Here comes the Supreme Court again....

[Shootist]

VirVox..

I, myself, and others for that matter have pointed out the weaknesses in these "polls" concerning this matter..
Personally, I don't give a biggen who marries who.. Having said that, and it has happened many times, when a pollster ask people if they support gay marriage, they answer yes..Apparently, they don't follow that up when they acturally VOTE.
That appears to happen a lot wouldn't you say?

Concerning the long windedness, I enjoy reading your post, but I must admit they are to the point I will have to post TLDR:)

[Shootist]

Lesson Learned wrote:

<quoted text>
So you have no core beliefs...you can go whichever way the wind blows. I think you've just blown any credibility you may have had. We on Beckley Topix may disagree on issues but it's not for just the sake of an argument.
I take back any laudatory comments that I posted previously. Another lesson learned.....sadly.
PS: Let me also say that while I disagree with CP on just about every issue you won't find him bragging about switching sides in an argument.

LOL.. LL you are hard core liberal for sure....What will you do if Obama loses and this country turns farther to the right that it was when Reagan trounced Carter?

I don't have a degree in theology, but just for the sake of argument, do any major religions find homosexuality acceptable?
Just curious..How about other sexual proclivities?
I have already stated, I care not who marries who, but do you not think that if and when this becomes the law of the land, it will open up the doors to all kinds of groups with their own "perversions"...(Acc ording to most societies and religions, not my idea, but historically)

They do have a valid point in that area... Does poligamy automatically become legal and acceptable for example?
The list could go on and on..
That is the major flaw I find in Gay Marriages.. We aren't talking about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. or even racial descrimination.. We are talking about a group with a particular sexual interest..How do we deal with all of the other "oppressed" groups?

[VirVoX Populi]

Ok LL, that is a misinterpretation. I have core values and beliefs. One of those is being incredibly open minded to any ideas that work. I stated that I am capable of seeing validity in any side of an argument, and thus I do like to debate because it presents new ideas and perspectives.
I do not understand where expecting one to be closed minded, opinionated with a narrow unyieldingly steadfast view is a good thing. Thats a major reason why we have so many problems right now. Too many people fall back on "Im right, there stupid" too much from local Topix, all the way up to the halls of congress. Looking around and seeing the situation this closed minded my way or the highway approach has only made things worse. However it does explain why your acting so wounded just because I expressed an opinion you do not agree with.
Why all the offense at this one issue? I have disagreed with you on multiple occasions in the past. I have also made it very clear I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative or libertarian. Yet with what you have said in response with the likes of how its better for you to get your disappointment out of the way now and because we differ on one opinion that it eliminates any sort of credibility I had?
Is it really that I am now some sort of monstrosity that has just now shown true colors? Or is it that I presented an argument against homosexuality that cannot be dismissed with "damned bible thumpers and unevolved knuckle dragging troglodytes" that there is literally no way to counter the argument? I know because most people have not heard this side of the argument so when they do hear it, it almost always catches them off guard as they scramble for a way to make a retort.
But you are right, I did basically restate my original positions, so allow me to present it in a different way.
__________
Are you familiar with Russell Means and the Republic of Lakota? This issue is the ongoing current issue where a group of Native Americans are attempting to reassert their sovereignty based on historical treaties from 1851 that granted them a block of territory that encompassed 5 US states Including Larger cities like Omaha NE, Casper Wyoming, as well as Mount Rushmore.
Now by all legal rights we should force the will of 300 million US citizens, and specifically roughly 750k to 1 million people would in essence be forced to abandon their homes and relocate to accommodate a treaties from antiquity that represents the will of roughly 100k people. This would create a sovereign nation housed completely encompassed and protected by US borders on all sides.
So should the will of 300 million, or even the will of the potential 1 million directly effected be subjugated, abandon cities we built and landmarks we created just to appease the will of 100k people?
This is also an apple and oranges comparison. Because with the Sioux and Lakota, they actually had a documented historical claim.
__________
Forgive me for using such a cheesy and glib explanation but as the saying goes "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". The will of the masses even if it is at a 50/50 split across the nation as suggested its still the needs of the 50% against it vs not the 50% who are for it, but the 2-4% it actually effects positively. Yet... by granting that 2-4% new and never before existing privileges you do directly and adversely effect every single American citizen with that decision by giving these people multiple ways of obtaining these financial benefits.
I am sorry you are offended. I am sorry you feel wounded but I am not one to defend screwing over the people of this country just to accomodate a microscopic minorities desire for financial gain, legislation that prevents people to their right to express their opinion and forces their adversaries into litigious submission. I would hope you would see beyond a disagreement and not discount the intellect behind it.

