I'll start worrying about America's image in the world the moment it invades an innocent nation. America does not do that; the nations we invade are the bullies and each an every one of them deserve what happens to them. Like it or not, there are bad people in the world and someone needs to stand up to them. Since we cannot count on the UN to stand up to the bullies, I, for one, am glad that America exists.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq; bullies one and all.
You can't deny that the world would be a much worse place if America had not stepped in and stopped the death, destruction and chaos that each of these nations forced on the world.
I'm not going to debate you in personal messages because there's no benefit for me to participate in such a debate. When I beat you out with facts & logic, you will simply scamper off & there will be no evidence that you were defeated. The truth is that I don't expect to convince you; you're minds been made up & you don't want to be confused by the facts. I enter into debates with people like you to help convince those who have not yet decided which side is right & are open to being convinced.
So let's discuss some of your points and see where things actually lead. The first point you attempted to make was when the IRA was bombing the UK, the UK didn't invade Ireland despite a higher death toll than 9/11. First off you're wrong about your numbers, 9/11 claimed almost 3000 civilians in one day while IRA bombings took between 1800 & 2000 people (only a 1/3 were civilians) over a 30 year period. It's harder to justify an invasion when you're talking about an average of 60 deaths a year.
There is also the issue that the UK might not have been able to take Ireland very easily considering the fact that the two nations are/were fairly evenly matched. Sorry my friend, but the UK is no longer the military force it was in the 1700's
For the record, I did very well in history class and I have an extra advantage that you obviously lack; I have the ability to use Google and therefore can present actual numbers rather than make up facts to that support my discredited world view.
Later in your personal message you attempted to make the absurd statement that "we would probably have avoided a WW2 a little better if you guys had joined the League of Nations", which has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard from a liberal (and I talk to a lot of liberals!). To assume that Americas participation in a toothless debating society would have changed Hitlers mind when the entire world declaring war on him didn't is beyond ignorant.
The rest of your comments consist of personal insults and therefore do not justify a comment. Those insults will be acknowledged however, if for no other purpose than to show how liberals debate. The world view of liberals is that if you don't think that the best way to achieve peace is is to surrender to evil, You Must Be Stupid!
In reality, you insure peace by spanking anyone who threatens your sovereignty. George Bush understood this and so did Winston Churchill.
@williambellor Not Iraq though, c'mon. Saddam was brutal no doubt but the war that we brought over there killed more Iraqis and Americans then if we had not invaded at all. Now if you are refering to the Gulf War then you have a pont.
That is simply not true; that guy massacred an enormous number of his own people (way more than the casualties from the war) and he was attempting to manufacture WMDs. That war was as necessary as Afghanistan because Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and there was no reason to believe that if he did develop a nuclear weapon, that he would not make the technology available to the terrorists. Afghanistan was about 9/11, Iraq was about preventing 9/12.
I can't stand Colmes....But hannity sux ass now without him ...now it just seems like Hannity is another Mathews or Olby...only time I watch now is if he has a good guest on...and Hannity must be fuming that Beck is blowing him away in the ratings....
I reluctantly have to agree. I always found myself yelling at the TV when Colmes was on, but liked the show because I least knew that Colmes was presenting the liberal point of view as coherently as an incoherent point of view could be presented. This allowed me to say that I knew the liberal point of view but rejected it for the following reasons...
These days I DVR both Beck and Hannity but if I find that I only have time to watch one, it will usually be Beck.
yeah I followed Beck for about 18 months before he moved to Fox from CNN...actually it was more in disbelief that he was on CNN and saying the things he was....I just recently started listening to a few minutes of Dobbs each day..with the extra time I have getting bored with Hannity...I hear Beck might have a chance at knocking Bill off the 100 months in a row at #1
Go to the bottom of this page and click on the link that says "Vew all ## comments". That will reorganize the comments into a threaded format; then it will make more sense!
Yes, this was Alan Colmes. As I said in the description of this video, I disagree with virtually everything Alan says, but he has an incredible sense of humor. I respect (even if I don't agree with) anyone who can laugh at themselves and Alan is the king of laughing at himself!
do republicans realize that the Cold War is over? i mean if it is like 1993 and you just can't believe that the Soviet Union is gone and you miss it, but its 2009, Communism is not threatening us, at least not the Soviet Union.
America's victory in the cold war didn't mean an end to communism. Communism/Socialism still exist in may parts of the world and is still a treat to us, especially now that Obama is flirting with socialist policies right now in the USA.
Yeah they called FDR a socialist as well. His economic policies saved this country when our economy was on the brink of collapse. We are now in a simmilar situation.
With all due respect, you have NO clue what your talking about. The Economic growth, Etc., during WWII saved this Country. FDR's policies did little to NOTHING. Still, Dems can dream on, and liars in the media can build up his legacy.
Hey, check unemployment rates and more during FDR's great leadership and vision. Barry-O is a socialist, plain and simple. Yes, I believe he's a closet fascist as well, and I have NO trust and confidence in the phony.
fascism and socialism are two different things. do you know the difference? i was under the impression that fascists and socialists hated each other, because they had different philosophies. like when Hitler and Stalin hated each other as Hitler was a fascists and Stalin a socialist. but you explain please.
Fascism and socialism aren't the same, but they are very similar. Mussolini (as well as FDR and most progressives in the 30s for that matter) was a fascist. Hitler & the Nazis were (National) Socialists. Stalin wasn't a Socialist, he was a Communist. While there are differences, all 3 believed in a strong, all powerful central government that rules its people with an iron fist and imprisoned those who didn't accept the party line and all 3 are incompatible with freedom and individual choice.
Hitler was not a Socialists, he was a Fascist, Stalin was a Socialist, because in Communism, there is no head leader. Communism is done in small areas with no head dictator. FDR is not lumped into that group, as FDR didn't "imprison those who didn't accept the party line" the most you can say about FDR in terms of that is Court Packing and when that was struck down, he didn't roll heads.
The term "fascism" was coined by Mussolini. Mussolini started his political career as a Socialist and ended his political career as the head of the Italian SOCIALIST Republic. All the main point of fascism was complete regulation of the industry by the govt. All signs point to fascism being a form of socialism.
Nazi party's full name was National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. To suggest that fascism is not a form of socialism is very myopic.
communism is a big threat sorry i missed that one there is just gonna be a big revolution this may day. i think the problem is that the two of us have completely different definitions of what socialism really is and that is the underlying problem.
so if you would be so kind please give me your definition of socialism.
three or so ways in which Obama is flirting with socialism and link that back to your definition of socialism.
and your opinion on the new deal? was it socialism?
Socialism, quite simply is the transfer of the control of private business over to the government. Google "socialism definition" and look at the top 4-5 hits. In terms of examples of Obama engaging in socialistic practices, regulation of banks, placing limits on executive pay, threatening prosecution of AIG executives who received contractually mandated bonuses, Taking over auto companies and firing the CEO of GM. And those are just the examples I was able to come up with in in 2 minutes.
