Now the constitution and law say whatever five lawyers in black want to pretend it says You can pretend that will have no effect of you like. I know you do. Like to pretend I mean. You’ll do fine in wonderland.
The law and the Constitution have always said whatever NINE lawyers in black say it says. Or three. Or one. You say it says one thing, they say it says another. That is the amazing thing with language, it’s always a matter of interpretation. In the end, I interpret what you say to be animus – you hate sin and you think we are encoding it into the DNA of our nation. I ‘believe’ it has always been there, it was up to us to live better than that.
OK, if you say so Mrs. Dumpty.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all”
The pretense otherwise is what made things work — until CJ Roger Taney Roberts and his SCOTUS dropped it.
It’s called “legal positivism,” the theory that power and authority are the same thing.
Oh, and by the way, it’s only NINE if the Court has seventeen justices. Which it’s never had. In fact it didn’t even start out having nine.
McGehee – nine vote. I understand the distinction you and LBascom are trying to make – that 5 votes one way or the other are all that matter – but then that says that the 50% + 1 that vote in an election are all that matters. Maybe that IS all that matters. But we never had a democracy, so I think it matters what the other 50% -1 think. So, I want to know what all 9 had to say. Sometimes the dissent is important.
You know, this back and forth: sometimes people want majority rule, sometimes they don’t, really doesn’t help an argument. Either the majority get to make the rules, or they don’t. If you like or want the majority to make the rules, and ‘laws are not for the ‘outliers’, then when a majority stakes out a position different than you, suck it up. Arguing for majority rule only when you agree with it is pretty lame.
As for pretenses. Our entire system, political and economic, is based upon ‘belief’, belief in money, belief that after 2 or 4 years we can vote the bums out for different, our, bums. In 2000, the Left stopped believing in the political pretense. People like me stopped in 2005, or 2008. The economic one has failed, but most are too scared to act on it….except when it happens it will be like lightning. The SCOTUS pretense ended in 1936.
LBascom: I didn’t say it would have no effect, I said it would not have one on me.
Majority rule under previously agreed-upon limits is the American system. The trouble starts when people change the rules in the middle of the process.
Even SCOTUS is supposed to respect limits on its power, in order to protect its authority. Squandering authority in pursuit of power is a bad idea.
The Honor System breaks down when there is no honor.
Pretty bold statement, that it (and by it I mean judges ruling on laws as they think they SHOULD be written, not on as they ACTUALLY are written) won’t affect you. Fact is no one knows what will be the effects of a Alice in Wonderland government.
We are no longer a nation of laws, but of lawyers.
LBascom: if you haven’t figured out that, at best, I am amoral, then laws mean nothing to me – they are the means by which those around me choose to be bound. I have no such restriction. I follow the rules as long as it suits me to do so. MY rules: 1) always act in my own best interest; 2) allow no harm (defined as interfering in rule 1) unless it benefits rule 1; and 3) everything else is choice/preference as long as it doesn’t invoke rule 2. Fundamental principle: the individual is sovereign. Where and when (almost every day) I violate the laws it is with the understanding that there are consequences in doing so – consequences I accept. Most of it is minor, routine.
The law always infringes upon a right. the level of that infringement is often accepted by people so that others are similarly infringed. My problem is not that everyone might live like I do, my problem is so few are willing to AND accept the consequences. I will accept a certain level of infringement, until I don’t.
Is there a level in which you would no longer pay the cost of being a ‘citizen in good standing’? I assume EVERYONE on this side of the political fence has such a line.
An example: I have no stake in the issue with the Confederate flag. If the people that do won’t step up and defend it, then why should I care? As I have said repeatedly, the problem with marriage and the family began long before gays were an issue. Which of these did you support or give your tacit approval: no fault divorce, birth control, jail for child support arrears, aid to families with children, abortion. Each of them damaged the family – if all you did was wring your hands and argue with friends and family, then you gave your tacit approval. Did you support DOMA? It was clearly unconstitutional and certainly an attempt to get the federal government involved in marriage. Support or tacit approval? If you supported it, then you didn’t care about ‘unconstitutional’, you wanted the weight of the federal government to come down on your side. Our Constitution requires states to give full faith and credit to legal agreements made in other states. My opposition to DOMA, my support of gay marriage, my opposition to TARP, opposition to OBAMA/SCOTUScare are consistent.