[VirVoX Populi]

Shootist wrote:

VirVox..
I, myself, and others for that matter have pointed out the weaknesses in these "polls" concerning this matter..
Personally, I don't give a biggen who marries who.. Having said that, and it has happened many times, when a pollster ask people if they support gay marriage, they answer yes..Apparently, they don't follow that up when they acturally VOTE.
That appears to happen a lot wouldn't you say?
Concerning the long windedness, I enjoy reading your post, but I must admit they are to the point I will have to post TLDR:)

Fair enough. TLDR is typically the first or last paragraph where I either lay it out, or summarize it.

As for the polling, yes your right. You also have to consider how many of these poll respondents are actually the teenage kids of a household that mom/dad told to answer the call and tell them to go away and answer how they want, but not reflective of the households registered voters.

Yes polls suggest it, but actual voter support is no where near that level of support.

Also... I dont want to screw with an incoming thesis post, and double post it, but I did post something and its not showing up yet. so In response to LL, Its incoming.... at least I think. If it doesnt show up in the next hour Ill repost it.

[capitalist pig]

The Supreme Court in their very finite wisdom simply muddied the waters on an already very complex problem. Now police can check the legal status of someone they stop, but to what end. They can not detain them. Supposedly conservative Justices actually said that it is not a crime to be in this country illegaly. How can breaking the law, not be a crime. They also gave the federal government carte blache to enforce the laws they want and to ignore the ones they dont.
Now we have all these illegal aliens here (some not by their own doing) who are now still in limbo with the new obama order and the supreme court order. Everyone knows that we are not going to deport 12 million people (nor should we) and we are not going to give amnesty to 12 million people (nor should we). Just one more reason we should fire all 535 of them and start over. The immigration policy of the United States and to the illegial aliens who have been allowed to come here with a wink and a nod.

[capitalist pig]

Vox, I actually enjoyed your last post. i guess even a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.
LOL, hope you have a sense of humor.
I have always found it interesting that the group of Americans with the highest poverty rate, the highest suiside rate, highest dropout rate, high substance and alcohol abuse are the Americans that have the most government control over their lives.
Have any of you ever been to and Indian Reservation? It is really bad.

[capitalist pig]

I have a basic question about immigration?
Should immigaration be to benefit the country where the person is immigrating to or to the benefit of the immigrant. Most of the world looks at the benefit the immigrant brings to the country.
We should be allowing people to immigrate to this country who have a job skill that benefits us. Where that is picking lettuce or programing computers or building skyscrapers. In this day and age of computers, they should not be standing in line for years to get here. We shouldnt be looking at someone's race, color or country of national origin. We should be looking at how they benefit the United States. Of course, I realize we have to have some lattitude for those seeking asylum.

[Brian_G]

Why shouldn't a corporation have the right to speak for its customers, suppliers, employees and investors?

Corporations are just associations of people.

[informed citizen]

VirVoX Populi wrote:

Now for the other individuals. I do appreciate for once not being viewed as a blow hard, gassy, long winded clueless nutso idiotic spammer who has no clue on reality as I consistently get voted as or directly called. I do thank you all for being nice to me.
However please do understand that it is just a wee bit hypocritical to behave like I am some clueless 16 year old tree hugging hippy jackov when I speak something you disagree with, and then get right behind me when I say something that is in line with the parties political rhetoric.
I want you all to understand, because none of you have really figured me out yet, There is no position I cannot or will not defend. I am capable of any side to any argument and being able to effectively defend it. I exist to fight against the pulse of whatever the argument is at any given time. What is the point to a thread of discussion when it boils down to either everyone agreeing with each other based on party lines or it being a 6 on one ideological gang bang. I run counter to whatever the pulse may be on most things I speak on and with the heavy heavy republican influence amongst the users here, it forces me to side against that viewpoint. So I will gladly throw myself in the middle of a one sided argument to help even the odds.
No one party has exclusive claim on good ideas and there is also no shortage of stupidity from every corner of the political spectrum..
So I challenge you. If you want me to get behind your position, make a compelling argument with facts and evidence that I am either unwilling or incapable of refuting. I gladly welcome the opportunity of others to challenge my ideas with facts and figures that stand up to scrutiny. When I find them, I gladly accept that new data and viewpoints and reconcile it with my existing notions. Just know that I will do the same and present arguments against other notions and try to back it up with facts and figures to present the case.
So in my long winded way. I like to argue. I can argue damn near anything. So as I said to LL, Just because we dont always agree does not make us stupid for not agreeing, just that we have yet to provide the right data to cause the other to reevaluate their position.
So I offer this little olive branch to both sides. No more jumping to the childish name calling just for having a differing opinion. Except Pig. I take entirely too much joy at watching it squeal and wallow in its own regurgitated filth Besides, everyone needs a nemesis =)

This is not a debate club contest where you get a topic and argue the side you are assigned. Do you use forums to practice? In your long-winded way you advised us that half the time you are lying. Oh well, it takes all kinds to make the world.

[Score Keeper The Greatest]

One thing Gay marriage will do is create more abuse of the system. In Texas, and I don't remember if the law applies to the whole state or just Bell County where Fort Hood is but they had to pass a law to prevent people from marrying more than 7 times. This is because GI's would marry to get off post so they get housing allowance rather than living in the barracks and other benefits for married soldiers. The one they married gets free medical, ID card for the PX and Commisary etc. GI gets transferred in a few years, they file for divorce and the cycle starts again. I see this happening big time if gays can marry.

[vanished]

Someone will have to give me the skinny on some of these post. I ain't readin' no book!
So later on when someone says' I said this or that...if you use too many characters to say it...
Count me out!

[Lesson Learned]

Shootist wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.. LL you are hard core liberal for sure....What will you do if Obama loses and this country turns farther to the right that it was when Reagan trounced Carter?
I don't have a degree in theology, but just for the sake of argument, do any major religions find homosexuality acceptable?
Just curious..How about other sexual proclivities?
I have already stated, I care not who marries who, but do you not think that if and when this becomes the law of the land, it will open up the doors to all kinds of groups with their own "perversions"...(Acc ording to most societies and religions, not my idea, but historically)
They do have a valid point in that area... Does poligamy automatically become legal and acceptable for example?
The list could go on and on..
That is the major flaw I find in Gay Marriages.. We aren't talking about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. or even racial descrimination.. We are talking about a group with a particular sexual interest..How do we deal with all of the other "oppressed" groups?

What will I do if Romney wins and the country turns even further right, I'll do what the rightwingers do now...get on Topix and complain. It's a win-win for me either way.

I don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do...except as Alice Roosevelt said, if they don't do it in the street and scare the horses. I support the right of gay people to marry the person of their choice but obviously this is an argument I am not going to win with some people so suffice it to say that is my opinion and I'm done with this subject for now.

PS: Why would anyone want more than one spouse at a time. But for argument's sake, as our resident charlatan would probably say, what is the difference between a man who has multiple wives and a man who constantly cheats on his wife.

[Score Keeper The Greatest]

Lesson Learned wrote:

<quoted text>
What will I do if Romney wins and the country turns even further right, I'll do what the rightwingers do now...get on Topix and complain. It's a win-win for me either way.
I don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do...except as Alice Roosevelt said, if they don't do it in the street and scare the horses. I support the right of gay people to marry the person of their choice but obviously this is an argument I am not going to win with some people so suffice it to say that is my opinion and I'm done with this subject for now.
PS: Why would anyone want more than one spouse at a time. But for argument's sake, as our resident charlatan would probably say, what is the difference between a man who has multiple wives and a man who constantly cheats on his wife.

Hell you all are still complaining about Bush, go ahead, we are used to it.

[Swamp Fox]

The Ruling by the Supreme Court was NO surprise to me. George W. Bush was in favor of "Open Borders,"
and Dubya appointed how many Supreme judges? 3?

Your so-called Conservative Judges are Not going to do anything to halt the flood of Illegal Aliens.