Regarding the New Deal, many economists feel that it actually prolonged the depression and that it finally ended when WWII started. Massive growth of government, Social Security, Welfare, increased taxes on the rich and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which increased tariffs on imported goods and resulted in resulted in foreign countries increasing tariffs on our exports. The New Deal wasn't socialism, but it was a move in that direction. Now Obama is making the same mistakes.
whoa just off the top of my head Smoot-Hawley, wasn't apart of the New Deal, it was in 1929.
Social Security? what is your qualm with that?
Welfare during the Great Depression, was to make sure people didn't starve. New Deal welfare was based on a dire need of aid to attempt to extend economic growth.
The Depression wasn't limited to 1929; that's when it began, but it continued until WWII. Smoot, Social Security, Welfare & other policy changes during those years prolonged the depression. The problem I have with Social Security is that it has become a source of money for politicians to fund their pet projects, that it will be bankrupt when I am old enough to collect & that i could get a much better return by investing for my own retirement. Ponzi Schemes bad for Madoff, OK for Government!
The New Deal itself extended the depression. Without the New Deal, the minor hiccup in the economy would never have become a depression in the first place. You are right, however that hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, Obama is legally blind and making the same mistakes because he has failed to learn from the past. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right!
I don't consider the years between 1929 and FDR taking office in 1933 a "minor hiccup". The system of American Economics had crashed, look at the causes, over speculation of the stock market, buying stocks on margin, high protective tariffs, Americans misuse of credit, and overproduction.the system needed reform, which you see in a lot of new deal legislation.
There was also a huge parallel in the banking world, FDR's early action on banks saved a lot of them from folding.
I was saying Smoot, was under Hoover, not FDR and wasn't in the New Deal as FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.
I think it will be bankrupt if we let it become privatized yet it should be reformed. I think the wealthy, who don't need social security, shouldn't get the same amount as say other people. The hardworking steel worker of west PA should get a tad more than the wife of the wealthy executive with an extra house in Miami Beach.
Hoover & FDR both contributed to the size and scope of the great depression by trying to react to the crisis, when it would have been better to just let the system correct itself. The beauty of capitalism is that it is a self-correcting by nature. Some business does something stupid and goes out of business, then other business step in and pick up the pieces. It will create temporary instability, but the correction will occur much faster, than if the government attempts to prevent the failure.
As an analogy, pretend that you have a tub of water which represents our economy & someone removes some of that water with a bucket (The missing water represents a company that goes out of business). The missing water creates big ripples in the tub & the overall water lever is reduced (waves & a reduction is the stock market). Temporary instability occurs as the surrounding water fills the void (other business coming in to pickup the pieces). Water stabilizes quickly at a lower level.
Now, instead of letting the company fail, let's say the government steps in and attempts to build a wall around the area when the water was removed in an attempt to prevent the reduction of the water lever caused by the missing company, The government taxes the surviving businesses to pay for the construction of the wall & the additional taxes cause more businesses to fail, requiring more walls and more taxes. Can you not see how this effort to prevent a collapse actually causes a bigger one?
Regardless of whether it was Republicans or Democrats in the White House, it was big government liberalism that made the minor hiccup (I know you love that word) into a depression. Our current recession would already be over if we simply allowed market forces to correct the original error without interference and it probably would never have occurred at all if government didn't create the mortgage mess in the first place.
But once again you have to go back nearly a century to find an example to support your theories. America was a different place in the '20s. If a company was doing something wrong, the people were screwed because there was no media exposure and no other alternatives. Events like that would be found out today. On the other hand, I can show you countless examples today of to much government regulation completely destroying industry. Look at any communist/socialist country today, not a 90 years ago.
now there is less and less water as the banks continue to fail. less and less. until there is almost no water/banks at all. FDR is elected, regulates the banking, banking holiday. the water stabilizes, water is added. NEW DEAL hommie. what would stop other businesses from failing if we let it alone?
The fatal flaw in your logic is that the government is adding water to the tub, it isn't, when you take water (taxes) from one part of the tub to put in another, the water lever remains the same. At best, this offers zero change, but in reality, it makes things worse, because government doesn't take $100 from one person and give $100 to another. The costs of operating government takes $20 and earmarks take another $20 and in the end government is taking $140 to give $100 to the second person.
whoa thats a scary thought. i love capitalism, but not that much. i think we would have some riots and populist revolts. that would be bad news bears if we just left everything to itself.
Once again, that's your opinion, but my opinion is without government regulation, businesses would have to convince their customers that they can be trusted in order to get their business. Threats of lawsuits and bankruptcy can keep business people incredibly focused.
regulation is quite different than socialism. would the trust busting of TR and Taft be socialism? regulation can not be deemed socialism, cause then nothing government ever enacted would be not socialism. ADA, Civil Rights Act, food labels from the FDA etc. Had the Pure Food and Drug Act (which regulates business, is it socialism?) Americans would still be eating tainted foods.
Regulation did get us into this economic mess, a lack of it under Bush that is.
Yo9u are right that regulation is different from socialism, but there is no way you can say that Obama buying a controlling interest in companies, then firing their CEO's and setting salary caps is regulation. Regulation is saying you can't do this or that because it will harm people, but we're way beyond that now
Regarding your argument about tainted food in the absence of government regulation, I couldn't disagree more. 80 years ago things were different, but today we have competition and an aggressive media. Government regulation only adds to the cost of producing a product and adds virtually no benefit. Let's be honest, how can a government expect to regulate and industry that it has no understanding of? The answer, it can't.
Did government regulations prevent salmonella in spinach a few years ago? No but bad publicity in the media corrected the problem. Did government regulations prevent bad peanuts and pistachios in recent months? No but bad publicity in the media corrected the problem. Did government regulations prevent pet food that was killing our cats and dogs? No but bad publicity in the media corrected the problem. The government can't even regulate itself so counting on them to keep us safe is foolish.
You are also wrong about lack of regulation from Bush being the cause of our current recession. The cause of our current recession was when Democrats forced banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Republicans tried to get more regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but were blocked by the Democrats (see "watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs" for proof if this) Obama and Dodd were the two biggest recipients of campaign contributions by Fannie & Freddie and they certainly got their moneys worth.
This current crisis I do believe is extremely similar to the Great Depression (when it comes to how to fix it I don't know if we are on the right path or not, but I don't think we are becoming Socialist). Both had: lack of regulation of stock market, lack of banking regulation, over speculation of stocks, flow of credit to easy, derivatives, predatory lending, huge tax breaks on the wealthy, and Hoover called it rugged individualism, bush just slashed benefits for the poor. similar? yea
Regarding "lack of regulation of the stock market & banking regulation - Capitalism is the ultimate regulator; you do something stupid, you go out of business and oterh learn fromyour mistakes.