So, I’m not REALLY amoral. I have a foundation, a set of principles, that determine right and wrong. Just not the same as yours.
bgbear: I have honor, I don’t assume that my government ever did or will.
The Rule Of The Anus Won’t stop there. Expect more of this.
Tracy, so what you are saying is your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Got it Mrs. Dumpty.
curmudgeon: I wanted to address this, because it has been said of me –
if it doesn’t exist, how exactly can it be ‘prudent to study the outcomes’? There WILL be bad outcomes. Straight couples have terrible outcomes too. Often with terrible permanent damage to children. In and of itself, such outcomes are not a reason against gay marriage. Of course, if ALL or the vast majority fail…why 50% might be a threshold, then there might be something to hold against marriage.
There will be good outcomes too. It took just a couple kids in the first marriage to get to murder.
LBascom: you’ve become a poor parody of Happyfeet.
It is a bait-and-switch, Tracy.
“The same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation.”
Curmudgeon: bait and switch suggests that no one knew that people weren’t going to switch something. It is not ‘bait and switch’. Gay marriage as promoted will still happen. What ALSO will happen is that others will use that as an opportunity – given such paltry defense of straight marriage – to promote THEIR agenda. As I have said here, the arguments used (mostly) against gay marriage have even less support in the face of polygamy. Sister Wives has been on TLC for what…4 years? If you free one wrongly accused criminal, isn’t all the others arrested by the same people/under the same circumstances/using the same evidence, likely to demand their freedom?
The article author suggested “why not marry your dog” was a ridiculous question when the polygamy question was not. Then he proceeded to treat the ‘dog’ question not as ridiculous. How about arguing why gays can’t get married? Why can’t we have 3 or more people getting married? Oh, I don’t know – we can’t determine the parental line, we can’t automatically give access to one and not the other, we can’t provide the same level of ‘equality’ before the law when it is 25/25/50. Of course 4 might solve that 25/25/25/25. More than one father might his progeny was taken. I can see several variations on Solomon and cutting a child in half….or thirds. Those are just off the top of my head – none have to do with tradition, or sin, or definition.
Most of the cultural norms for the family have been decimated for decades. And if societal compacts were sacrosanct, they should not have been. Societies change.
“LBascom: you’ve become a poor parody of Happyfeet”
And I fart in your general direction.
According to the FBI, Ciccolo attempted to stab a nurse in the head with a pen during a routine screening, “leaving a hole in the nurse’s skin.”
omg what a dick
hello? manners?
Why I Support Donald Trump’s Campaign – And It’s Probably Not What You Think…
donald trump with his clown hair and just being so sleazy and trashy and whorish to the core is almost as quintessentially failmerican as Hillary Clinton except for she has herpes what she got from Bill and herpes trumps bad hair
it is what it is
Tracy, three data points: traditional marriage, garriage, shove it down our throats. OK, fourth data point, criminalizing baking cakes.
And you want this hyperbolic social change? If so, I don’t think we have anything left to discuss.
>donald trump with his clown hair <
will smash the gop establishment
RI Red: Exactly why is my marriage (or lack thereof) a problem for you specifically? Why does what goes on in someone else’s home a matter for you? And if I walk around holding the hand of my partner – is that shoving my lifestyle down your throat? Or are you demanding that I conform to YOU opinion of how I should act – despite my actions not interfering with your liberties? Third point: no one is making you marry a same sex partner; you are free to marry whomever would agree to marry you in return. That hasn’t changed for 98% of the population that demanded the 2% conform to their idea of what was acceptable. And because we killed gays, criminalized homosexuality in the past is not evidence that it ‘was tried and failed’ in the marketplace of human ideas.
Fourth point: States have laws. You are free to violate them at your own peril. Some people think their right trumps everything else. The Sweat Cakes bakers were not criminally charged. They were fined for publicizing the home address of the couple suing them AND for not making a cake they were in business to make because they discriminated – in violation of the law.
Now, I think the law is bad – I think businesses should be able to discriminate. But I didn’t ask the state for a license to sell cakes and then violate the laws that were a condition of that license.
I want people to have as much right as any others. If you have the right to marry the person you want, I want the same right. No qualifiers, no exceptions. As to the change: I’ll wager $100 (I’ll send it to Jeff for 3rd party handling) that you went to bed on June 26th in exactly the same marital state as you went to bed on Jun 25th.