Two Republican Tea Party Groups,including "Freedom Works," whose co-founder Dick Armey, former Republican House Majority Leader, supports Amnesty, Expanded Immigration and Immigrant Rights.
The "Cato Institute" has joined business groups, and immigration advocates in calling for an "Open Borders Policy."
There is no Tea Party National Rule or Position on Illegal Immigration. Republican Tea Parties are free to go their own way, usually following the political wind in their area of the country.
Pro-Free Enterprise support for UNregulated immigration is consistent with the Tea Party's endorsement of UNfettered Free Market Capitalism.

Search; Cato:Amnesty A Net Plus for the Economy
www.outsidethebletway.com/cato_amnesty_a_net_...
for_the_economy

Search; New Jersey Tea Parties for Amnesty

Search: Does the Sussex County Tea Party Support Amnesty For Illegals
www.njconservativereality.com/2012/04/19/does...

[Swamp Fox]

Search; Driver's Licenses and Amnesty for Illegals? Oh My!
www.conservativenewjersey.com/drivers-license...

[VirVoX Populi]

vanished wrote:

Someone will have to give me the skinny on some of these post. I ain't readin' no book!
So later on when someone says' I said this or that...if you use too many characters to say it...
Count me out!

Seeings as the book usually begins with me, Ill do it.

Supreme court, Topic derailed onto gays, I stepped in and basically said gays are greedy and wont be happy till they cram their lifestyle down everyones throat and make the public pay for it. LL got their feelings hurt that I expressed a non liberal opinion. I explained I can see the validity of any point and then it got misinterpreted as meaning I will argue positions I do not believe in. Then that got tedious and boring and went back to supreme court, GWB and corporations are people my friend.

Think I got most of it.

[Bill y]

VirVoX Populi,

Speaking of being derailed,your train of thought derailed-------there were no survivors.

Billy

[Lesson Learned]

VirVoX Populi wrote:

<quoted text>
Seeings as the book usually begins with me, Ill do it.
Supreme court, Topic derailed onto gays, I stepped in and basically said gays are greedy and wont be happy till they cram their lifestyle down everyones throat and make the public pay for it. LL got their feelings hurt that I expressed a non liberal opinion. I explained I can see the validity of any point and then it got misinterpreted as meaning I will argue positions I do not believe in. Then that got tedious and boring and went back to supreme court, GWB and corporations are people my friend.
Think I got most of it.

Honey, I was surprised and disappointed in your comments but you NEVER hurt my feelings.

[Shootist]

Lesson Learned wrote:

<quoted text>
What will I do if Romney wins and the country turns even further right, I'll do what the rightwingers do now...get on Topix and complain. It's a win-win for me either way.
I don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do...except as Alice Roosevelt said, if they don't do it in the street and scare the horses. I support the right of gay people to marry the person of their choice but obviously this is an argument I am not going to win with some people so suffice it to say that is my opinion and I'm done with this subject for now.
PS: Why would anyone want more than one spouse at a time. But for argument's sake, as our resident charlatan would probably say, what is the difference between a man who has multiple wives and a man who constantly cheats on his wife.

"Why would anyone want more than one spouse at a time. But for argument's sake, as our resident charlatan would probably say, what is the difference between a man who has multiple wives and a man who constantly cheats on his wife."

The first part of your question...I "dunno" how about asking the mormons what their great grandparents etc. thought about having to give it up before they could join the union:)
The had to abide by the law of the land at that time didn't they?

You don't know the difference between marriage and "hound doggin?"..I'm shocked!:)...If a man had multiple wives why would he cheat on his wives?.. He could just get a couple of more and add them to his lineup.

[Lesson Learned]

Shootist wrote:

<quoted text>
"Why would anyone want more than one spouse at a time. But for argument's sake, as our resident charlatan would probably say, what is the difference between a man who has multiple wives and a man who constantly cheats on his wife."
The first part of your question...I "dunno" how about asking the mormons what their great grandparents etc. thought about having to give it up before they could join the union:)
The had to abide by the law of the land at that time didn't they?
You don't know the difference between marriage and "hound doggin?"..I'm shocked!:)...If a man had multiple wives why would he cheat on his wives?.. He could just get a couple of more and add them to his lineup.

Maybe Romney could tell us why his great great grandfather wanted multiple wives....five to be exact.