Regarding over speculation of stocks - No such thing in capitalism because people won't invest more than a stock is worth. If they do, they will lose money; problem solved!
Regarding easy flow of credit & derivatives - this was caused by government forcing banks to loan to unworthey borrowers.
Regarding predatory lending & huge tax breaks on the wealthy - These are just made up talking points from liberals trying to blame others for people being too stupid to read the fine print before signing on the dotted line. The wealthy deserve huge tax breaks because they pay a disproportionate high rate in taxes. No one I know works for a poor person, so letting the rich keep more of their money is good for the economy.
the second part, yes, but trickle down theory doesn't work so no. the rich should be tax more as they have more money. novel idea i know.
predatory lending is more complicated than tricking people to not read the dotted line. it is business irresponsibility, to lend money to people who will not be able to pay the money bank, toxic loans? part of the problem wasnt regulated so business did it. regulate that, they won't.
Banks make a profit by loaning people money and having those people pay them back. Without the payback, there is no profit. Why would a bank make a loan to someone who can't pay them back and why would they all start doing it at the same time? You got the order of the process correct, but you forgot the first step; government regulations forcing banks to give loans to poor people. Look up Community Redevelopment Act and then look at what Clinton did to force compliance.
Then look up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their part in all of this, then go watch that video I mentioned yesterday and see the Democrats rejecting Republican efforts to put more oversight onto Freddie and Fannie.
these were examples of both GD and current situation. then we should have no SEC? kinda dumb to me. there was and is a ton of stock over speculation. derivatives was business irresponsibility. not govt intervention. read more about derivatives.
All of them were food, and all were under the era of a Republican President who didn't believe in regulation. The media should be responsible, but do you trust them with your life? what about drugs that are tested?
If one media source didn't do its job, then I would find another who does.
Without government regulation of drugs, the pharmaceutical companies would do their own testing because it is not in their best interest to produce products that kill their customers. Any pharmaceutical company that consistently produce drugs that killed their customers would have a bad reputation and would be sued until they either changed their testing procedures or went out of business.
only works if there is an infinite number of media outlets. why would it be in there best interest, tobacco companies do it? but if they got sued and changed their testing procedures, wouldn't there be some court intervention? yes, oh that means government, court system is part of the judicial branch of government.
Using you tobacco company example, would not the possibility of bad media publicity and consumer lawsuits force tobacco companies to come up with more effective testing procedures and even develop a safer product? In the case of tobacco products, since it is not possible to develop a save tobacco product, wouldn't this eventually drive those companies out of business?
it works, because the product kills people, and the companies don't regulate themselves, without the government, could also be similar if testing of drugs disappears.
The limit of the governments responsibility is to inform people the cigarettes are dangerous. The Surgeon General did that in the '60s. After that the people who started smoking are responsible for themselves because they chose to start smoking. People who started smoking before the SG warning can sue the tobacco companies if they get cancer, but if they started smoking after the SG warning, then they are just stupid. I'm not excusing tobacco companies, but no one forced anyone to start smoking
The bottom line here is I don't want the government deciding what I can put in my body. There are many things that aren't good for you, but I don't want politicians telling me what can or can't eat/drink/consume. Tobacco isn't good for you, Alcohol isn't good for you, Caffeine isn't good for you, red meat isn't good for you. Maybe you're happy with government regulating those items to, but not me!
then if you don't thing the govt should regulate what you can and can't put in your body, what do you feel about crack, pot, heroin, etc.? govt regulates there what you can put in your body, should we get rid of that regulation?
I don't think the Federal Government should regulate what people put in their bodies. The 10th amendment specifies that the Federal Governments powers are limited to what the constitution says they are; everything else is up to the states. Your failure is in assuming that the Federal Government is the beginning & the end of government regulation. Let the states figure out what to do about Pot, Heroin & Crack. When states rights are recognized, you have maximum freedom.
The 10th applies, but so does the Elastic Clause to give broader powers to Congress. I didn't know that regulating dangerous substances like CRACK and HEROIN needed to be left to the states. I think Article One Section Eight provides enough room for that regulation.
and the SG also puts warning labels on ads and the merchandise itself. that is the govt regulation that i am talkin about. rather than wait for the media to report that people are dropping like flies from some stupid drug i would have the FDA test it so its safe.
The FDA has such a great record on all this. Raptiva, Avandia, Ephedra, Crestor, Fen Phen, Zelnorm, Baycol, Meridia, Neurontin, Prempro, Celebrex, Risperdal, Pemoline, Rezulin, Vioxx, Bextra as well as Painkillers like Vicodin, Lortab, Percodan, Percocet, OxyContin, Xanax, & Valium & Antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone, & Remeron were all found to have dangerous or even deadly side effects and were recalled despite FDA approval.
The FDA is ineffective at preventing these issues because it is a government bureaucracy and can't be held accountable for its failures. Bad publicity and crippling lawsuits of pharmaceutical companies producing bad products would destroy those companies and the survivors would learn from their mistakes; benefiting everyone!
By your rationale, the FDA doesn't work. So we get rid of it. Now all drugs can be rushed to market, no approval necessary. When people start experiencing "dangerous or even deadly side effects" we must wait for the media or some person on a blog, to connect the dots, which could take days, or weeks, or years to do. Then the informed population doesn't take that drug, because the media broke the story, right? Why put millions of Americans at risk of death, when we could use FDA to test drugs?
only works if there is an infinite number of media outlets. are they going to keep multiplying? what if we run out? drug companies testing themselves? we'll get to the down side of that soon.
Blogs and internet news sources are the new news media and they're popping up all the time. Many important stories are broken on the new today & not the main-stream media. The Monica Lewinsky story wasn't broken by CBS or NBC or CNN, it was broken by Matt Drudge on the web. That's the beauty of the internet; anyone who has a concern about anything can start a blog or an internet news source & express their opinion or report news that is important to them. At least until Obama censors them!
yea on the internet you also have the benefit of knowing that everything you read is the ultimate truth, because it can be edited by everyone even the experts. i just learned that the holocaust was fake and dinosaurs were put in the ground by the Jews in the 1650s on new blogs.
No, everything on the internet isn't truthful anymore than everything you hear on CBS, NBC or CNN is. That's where personal responsibility come in. It is your responsibility as a citizen in a free country to make wise decisions. Freedom and freedom from responsibility are incompatible with each other; they are an either/or proposition and you can't have it both ways!
The motivation of self survival would result in pharmaceutical companies taking product testing seriously and they would probably do a better job at it because when the government does the testing, a pharmaceutical company can simply throw up their hand and say, "hey the FDA approved it". There wouldn't be any passing the buck if they did their own testing. Part of the marketing campaign would include convincing the customer that their product is safe. UL did it for electronics companies!
Do we get information about bad drugs any quicker when the government regulates pharmaceutical companies? The truth is the first time most of us hear of a dangerous drug or food is when the media tells us about it! That would not change, except that the media might become more diligent about monitoring drug and food companies because it would certainly be a feather in their cap if they exposed a product that was killing people.