I’ve been filling out paperwork for 20 years by crossing off
fatherand putting Parent. Welcome to my world.“Adapt or Die” is the motto of all life in the universe. Good to know that T and V’s genomes won’t be making the grade.
and RI Red, because I disagree with the rate of change, there is nothing to talk about? Ok. But I don’t think it is the rate that is the issue, but the direction….
> Or are you demanding that I conform to YOU(r) opinion of how I should act <
ask christian photographers, bakers, florist, and pizza shop owners you commie clown
Gulermo: I have sibs that are making up for my lack. And we managed to rescue a girl that had been thrown away by her oh so heterosexual parents. In the big scheme of things, I’d rather my child survive and have an impact than worry about my genes. We have 3.5 BILLION other pairs dumping theirs into the sludge pool of humanity.
libertarian = proggtarded = vicious stupid people
Curmudgeon: bait and switch suggests that no one knew that people weren’t going to switch something. It is not ‘bait and switch’. Gay marriage as promoted will still happen. What ALSO will happen is that others will use that as an opportunity – given such paltry defense of straight marriage – to promote THEIR agenda.
Nary a difference.
Moreover, there ARE very good reasons to ban polygamy, as the savage muslim world shows.
The wacky guy with “sister wives” doesn’t have legal standing–yet. Heaven help us if he does one day.
I always regret this….
Newrouter: yes, before they could just tell people to F8K off and now they can’t. Terrible what we wrought in 1965…opening the door to EVERYONE thinking they could get served…
Which by the way, was a terrible idea.
>We have 3.5 BILLION other pairs dumping theirs into the sludge pool of humanity. <
you're fascismnating in a hitlertarian sense
Curmudgeon: Yea, after spending time going back to find out why they banned it in the first place, I changed my mind about it. From my POV dealing with the Courts, it opens a kettle of worms that CAN’T be decided except on a case by case basis – which is a problem in the law, you can’t have lots of variety in outcomes for the same evidence.
>before they could just tell people to F8K off and now they can’t.<
that sounds like gov't enforced slavery. you go commie/fascist grrrrl
Fourth point: States have laws. You are free to violate them at your own peril. Some people think their right trumps everything else. The Sweet Cakes bakers were not criminally charged. They were fined for publicizing the home address of the couple suing them AND for not making a cake they were in business to make because they discriminated – in violation of the law. Now, I think the law is bad – I think businesses should be able to discriminate. But I didn’t ask the state for a license to sell cakes and then violate the laws that were a condition of that license.
As if the bakers had a choice? Way to dodge the issue!
>But I didn’t ask the state for a license to sell cakes and then violate the laws that were a condition of that license. <
why does there need to be a license to bake cakes ms. commie/fascist?
Seems to me that Tracy is quite a bit dodgy…and a bit insane.
>Seems to me that Tracy is quite a bit dodgy…and a bit insane.<
her way or the highway totalitarian. you go commie/fascist grrl
Curmudgeon:
Didn’t know I was speaking to mr sweet cakes. I just looked at Oregon’s laws, and you were REQUIRED to have a license. If you didn’t, you had another violation that was not pursued.
Hi Bob. The Rule Of Law is being destroyed and the Rule Of The Anus is rising to replace it, and not just because of “the ghey” issue forced upon us all by judicial 14th amendment fabrication fiat either.
After all, under the Obamacare ruling, you could literally shit on a piece of paper, have it passed by Congress and signed by the President–then interpret it to mean whatever you want–because intentions!!!
Once I believed that with enough Real Republicans to overwhelm the RINOs, we could actually make a difference.
But we can’t anymore, so it is time for me to figure out a way to take more beach vacations so I can “lie on the sand and watch the world go to hell”.
But it’s been done before.
BTW, Sweet Cakes operated as an unregistered business until long after the proceedings against them started, then registered their business with the state.
Curmudgeon: it’s called having clean hands.
Mr Belvedere: exactly what do you think I’m being ‘dodgy’ on?
>BTW, Sweet Cakes operated as an unregistered business until long after the proceedings against them started, then registered their business with the state. <
you really luv the "state approved" thing commie/fascist grrl. how about 9 year old grrls with lemonade stands ms totalitarian?