Conflicts of Interest are possible in the government to. What if a pharmaceutical company makes campaign contributions to an influential Congressman or Senator. It already happens; the mortgage crisis was allowed to fester partly because Obama, Dodd and other prominent politicians were recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. If a pharmaceutical company is paying off a media outlet for their silence, then the Pulitzer goes to the media outlet that exposes the conflict.
Regarding the PFDA; a hundred years ago this was a different country. A hundred years ago there wasn't as much competition. A hundred years ago there weren't 24 hour cable news sources. A hundred years ago there wasn't the internet. A hundred years ago people used wagon wheels. A hundred years later we no longer use wagon wheels because there are better options and it is the same with government regulation.
why do we have seatbelts in cars? why do we have seatbelt laws? started with early regulation and continued because it is smart and it saves lives. just like the Pure Food and Drug Act did in 1906. continuing to save lives with regulation. why would business worry so much about there customers health, when tobacco companies kill 500,000 customers a year. wouldn't it be in their best interest to have those paying customers live? wouldnt they be much more dangerous without the govt? yes they would
I disagree! No one argues that seat belts are a good idea, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether government has the right to mandate their use. I think seat belt requirements would work better if the issue was addressed by insurance companies. Something like "if you are in an accident and not wearing a seat belt, the insurance company doesn't have to pay you".
I addressed 100 year old laws yesterday and am not going to repeat myself and I addressed tobacco deaths in my previous post.
Yes! The Federal Government has a law that says if states don't pass seat belt laws they can deny that state highway funds! And let's not forget that it was government that forced car manufacturers to install seat belts in cars in the first place. Government does the same thing with speed limits.
Once again, I think seat belts are a good idea, but they should be implemented because car manufacturers & insurance companies decide that it's a good business decision, not due to government threats.
ok. you go with that one. i have nothing to say, because i love living and if the government says, " if you don't wear a seat belt we can fine you , oh and by the way if you don't wear this thing and you are in a car crash you may die." that to me is govt responsibility to the fullest, but guess not. whatev.
You and I are both intelligent to wear seat belts because they are a good idea, but I don't like the idea of giving up my freedom even in cases like this because if the government can pass a law saying I must wear a seat belt or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then they can also say I can't drink a beer because it causes liver disease or I can't eat red meat because it causes heart disease. I don't want the government having that much control over my life! I can make my own decisions!
But you only fear things that come from your own logical fallacy! You are intelligent, but keep falling for the same fallacy in logic! The Slippery Slope. if this happens, then this could happen, which could lead to this, which could create the chance that a pig flys right out of Joe Biden's mouth. You have some illogical fears.
Have you noticed that every time I bring up the argument that if we expand the definition of marriage to include gays, we will also have to expand it for polygamy, you write it off as a logical fallacy? I guess those two words absolve you of having to explain why my argument should not be a real concern. I know that in debates and even in wars, people use the best weapon they have that will get the job done, so I must conclude that your only option is to diminish my argument by calling names.
Because if you could make an argument that I'm taking this issue to a silly extreme, you would have presented it by now. We both know that expanding the definition of marriage to include polygamy is a very real likelihood if we have already set the precedent of changing it to include gays. I haven't heard you say that polygamy should also be included under the new expanded definition of marriage, so I must assume that you are I are in agreement on that.
The problem is that all the arguments you are making for gay marriage could also be made for polygamy; they're consenting adults, they love each other, why should society discriminate against them just because there's three or more of them? You can hear the arguments now.
But I'd like to look at this from another angle. I have a friend at work who is openly gay and very much in favor of legalizing gay marriage. On the day of the Prop 8 vote in Ca. (Ca. is my home state in case you weren't aware) I asked him what he really wants from of gay marriage. He told me that he wants the tax benefits that come to married couples, the same rights to make medical decisions for his partner that married couple have & the same estate inheritance rights that marriage brings.
Ignoring the fact that with the exception of the tax benefits, gays already can get most of what they want without being married; one can designate anyone they want to make decisions for them in medical emergencies and one can leave their estate to anyone they choose by simply witting as will. Granted, with married couples, these issues are automatic & require no additional steps, the fact is they already exist. I would even be in favor of allowing gays the tax benefits that come with marriage.
If wanting the right was all the gay marriage issue was about, then this should be the end of it, but it isn't. Gay marriage is about taking over and changing the definition of marriage; an institution that has the foundation of human existence for over five thousand years. I notice that when I brought up the issue of civil unions (which I also agree with) you discounted that with another bumper sticker slogan "Separate But Equal", but this isn't really a valid argument.
The problem with the Separate But Equal argument as it was applied to freed slaves, is that there was no desire for any kind of equality in that case. It was still OK to murder a blacks with little or no consequences, it was still OK to deny blacks the right to vote or access to schools or access to the justice system or even an acknowledgment of basic human rights!
I don't see anything like that being directed towards gays today! Do you?
To reject the idea of Civil Unions simply because one time in history Separate But Equal didn't work, is problematic.
So, as I see, it, there are two ways gays can go forward with this.
1, Gays can continue to attempt to get gay marriage imposed on the nation by having judges override the will of the people in a blatantly unconstitutional act & then live with the fact that sixty plus percent of the people hate them & reject their unions because Americans votes were repeatedly disregarded.
Gays can get civil union laws put on the ballots in every state, being very specific that civil unions have all the same rights responsibilities and privileges as marriage. Every poll I've ever seen shows that Americans are in favor of civil unions, so it would an easily law to pass in most (if not all) states. It would also be a terrific gesture and a sign of respect for married couples by the gay community; a level of respect that would be returned by the straight community.
Since there would be very little opposition to this type of bill, gays would get the rights they desire right now, rather than the current system which gives them rights and then takes them away again. On top of this, if the bills were written correctly and did very specifically spell out the rights that come with civil unions, gays would have a legal standing for suing in court if one of those rights was being denied.
So, on the one hand, you have gays taking marriage by force and having everyone hate them for it and going to court to block them, resulting in zero gains in their desired to get the rights they really want.
or
Accepting civil unions, getting all the rights they want within a year or two, winning the blessings of the straight community and having a real legal standing to do something if someone is denying you the rights as written in the law.
Looking at it this way, I can't understand the opposition of gays to civil unions except for the very childish reaction of "Gimme Gimme Gimme, we want it because we want it, Now Now Now"!
I just don't think that laws should be passed based on temper tantrums!
Please tell me why I'm wrong.
And please, make a real argument. Don't just write me off with a "separate but equal" argument. I spend nearly two hours detailing my position on this, so please don't respond with a bumper sticker slogan.
but you won't call it marriage because they need their own separate institution. would expanding civil unions to gays lead to polygamy civil unions? see i just made fun of your argument, cheap shot i know, but it was funny.
why not change marriages definition to include gays? since they are gay, they don't deserve it? i think for "over five thousand years" gays have been denied their "basic human rights" if that is the institution of marriage.
but since their gay, they are second class citizens and can't marry and must jump through hoops A, B, and C so that they can get the same rights. that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. like if women had to do that too that would be discriminatory and unconstitutional, what makes the gays different?
I say logical fallacy, because arguments can't be based on flawed logic. Just as a car can't run with a faulty engine, arguments can't stand when entrenched in faulty logic. Since you say i do name calling i am going to do some more, you fine good standing right loving American, use an argument, that is discriminatory. Gay people don't get the right to marry because they would be in a gay relationship, which is discriminatory, and being discriminatory is quite un-American and unconstitutional
First off, I want to thank you for posting your entire response in a single string of text rather than scattering it all over this page, it makes it much easier to follow this debate when a response is posted in only one place. I am going to do this from now on and hope you will do the same.
Now, on to your response. I read your posting a few times and realized I could counter each point you made, but in a way that would probably not satisfy you. I'm guessing that we both have solid, well established opinions on this issue and neither of us is likely to change the opinion of the other.
But I noticed one point you made in your last post that I believe reveals the central difference of opinion between us and I believe that this point is the foundation that the entire rest of your argument is based upon. Therefore, by discrediting that one single point, the whole rest of your argument collapses under its own weight. That point is when you said you believe that marriage is a "basic human right". I couldn't disagree more!
Marriage is not a human right; it is a religious ritual that has been usurped by the state for the purpose of granting benefits; benefits like inheritance rights, tax benefits and etc. Religion has been performing marriage for thousands of years longer than the US has even been in existence, so it is beyond arrogance for the US to think that it has the right to change the definition of a religious ritual.
The US has no more right to expand the definition of marriage than it would to, say, expand the definition of baptism to include people urinating on each other. The only power that the state has in this entire issue is to expand the number of legitimate unions it recognizes and grants benefits to (Marriages and Civil Unions, for instance).
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This basically means that the US will not create an official state religion, but also that it will not interfere in the affairs of any particular religion. Based on that, the US forcing religion to change the definition of their ritual would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
Once that foundation is undermined, the whole rest of your argument collapses, with one exception which is where you asked "Would[n't] expanding civil unions to gays lead to polygamy civil unions?, and the answer to that is, NO! The slippery slope argument only works if judges override the will of the voters and expands the definition of marriage based on the arguments you have satisfactorily presented above.
In order for Civil Unions to become the law of the land, the people or their representatives would need to vote for the issue and the same would apply to polygamy. Right now, there is virtually zero support from either the people or their representatives for polygamy, but if polygamists were able to win the support of the people for recognition of their unions, then and only then would it become an issue.
Marriage is much more than a religious ritual adapted for taxes it is a basic human right. Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the US in 1948ish, states the following: (see next post)
"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
When you say that Religious definitions would have to be changed is irrelevant. Two people can be married under law, and do NOT need any validation from a Church as Church and State are and need to be separated. In fact the expansion of rights to gays, would change only those who get marriage licenses, signed by a clergy men or justice of the peace(not religiously affiliated).
so you see, the religious definition of marriage doesn't change as the government would only be changing the legal definition of marriage as that definition is the only definition that matters under US law. furthermore, the religious definition of marriage is not a determining factor on US law as the First Amendment states, which you know so well, but in this case misinterpret. by accepting the religious definition, the US would be supporting an established religious belief, which is a no-no.
Irrelevant. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and supersede any laws or treaties passed by politicians or diplomats. The Constitution and Bill of Rights get priority because they were ratified by the states and no individual or small group of politicians can override that.
If a diplomat signed onto a treaty that said, in part, that slavery was acceptable, that would not make it legal in the US to keep slaves, because slavery was deemed unconstitutional as a result of the 14th amendment. Next, when you get to the three provisions of the UN treaty you listed above, they are open to a quite a bit of interpretation.
The first provision mentions "Men and women of full age", but the term "full age" is vague at best, since it does not specify what exactly constitutes "full age"? I would assume that full age has the same definition as "age of consent" but age of consent varies wildly from nation to nation. In some nations, age of consent is as low as 12, and if that is what the treaty means by "full age" that would mean that US laws banning pedophilia are in violation of the treaty.
I also don't see anything in the wording of the treaty stating that a marriage must be limited to two people or even to living people, which means that polygamy and necrophilia are both on the table. I do notice that the treaty says that marriage will not be limited due to race, nationality or religion, but I see nothing about sexual orientation.
I think that to understand these provisions, one must look at them through the eyes of the people who wrote the treaty and what they were thinking at the time. It seems clear to me that the treaty sought to prevent states from banning marriages due to race (i.e. between blacks and a whites), due to nationality (i.e. between Americans and a people of French decent), or due to religion (i.e. between a Catholic and a Jew).
What it doesn't say is that a state cannot prevent a marriage that doesn't conform to the definition of a traditional marriage (i.e. between one man and one woman). Everything else is speculation. Since they were quite specific when they listed race, nationality or religion in the treaty, I have to figure if they planned to include gay marriage as a protected class, they would have included sexual orientation on that list.
Like I said before, all of this is irrelevant because our laws are not specified by the UN, they are specified in the US Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.
When you said "In fact the expansion of rights to gays, would change only those who get marriage licenses, signed by a clergy men or justice of the peace (not religiously affiliated)", that misses the point completely because the moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, it will become a civil right and an act of discrimination against any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage based on their beliefs.
Ever notice how the ACLU tries to sue churches who receive government funding for faith based charities when those churches refuse to hire homosexuals or even people outside their faith. Do you really think that the ACLU will remain quiet if a church refuses to perform a gay marriage? Government interference starts out seemingly benign but always pushes way past its limits.
The last thing you said was [by recognizing the religious definition of marriage] "the US would be supporting an established religious belief, which is a no-no". I couldn't disagree more; there is a huge difference between establishing a religion and acknowledging one. Any convergence between a religious marriage and an established religion would be eliminated of the government simply chose to recognize Civil Unions.
There is a difference between refusing employment and refusing participation in a religious ceremony. The former is regulated by law. The latter cannot be regulated by law because it would be a violation of the 1st.
Churches are allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Because they are... well, churches. Many clergymen won't perform interfaith marriages. It's not illegal because churches don't have an obligation to be open to everyone. Such an obligation, if mandated by law, would be a government mandate of a religious practice on the clergymen.
So you are saying that people don't die today despite all the regulations we currently have? If the regulations aren't saving lives today, why are we wasting money on them?
You seem to believe that the best way to do something is to get the government involved. Can you name one thing the government does better than the private sector? Can you name one thing the government does well? Who delivers packages better, the post office or Fed Ex?
what the heck are you talking about? i am saying we old school wrastelin this issue, with a governmental-private tag team. its the best of private and governmental , where they can share info and double the amount of testing. lets work together.