>Mr Belvedere: exactly what do you think I’m being ‘dodgy’ on? <
being an effin' proggtarded nutjob
Spare me Tracy. You know damn well that the Rule Of The Anus demands that sincere Christians will have to violate their religion and be compelled to affirm and celebrate homosexuality to get the license.
Somehow the Muslims will be exempt, and I am just waiting for the day when the fruity Christian-hunting militants of San Francisco and Berkeley come knocking on the door of Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland and demand wedding cakes.
But I suspect I will be waiting for Godot….
Spare me Curmudgeon. Either acknowledge that Sweet Cakes violated the law – and probably would have been slapped on the wrist, except the publicity that affected the Kliens – or just be happy that anyone that disagrees can be dismissed as ‘the rule of anus’. Which for the life of me has NOTHING to do with me. Theoretically, Republicans control 38 states. Get them to revoke anti-discrimination laws. I’ll cheer them on. And someday I’ll go find and paste all the hate and vitrol from MY SIDE, the Conservative side that supports hanging me as an example. (me being the generic – no one has threatened me personally).
As for Muslims….The barbarians are feared.
> Either acknowledge that Sweet Cakes violated the law<
yo ahole "the law" now is the "barrel of gun" thanks to you commie/fascists.
– or just be happy that anyone that disagrees can be dismissed as :homophobia, racist, climate deniers, war on womyn, …
‘the rule of anus’Public Image Ltd – Rise
“rescue a girl that had been thrown away by her oh so heterosexual parents”
From what? To what purpose? Assertion is not reality?
“We have 3.5 BILLION other pairs dumping theirs into the sludge pool of humanity.” There’s your problem, right there. Delusory ideation in all it’s elusive glory. “We?” You checked out early. Survival requires that you show up.
“I have sibs that are making up for my lack.” Doubtful, but one can dream, no?
[…] Geller: Ramadan In Paris – Muslims Ransacking, Rampaging In Barbes (Video) Protein Wisdom: California Lets Me Know I’m No Longer A Wife Shot In The Dark: All In STUMP: Unpack Your Adjectives – Weekly Wrapup The Gateway Pundit: […]
Gulermo: our daughter was found abandoned in a vacant building on Dec 27. It was estimated she was between 3-4 days old. She was placed into an orphanage with 325 other girls similarly abandoned in the area around Hefei China.
WE, the generic humanity has 7 billion + the population of the United States. That means 328 million could check out and 3.5 billion would still be pumping kids out like Pez. I don’t have the ‘instinct’ to make sure my genes carry on. I carry osteogenesis imperfecta and muscular dystrophy in my genes. So, given their dominance, I am happy not to pass them on. I have 5 sibs (had, 2 brothers have passed), there are 14 genetic children and one adopted child from our brood. There are already 8 grand kids for my parents and 2 more on the way.
So, snark aside….what else do you have to offer?
Spare me Curmudgeon. Either acknowledge that Sweet Cakes violated the law – and probably would have been slapped on the wrist, except the publicity that affected the Kliens
No, they would have been bound and gagged.
And perhaps sodomized some time in the future?
“Seems to me that Tracy is quite a bit dodgy…and a bit insane.” The pathology speaks for itself. Neurotic and narcissistic is no way to go through life.
I used to not really care one way or another about queers, but now that the are acting like Islamists(demanding submission, and let’s be honest, Tracy has typed a million words here because she will never accept others don’t celebrate her perversions) I’m increasingly thinking they must be treated like Islamists; they make me their enemy and so I must respond as such.
And so I will.
> 3.5 billion would still be pumping kids out like Pez. <
you are better than hitler or margret sanger "darling"
> they must be treated like Islamists;<
um proggslams?
I used to not really care one way or another about queers, but now that the are acting like Islamists(demanding submission, and let’s be honest, Tracy has typed a million words here because she will never accept others don’t celebrate her perversions) I’m increasingly thinking they must be treated like Islamists; they make me their enemy and so I must respond as such. And so I will.
I don’t just use terms like The Rule Of The Anus for pizzazz. Increasingly I feel like we are to be put through their version of the body politic, like Lemmiwinks.
> they must be treated like Islamists;<
yea "proggslam" i've used that term before perhaps. anywho the control freaks are coming out of the wood work.
And Tracy is a a liar, Sweet Cales did not give out the clit lockers address.
The asshole persecuting them did conspire with the local gay mafia however
It’s going to have to come to decorating light poles with these types, or grovel to them, one or the other. They will not allow another choice, mark my words.