That is why experts come and testify at the committee hearings. But if we go with you idea that the experts should regulate their particular field, then we have an oligarchy with the experts making the decisions, which would be great for science, and bad for you anti-abortion stance. But power does corrupt, and that is why we regulate companies who get a tad too much power. and the government does share, checks and balances and separation of powers, for power sharing examples within govt.
we only hear about the drugs that made the test, and then went bad, what about drugs the FDA got? you can't get every drug, so rather than kill the entire system, why not tighten up the testing with the partner hood of a UL, which does good work? why not tighten the agency to make it work more properly than get rid of half of the defensive from bad drugs.
The point about UL is that it is a private organization, not a government agency. It is also Exhibit A as my evidence that companies are motivated to produce products that don't kill their customers. If UL can do it, why not pharmaceutical companies?
Malcolm X said everybody has an angle. the motivation of business is to make money, right? pharmaceutical companies are businesses, right? those drug companies are driven by profits. therefore their testing is in their best interest to make money. the testing would be a conflict of interest, as the company wants to make money and their drugs is the way, which could be drop in quality. my idea was combine the testing of UL and government. double whammy. right? double protection. is that wrong?
It is in the best interest of any company to produce a product that improves the customers life. If a product ends up killing the customer, then that isn't improving anyone's lives & any company that has a reputation of producing products that kill their customers, they won't be around long.
Self regulation & government will never work well together, because government will always insist (right or wrong) that they have the final say and they will always win because they can put people in jail.
ok, i am going to let you go on that, but the tobacco issue is a corollary to that, but since we talked about that one above i won't here.
how do you know self regulation will not work together we haven't tried it, because republicans instead of doing that, always wanted to destroy the governmental side.
I know human nature. Humans want to be successful and the best way to do that is to produce a product that people need/want that allows them to survive to buy more of your product. When you kill your customers, they cease to be a customer in the future.
Does that mean that there aren't evil corrupt people out there who will sell dangerous products anyways? No, but does regulation prevent that from happening? No, it just puts obstacles in front of people who want to do make an honest buck.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I hate FOX news but I gotta admit, this was actually funny. As hard as it has for FOX to have a humorous show (they've tried and failed), maybe they need to let Colmes have a comedy hour.
Omg I'm a conservative and lmao.. funniest thing ever.
WatchLiveForexTrades 6 months ago
@WatchLiveForexTrades *cough* *cough* neo-conservative.
wtfjaftw 1 month ago
I wonder if this was the only time Chomsky was mentioned in Fox
ToquiGambit 1 year ago
Skeletor does live!!! Where's He-Man???
TheLiberalsSuck 1 year ago
@docmoriarti
America is hated because it is the bully of the playground.
Only America would think it's self as being the best, and Arrogance doesn't make you friends.
Altiego 1 year ago
I'll start worrying about America's image in the world the moment it invades an innocent nation. America does not do that; the nations we invade are the bullies and each an every one of them deserve what happens to them. Like it or not, there are bad people in the world and someone needs to stand up to them. Since we cannot count on the UN to stand up to the bullies, I, for one, am glad that America exists.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
williambellor 1 year ago
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq; bullies one and all.
You can't deny that the world would be a much worse place if America had not stepped in and stopped the death, destruction and chaos that each of these nations forced on the world.
williambellor 1 year ago
I'm not going to debate you in personal messages because there's no benefit for me to participate in such a debate. When I beat you out with facts & logic, you will simply scamper off & there will be no evidence that you were defeated. The truth is that I don't expect to convince you; you're minds been made up & you don't want to be confused by the facts. I enter into debates with people like you to help convince those who have not yet decided which side is right & are open to being convinced.
williambellor 1 year ago
So let's discuss some of your points and see where things actually lead. The first point you attempted to make was when the IRA was bombing the UK, the UK didn't invade Ireland despite a higher death toll than 9/11. First off you're wrong about your numbers, 9/11 claimed almost 3000 civilians in one day while IRA bombings took between 1800 & 2000 people (only a 1/3 were civilians) over a 30 year period. It's harder to justify an invasion when you're talking about an average of 60 deaths a year.
williambellor 1 year ago
There is also the issue that the UK might not have been able to take Ireland very easily considering the fact that the two nations are/were fairly evenly matched. Sorry my friend, but the UK is no longer the military force it was in the 1700's
For the record, I did very well in history class and I have an extra advantage that you obviously lack; I have the ability to use Google and therefore can present actual numbers rather than make up facts to that support my discredited world view.
williambellor 1 year ago
Later in your personal message you attempted to make the absurd statement that "we would probably have avoided a WW2 a little better if you guys had joined the League of Nations", which has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard from a liberal (and I talk to a lot of liberals!). To assume that Americas participation in a toothless debating society would have changed Hitlers mind when the entire world declaring war on him didn't is beyond ignorant.
williambellor 1 year ago
The rest of your comments consist of personal insults and therefore do not justify a comment. Those insults will be acknowledged however, if for no other purpose than to show how liberals debate. The world view of liberals is that if you don't think that the best way to achieve peace is is to surrender to evil, You Must Be Stupid!
In reality, you insure peace by spanking anyone who threatens your sovereignty. George Bush understood this and so did Winston Churchill.
Too bad you've forgotten.
williambellor 1 year ago
@williambellor Not Iraq though, c'mon. Saddam was brutal no doubt but the war that we brought over there killed more Iraqis and Americans then if we had not invaded at all. Now if you are refering to the Gulf War then you have a pont.
Mattwolf1186 1 year ago
@Mattwolf1186
That is simply not true; that guy massacred an enormous number of his own people (way more than the casualties from the war) and he was attempting to manufacture WMDs. That war was as necessary as Afghanistan because Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and there was no reason to believe that if he did develop a nuclear weapon, that he would not make the technology available to the terrorists. Afghanistan was about 9/11, Iraq was about preventing 9/12.
williambellor 1 year ago
@williambellor if your going to fight a war
declare it.
that simple
justified or not, it was unconstitutional.
HandyMan101 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i wonder how americans don't know why the whole world hates the USA after watching this
redFISTofEUROPE 2 years ago
I'll worry about things like that the day that more people are trying to flee America then are trying to become citizens!
williambellor 2 years ago
Who gives a shit, hatemonger
ShaytanBozorg 2 years ago
@redFISTofEUROPE
USA is hated for the same reason that the A students are hated by all the failures. We are better.
docmoriarti 2 years ago
What a great joke this was. I may not agree with Alan's point of views but hes got a great sense of humor.
gmodfan14 2 years ago 17
Thank god that was just an April Fools joke. It was hilarious.
Jdude00 2 years ago 12
against socialism , pro obama!!
schwirzl 2 years ago
hhehehehe
mindylinky 2 years ago
GO COLMES
TwoAiren 2 years ago 2
ROTFLMAO!!!! Good one, Sean.
soldiergirl84 2 years ago
I can't stand Colmes....But hannity sux ass now without him ...now it just seems like Hannity is another Mathews or Olby...only time I watch now is if he has a good guest on...and Hannity must be fuming that Beck is blowing him away in the ratings....
Hellpig 2 years ago
I reluctantly have to agree. I always found myself yelling at the TV when Colmes was on, but liked the show because I least knew that Colmes was presenting the liberal point of view as coherently as an incoherent point of view could be presented. This allowed me to say that I knew the liberal point of view but rejected it for the following reasons...
These days I DVR both Beck and Hannity but if I find that I only have time to watch one, it will usually be Beck.
williambellor 2 years ago
yeah I followed Beck for about 18 months before he moved to Fox from CNN...actually it was more in disbelief that he was on CNN and saying the things he was....I just recently started listening to a few minutes of Dobbs each day..with the extra time I have getting bored with Hannity...I hear Beck might have a chance at knocking Bill off the 100 months in a row at #1
Hellpig 2 years ago
9 posts in a row who the hell you talking too???
Comrade Obama will have a show like this b4 his 4 years are up
Hellpig 2 years ago
Go to the bottom of this page and click on the link that says "Vew all ## comments". That will reorganize the comments into a threaded format; then it will make more sense!
williambellor 2 years ago
That truly was hellafide funny ok!!!
Ediva75 2 years ago
lol, that was very funny.
waterblom 2 years ago
I saw this when the O'Reilly Factor when off and I was confused watching it, then I found out it was their April Fools' joke.
Was that really Colmes, or someone pretending to be him. I couldn't figure it out because it looks just like him.
cadborasaurus 2 years ago
Yes, this was Alan Colmes. As I said in the description of this video, I disagree with virtually everything Alan says, but he has an incredible sense of humor. I respect (even if I don't agree with) anyone who can laugh at themselves and Alan is the king of laughing at himself!
williambellor 2 years ago
do republicans realize that the Cold War is over? i mean if it is like 1993 and you just can't believe that the Soviet Union is gone and you miss it, but its 2009, Communism is not threatening us, at least not the Soviet Union.
matisforever 2 years ago
America's victory in the cold war didn't mean an end to communism. Communism/Socialism still exist in may parts of the world and is still a treat to us, especially now that Obama is flirting with socialist policies right now in the USA.
Get a clue!
williambellor 2 years ago
Yeah they called FDR a socialist as well. His economic policies saved this country when our economy was on the brink of collapse. We are now in a simmilar situation.
Alchemist777 2 years ago
With all due respect, you have NO clue what your talking about. The Economic growth, Etc., during WWII saved this Country. FDR's policies did little to NOTHING. Still, Dems can dream on, and liars in the media can build up his legacy.
Hey, check unemployment rates and more during FDR's great leadership and vision. Barry-O is a socialist, plain and simple. Yes, I believe he's a closet fascist as well, and I have NO trust and confidence in the phony.
shade881993 2 years ago 3
fascism and socialism are two different things. do you know the difference? i was under the impression that fascists and socialists hated each other, because they had different philosophies. like when Hitler and Stalin hated each other as Hitler was a fascists and Stalin a socialist. but you explain please.
matisforever 2 years ago
Fascism and socialism aren't the same, but they are very similar. Mussolini (as well as FDR and most progressives in the 30s for that matter) was a fascist. Hitler & the Nazis were (National) Socialists. Stalin wasn't a Socialist, he was a Communist. While there are differences, all 3 believed in a strong, all powerful central government that rules its people with an iron fist and imprisoned those who didn't accept the party line and all 3 are incompatible with freedom and individual choice.
williambellor 2 years ago
Hitler was not a Socialists, he was a Fascist, Stalin was a Socialist, because in Communism, there is no head leader. Communism is done in small areas with no head dictator. FDR is not lumped into that group, as FDR didn't "imprison those who didn't accept the party line" the most you can say about FDR in terms of that is Court Packing and when that was struck down, he didn't roll heads.
matisforever 2 years ago
@matisforever
The term "fascism" was coined by Mussolini. Mussolini started his political career as a Socialist and ended his political career as the head of the Italian SOCIALIST Republic. All the main point of fascism was complete regulation of the industry by the govt. All signs point to fascism being a form of socialism.
Nazi party's full name was National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. To suggest that fascism is not a form of socialism is very myopic.
docmoriarti 2 years ago
and it is even more similar if you look at the causes of both crisis. its scary.
matisforever 2 years ago
communism is a big threat sorry i missed that one there is just gonna be a big revolution this may day. i think the problem is that the two of us have completely different definitions of what socialism really is and that is the underlying problem.
so if you would be so kind please give me your definition of socialism.
three or so ways in which Obama is flirting with socialism and link that back to your definition of socialism.
and your opinion on the new deal? was it socialism?
thanks!
matisforever 2 years ago
Socialism, quite simply is the transfer of the control of private business over to the government. Google "socialism definition" and look at the top 4-5 hits. In terms of examples of Obama engaging in socialistic practices, regulation of banks, placing limits on executive pay, threatening prosecution of AIG executives who received contractually mandated bonuses, Taking over auto companies and firing the CEO of GM. And those are just the examples I was able to come up with in in 2 minutes.
williambellor 2 years ago
Regarding the New Deal, many economists feel that it actually prolonged the depression and that it finally ended when WWII started. Massive growth of government, Social Security, Welfare, increased taxes on the rich and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which increased tariffs on imported goods and resulted in resulted in foreign countries increasing tariffs on our exports. The New Deal wasn't socialism, but it was a move in that direction. Now Obama is making the same mistakes.
williambellor 2 years ago
whoa just off the top of my head Smoot-Hawley, wasn't apart of the New Deal, it was in 1929.
Social Security? what is your qualm with that?
Welfare during the Great Depression, was to make sure people didn't starve. New Deal welfare was based on a dire need of aid to attempt to extend economic growth.
but of course, hindsight is always 20/20.
matisforever 2 years ago
The Depression wasn't limited to 1929; that's when it began, but it continued until WWII. Smoot, Social Security, Welfare & other policy changes during those years prolonged the depression. The problem I have with Social Security is that it has become a source of money for politicians to fund their pet projects, that it will be bankrupt when I am old enough to collect & that i could get a much better return by investing for my own retirement. Ponzi Schemes bad for Madoff, OK for Government!
williambellor 2 years ago
The New Deal itself extended the depression. Without the New Deal, the minor hiccup in the economy would never have become a depression in the first place. You are right, however that hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, Obama is legally blind and making the same mistakes because he has failed to learn from the past. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right!
williambellor 2 years ago
I don't consider the years between 1929 and FDR taking office in 1933 a "minor hiccup". The system of American Economics had crashed, look at the causes, over speculation of the stock market, buying stocks on margin, high protective tariffs, Americans misuse of credit, and overproduction.the system needed reform, which you see in a lot of new deal legislation.