“So, snark aside….what else do you have to offer?” Me? I offer you nothing. Besides, this isn’t about me, it’s about you and how wonderful you are and how you are oh so much better than all those breeders, because you “choose” to be a “parent”. Can I hold the lamp a little higher?
> I don’t have the ‘instinct’ to make sure my genes carry on. I carry osteogenesis imperfecta and muscular dystrophy in my genes.<
so why is your partner licking your vagina? and you know for a fact your offspring will be debilitated by those conditions?
Gee LBascom: The Agency argued that the publication of the complaint by the Sweet Cakes, which included their address was a violation – the AJ ruled against them. The address was published, they were not fined for having done so – I stand corrected.
Yes, and the Christians rallied around the bakers. And your continued slurs demean you.
Gulermo: whatever blows your skirt up.
Newrouter: my partner died in 2011. And the answer is that all offspring will carry both genes, only boys risk the disease and both parents have to carry the gene for MD. OI has been diagnosed in 6 of the grandchildren.
At Ace’s blog the all guys get shirts.
You wanted to talk about yourself? Fascinating subject, I am told. Please, do go on. Someone here referred to you as one of the “good” ones. Conservative, no less.
Gulermo: classical liberal version of conservative. If someone were to argue, I would say that social conservatives have the more correct claim to the ‘conservative’ name plate. But in the general battlefield of ideas, conservatives used to stand for individual rights.
>my partner died in 2011. <
prior to 2011, did she lick you vagina for your pleasure? you perverts have alot of excuses.
>But in the general battlefield of ideas, conservatives used to stand for individual rights.<
you be an idiot or ideologue or stupid or insane.
– or just be happy that anyone that disagrees can be dismissed as :homophobia, racist, climate deniers, war on womyn, …‘the rule of anus’ – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=57289#comment-1256234
an emotional basket case probably
> conservatives used to stand for individual rights.LIBERALS<. advice quit smoking pot.
see,…that is why I always regret engaging with newrouter.
>see,…that is why I always regret engaging with newrouter. <
you suck at answering a question. did your partner lick you vagina? what's your vagina for in a DARWINIAN sense? that you are a loser and don't know what your vagina is; for how is this my fault?
civil war with idiots folks
so tracy
are you a rt or a media matters troll? who pays more?
Where do you fit into this definition? Whatsoever issues from the mouth of a man proceeds directly from the heart.
The mantle you seek is not this.
Shorter: The horse you rode in on; where’s it parked?
newrouter: that these good Christians tolerate your slurs, your little vile innuendos, your outright vulgarity speaks volumes in their tacit approval of it. So much for respect and the coarseness of our society. But, I guess the oxygen is somewhat tainted that low to the ground.
Classical liberal. Why would anyone believe you?
“So much for respect and the coarseness of our society.” Tell that to the Kleins. Since you feel that an apology is owed, society has waited lo these many years. You may begin with Ryan White.
Gulermo: classical liberal. Firm foundation of individual rights, limited government, capitalism has done more to alleviate poverty than anything else. Strong proponent of the Constitution. That some of my positions appear to support the left is strictly a matter of coincidence, not principle. Founding member of the American Conservative Party. My position on marriage:
I wrote all but the bold part – that was added recently much to my chagrin.
Tracy believes in the Constitution like Rex Mottram believes in the Pope.
because Ernst is better at name things than understanding them….
“That some of my positions appear to support the left is strictly a matter of coincidence” This doesn’t give you pause? Nope, not even close. I ask you again; the horse you rode in on; where’s it parked?
Never saw it, read it.
Gulermo: Does the fact criminals want to bear arms give us pause? Nope. Shouldn’t either. That bad people use liberty in bad ways is not a reason to curtail liberty.
Well, if those answers are insufficient to answer your question, I am incapable of doing so.
Do you accept that a mental dis-order should be recognized as a lifestyle choice?
“That bad people use liberty in bad ways is not a reason to curtail liberty.” Such as the Kleins? Not to put too fine a point to it, but who gets to decide who is bad and to what degree do they get to determine punishment?
Now you’re a mind reader?
The smart rhetorical play would have tried to either embarrass newrouter, or shame the rest of the community (at least the “good Christian” part of it). You tried to do both and wound up looking faintly pathetic.
It’s not my fault you’re confused.
My point was that you don’t believe in the Constitution, you believe whatever a majority of the Supreme Court decides you should believe.
“faintly pathetic” Faintly? It’s all about the penis envy, I’m told. And no respect or something, something. I wasn’t really paying attention.
Someone brought up the subject; just what is a “good Christian”? Someone that accepts the rules of the godless, I guess.
“I am incapable of doing so.” Tru Dat.
Somebody willing to call out newrouter for his slurs, little vile innuendos, and outright vulgarity it seems. So I guess that makes Tracy the only good Christian around here.
Gulermo: I don’t accept the premise, if you are implying one, concerning homosexuality.
Who is bad? I define it as those that infringe upon the liberties/rights of others. And all laws infringe. I accept those I disagree with as part of the package deal – I try to work on getting those changed. And, when I violate laws I disagree with, I accept the consequences.
Part of the package is that we give government the power to enforce the laws we agree to. Not everyone agrees with the laws, that doesn’t change that ‘the necessary evil’ that is government is necessary. We try to establish the boundaries of our liberties and then codify those into law – either black letter or case law. When our system comes up with different answers to the same question of where those boundaries are, we hand it off to the SCOTUS. They become the final arbiter – and one side will ALWAYS be pissed/disagree. That is the deal with interpretation – there is usually more than one possible answer.
I feel no apology is needed – I merely point out that slime dripping off the walls is less bothersome to some.
As to classical liberal and people believing me. Feel free to find a definition of it and see if my positions are consistent with it.
Ernst: actions speak, words speak, silence speaks. If the shoe fits… I gave up on trying to embarrass newrouter, he doesn’t embarrass. He just gets more vile. As to ‘faintly’, tweek vs poke. A matter of degree.
Gulermo: if you can’t clarify your question, my inability to answer it reflects poorly on our interaction.
Ernst: it is not what a man eats but what he speaks that defiles him – to paraphrase. I tend to ignore newrouter, maybe that is how others react to him. But ‘good Christians’ have told me they respect others and prefer not to tolerate vulgarity. I accept that position and assume other ‘good Christians’ share that outlook. So, when I am around them and don’t see them being intolerant of it, I wonder if ‘good Christians’ do tolerate vulgarity, or that I am not really around ‘good Christians’.
I tend to try and ignore him, but sometimes I make the mistake of engaging with him. Those are both my choices – I attribute nothing more to my choices than that. I don’t consider myself a ‘good Christian’, so I am neither bound nor prompted by such a characterization.
I am not confused by your labels, I just think they are inconsistent with anything I have said. I actually think you are the one confused, hence my statement.
Gulermo: In the past, people criminalized homosexual behavior. You implied it is a mental disorder. Which position would you support today?
-Gulermo wrote:
Thanks and: dead solid perfect.
-Newrouter comment:
Thanks.
Amidst all the horrors of contemporary international relations we continue to see one simple-minded reference after another to the 1938 Munich Peace Conference — a terribly mistaken analog for the betrayal completed by the America hating ClownDeceptor regime today, when the much better analogy is so close at hand in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Americans refuse to see, cannot even imagine what has just happened. Isn’t is a shame to them that they cannot recognize their own peril? What a stupid and corrupt nation this has become. Can it be any wonder that the nations of the world despise her? Where once that despising was for envy of her greatness, now it is for disgust at her pathetically gleeful self-destruction? O folly raised to art.
Thanks Mr Belvedere, I didn’t actually think you had anything to say.
I beg your pardon, mister s, O!
And where is lillehammer, now that we don’t really need him?
“I don’t consider myself a ‘good Christian’, so I am neither bound nor prompted by such a characterization.” But you use said tenents to your benefit and expect said “good Christians” to self censor or censor the person next to him on your behalf.
“In the past, people criminalized homosexual behavior. You implied it is a mental disorder. “Nice straw man you have there. I didn’t imply, I stated the behavior indicates a grouping of pathologies. That you are unable or unwilling to recognize this simple reality does not surprise in the least.
Gulermo: I pointed out that in the past, those circumstances had provoked others and had not here. I don’t expect newrouter to self censor, it seems beyond him. If I walk into a room full of people and there is a pile of shit on the floor, it is not just to my benefit but everyone elses to clean it up. No stray man. I noted two different ways homosexuals were treated in the past, and asked you what you preferred.
What mental disorder? How is whatever it is considered a choice? I think you were implying because you didn’t state what specifically you were talking about. Your previous comments did not clarify that. I assumed you were speaking of homosexuality and didn’t accept the premise.
Your ‘simple reality’ is unstated. Much like the horse and parking. you are probably clearer in your head than you are in your writing.
The “horse” refers to who you are and how you came to be where you are now.
“I don’t expect newrouter to self censor” Of course you do. If not, why the appeal to authority?
“I noted two different ways homosexuals were treated in the past, and asked you what you preferred” Gracious of you to allow me one of your two choices.
“What mental disorder?” The one with which you are afflicted.
File this under newrouter’s crassness and “So much for respect and the coarseness of our society.”
http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-sex-toys-dangling-power-lines-portland-oregon-233149187.html /sarc
newrouter can be very trenchant
he has a super-tasty recipe for healing cabbage soup though
very easy to tweak to your own taste
i make it pretty often now
yes i do
Tracy, I’m not sure if I pity you or what. You are free to do as you see fit. As am I. And I’ve decided that I have better things to do than interact with you. Have a good life.
Gulermo: re ‘horse’ If you could not grasp even a small part of what would be a much bigger answer then the problem was not the question, it was the questioner. I gave sufficient information that if you wanted to pursue more detail, you could have. Where I ‘parked’ it was equally clear.
I didn’t appeal to authority – if I had, it would have been to Jeff – I don’t expect newrouter to self censor, as I said I believe he is beyond that. However the fact that no one else finds him vile suggests they too choose to just ignore the pile of crap in the room or the smell doesn’t bother them as long as he is flinging it at others.
You could have as many choices as you want – I gave the two that seemed most appropriate from your comments. You couldn’t diagnose me if I gave you a year of conversation. As you continue to suggest my mental state is defective, I choose to continue to believe your POV is from one of ignorance rather than arrogance but I could be wrong.
RI Red. I am free to do as I see fit. I live in a country founded upon that ideal. And, part of that is that I firmly believe everyone is so fit. Unlike me, others want me to act as they see fit. I have a very good life, thank you.
“I didn’t appeal to authority – if I had, it would have been to Jeff ” Of course you did, hence the appeal to the “good Christians” to save you from the vile and “for respect and the coarseness of our society.”
“You couldn’t diagnose me if I gave you a year of conversation.” You did and I have.
“As you continue to suggest my mental state is defective” Reading comprehension is key to understanding. See also aberrant.
“but I could be wrong.” More often than not.
Did you also wish to discuss your compulsive need to control unecessary anonymouse conversations on the internet? No?
Gulermo: abnormal, deviant, anti-societal and add in Ernst’s liber(al)tarian? minarchist? anarchist? (redundant, isn’t he?)
I don’t fit your definition – or the accepted majority opinion – thereof. Much easier to name and dismiss.
Not an appeal, an accusation. One that despite several comments, continues unanswered in the sense that it is clear his spew is acceptable even defended. As is the ‘normal’ on anonymous internet conversations – one of the reasons I use my real name.
Your personal opinion of my ‘condition’ is just that. But doesn’t that let me off the hook for sin?
I’m at my computer a lot with time to spare. Rather than spending it on meaningless TV/Cable drivel, I spend it on necessary conversations.
So we’re back to somebody needs to shut newrouter up because good Christian community standards are being violated or somesuch. But you’re not going to do it, because you expect newrouter to be newrouter –which is okay with you, except it’s not because somebody –not you of course– ought to call him out for it.
Maybe you should give the drivel on TV a try.
“I don’t fit your definition – or the accepted majority opinion – thereof. Much easier to name and dismiss.” This is an assertion not founded in fact.
Life is a sequence of problems that are not unique to you.
” Your personal opinion of my ‘condition’ is just that” The axiom; you get what you pay for, comes to mind.
today one of my friends got a free sammich from uber eats
Tomato, tomato.
Tipless uber delivery, reedless saxophone pipes.
it’s probably the best banh mi you can get downtown
he said it wasn’t as tasty as when you go straight to the store and i do kinda believe that
there’s a place called dough bros on state what makes a tasty banh mi too
oh god that is so many orange
Can’t immantize the newrouter. Can’t sterilize the hamster.
wait..no need to sterilize the hamster. To my knowledge, there’s never been a human anal birth. But with these new biological reclarifications, who knows what’ll pop out of where next?
ur styupid
Your “Y” chromosomes are painfully supressed and woefully inadequate . But great job! on the curtains!
no yours are
>. One that despite several comments, continues unanswered in the sense that it is clear his spew is acceptable even defended.<
i don't sell aborted babies parts. so there's that.
http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/
> continues unanswered in the sense that it is clear his spew is acceptable even defended.<
so your silence on selling aborted baby parts means you approve?
Newrouter: Because 46 minutes is the same as several days?
My position on abortion has been pretty clear, but clarity is not something you tend to understand. But I’ll give it a shot: I support abortion until the 20th week. A woman’s right to her body is preeminent. However, because we don’t KNOW the exact timing of conception, from week 20 to 24 should be done in consultation with medical professionals with the intent of determining viability – at which point, I believe, the infant has a right to life that can be asserted. From the 24th week on, There are two demands on ‘rights’ and as one choose, and one did not, the one that did not gets the benefit of any doubt. I oppose abortion from the 24th week on. That is consistent with my view on rights.
>However, because we don’t KNOW the exact timing of conception, from week 20 to 24 <
way too scientifically stupid to respond. who pays you to mouth the stupid?
hey tracycoyle
you’re a fucking clown, idiot or proggtarded loser. your “choice”. i be about “choice”.
Newrouter: no matter how much or what I say, you have one response. It must be conditioning: this person disagrees with me – PROGTARD.
Pavlovian.
newrouter: do you have your own thoughts or do you just ‘sic’em’ in response to voices you feel comfortable with?
>newrouter: do you have your own thoughts or do you just ‘sic’em’ in response to voices you feel comfortable with?<
you go grrl! emote idiot!!11!!
> It must be conditioning: this person disagrees with me – PROGTARD.<
see pizza places in in or little sisters of the POOR asshat
Public Image Ltd – Rise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN-GGeNPQEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN-GGeNPQEg
Just, damn nr..
Is it too late to take drunk-posting lessons from Vodkapundit ?
Newrouter: so, the answer is…someone elses music…..words….still nothing heh?
>Newrouter: so, the answer is…someone elses music…..words….still nothing heh? <
heh tracy you are a stupid motherfucker. go emote elsewhere estrogen bitch. these words
>Just, damn nr..
Is it too late to take drunk-posting lessons from Vodkapundit ?<
fuck losers like "tracyfool"
Tracycoyle, your 20 weeks or 24 weeks to ‘infant rights’ tells me you are an atheist who has no belief in souls. If that tissue mass has any purpose whatsoever beyond mere animal biological existence, then it is soulful at conception; the mother has fewer rights than she has responsibilities. Of course, atheists are self-created, self-centered animals who have no regard for others’ souls, so there’s that. I suppose it’s a good thing Government is there to herd these soulless animals along, animal husbandry being a thing they’ve earned, and deserve. Hard, and harder still.
Oh.. Gays are The new Nazis. That is all.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-15/future-costs-politically-correct-cultism
tracycole a Manufactured ,via media matters, ahole
>Tracycoyle, your 20 weeks or 24 weeks to ‘infant rights’ tells me you are an <
angel of satan you pos
to tracy.
watch what you lick because bacteria
darwin
>Just, damn nr..
Is it too late to take drunk-posting lessons from Vodkapundit ?<
the same sex stuff is anti DARWIN so fuck the "science" clowns
serr8d: well, I am not an atheist. I believe the Universe was created, that involves purpose. I am agnostic – I don’t believe we can know what the Creator is except as to ASSUME the Universe reflects IT. Religion is an attempt what was unexplanable. As to a ‘soul’. I believe we are more than our physical existence. I believe there is an ‘afterlife’ though I don’t think it includes a city of gold or 72 virgins. So, as I have never called the infant ’tissue’ or a ‘lump of cells’, s/he is alive but not “A” life until s/he is – and that point is viability. That is MY belief. You, I gather, disagree.
So, given your original premise is false, all the rest is incorrect, or irrelevant….as Ernst would say.
AS to the Left, it includes many gays, but of course only 1-2% of them are. The rest are heterosexuals….
newrouter: ….with you it is all spittle and vileness….do you have little post-it notes with sayings all around your screen you just copy as needed?