There was also a huge parallel in the banking world, FDR's early action on banks saved a lot of them from folding.
matisforever 2 years ago
I was saying Smoot, was under Hoover, not FDR and wasn't in the New Deal as FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.
I think it will be bankrupt if we let it become privatized yet it should be reformed. I think the wealthy, who don't need social security, shouldn't get the same amount as say other people. The hardworking steel worker of west PA should get a tad more than the wife of the wealthy executive with an extra house in Miami Beach.
matisforever 2 years ago
Hoover & FDR both contributed to the size and scope of the great depression by trying to react to the crisis, when it would have been better to just let the system correct itself. The beauty of capitalism is that it is a self-correcting by nature. Some business does something stupid and goes out of business, then other business step in and pick up the pieces. It will create temporary instability, but the correction will occur much faster, than if the government attempts to prevent the failure.
williambellor 2 years ago
As an analogy, pretend that you have a tub of water which represents our economy & someone removes some of that water with a bucket (The missing water represents a company that goes out of business). The missing water creates big ripples in the tub & the overall water lever is reduced (waves & a reduction is the stock market). Temporary instability occurs as the surrounding water fills the void (other business coming in to pickup the pieces). Water stabilizes quickly at a lower level.
williambellor 2 years ago
Now, instead of letting the company fail, let's say the government steps in and attempts to build a wall around the area when the water was removed in an attempt to prevent the reduction of the water lever caused by the missing company, The government taxes the surviving businesses to pay for the construction of the wall & the additional taxes cause more businesses to fail, requiring more walls and more taxes. Can you not see how this effort to prevent a collapse actually causes a bigger one?
williambellor 2 years ago
Regardless of whether it was Republicans or Democrats in the White House, it was big government liberalism that made the minor hiccup (I know you love that word) into a depression. Our current recession would already be over if we simply allowed market forces to correct the original error without interference and it probably would never have occurred at all if government didn't create the mortgage mess in the first place.
williambellor 2 years ago
how can you be so sure? businesses cant regulate themselves, thats why we are in this mess. DERIVATIVES. read about it.
matisforever 2 years ago
How do you know, we've never tried it. I do know that businesses are motivated to make a profit and they can't do that if they have no customers.
williambellor 2 years ago
we did try it. you've read about the 1920s, right? a time of Laissez-faire.
matisforever 2 years ago
But once again you have to go back nearly a century to find an example to support your theories. America was a different place in the '20s. If a company was doing something wrong, the people were screwed because there was no media exposure and no other alternatives. Events like that would be found out today. On the other hand, I can show you countless examples today of to much government regulation completely destroying industry. Look at any communist/socialist country today, not a 90 years ago.
williambellor 2 years ago
now there is less and less water as the banks continue to fail. less and less. until there is almost no water/banks at all. FDR is elected, regulates the banking, banking holiday. the water stabilizes, water is added. NEW DEAL hommie. what would stop other businesses from failing if we let it alone?
matisforever 2 years ago
The fatal flaw in your logic is that the government is adding water to the tub, it isn't, when you take water (taxes) from one part of the tub to put in another, the water lever remains the same. At best, this offers zero change, but in reality, it makes things worse, because government doesn't take $100 from one person and give $100 to another. The costs of operating government takes $20 and earmarks take another $20 and in the end government is taking $140 to give $100 to the second person.
williambellor 2 years ago
whoa thats a scary thought. i love capitalism, but not that much. i think we would have some riots and populist revolts. that would be bad news bears if we just left everything to itself.
matisforever 2 years ago
Once again, that's your opinion, but my opinion is without government regulation, businesses would have to convince their customers that they can be trusted in order to get their business. Threats of lawsuits and bankruptcy can keep business people incredibly focused.
williambellor 2 years ago
regulation is quite different than socialism. would the trust busting of TR and Taft be socialism? regulation can not be deemed socialism, cause then nothing government ever enacted would be not socialism. ADA, Civil Rights Act, food labels from the FDA etc. Had the Pure Food and Drug Act (which regulates business, is it socialism?) Americans would still be eating tainted foods.
Regulation did get us into this economic mess, a lack of it under Bush that is.
matisforever 2 years ago
Yo9u are right that regulation is different from socialism, but there is no way you can say that Obama buying a controlling interest in companies, then firing their CEO's and setting salary caps is regulation. Regulation is saying you can't do this or that because it will harm people, but we're way beyond that now
williambellor 2 years ago
Regarding your argument about tainted food in the absence of government regulation, I couldn't disagree more. 80 years ago things were different, but today we have competition and an aggressive media. Government regulation only adds to the cost of producing a product and adds virtually no benefit. Let's be honest, how can a government expect to regulate and industry that it has no understanding of? The answer, it can't.
williambellor 2 years ago
Did government regulations prevent salmonella in spinach a few years ago? No but bad publicity in the media corrected the problem. Did government regulations prevent bad peanuts and pistachios in recent months? No but bad publicity in the media corrected the problem. Did government regulations prevent pet food that was killing our cats and dogs? No but bad publicity in the media corrected the problem. The government can't even regulate itself so counting on them to keep us safe is foolish.
williambellor 2 years ago
You are also wrong about lack of regulation from Bush being the cause of our current recession. The cause of our current recession was when Democrats forced banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Republicans tried to get more regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but were blocked by the Democrats (see "watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs" for proof if this) Obama and Dodd were the two biggest recipients of campaign contributions by Fannie & Freddie and they certainly got their moneys worth.
williambellor 2 years ago
This current crisis I do believe is extremely similar to the Great Depression (when it comes to how to fix it I don't know if we are on the right path or not, but I don't think we are becoming Socialist). Both had: lack of regulation of stock market, lack of banking regulation, over speculation of stocks, flow of credit to easy, derivatives, predatory lending, huge tax breaks on the wealthy, and Hoover called it rugged individualism, bush just slashed benefits for the poor. similar? yea
matisforever 2 years ago
Regarding "lack of regulation of the stock market & banking regulation - Capitalism is the ultimate regulator; you do something stupid, you go out of business and oterh learn fromyour mistakes.
Regarding over speculation of stocks - No such thing in capitalism because people won't invest more than a stock is worth. If they do, they will lose money; problem solved!
Regarding easy flow of credit & derivatives - this was caused by government forcing banks to loan to unworthey borrowers.
williambellor 2 years ago
Regarding predatory lending & huge tax breaks on the wealthy - These are just made up talking points from liberals trying to blame others for people being too stupid to read the fine print before signing on the dotted line. The wealthy deserve huge tax breaks because they pay a disproportionate high rate in taxes. No one I know works for a poor person, so letting the rich keep more of their money is good for the economy.
williambellor 2 years ago
the second part, yes, but trickle down theory doesn't work so no. the rich should be tax more as they have more money. novel idea i know.
predatory lending is more complicated than tricking people to not read the dotted line. it is business irresponsibility, to lend money to people who will not be able to pay the money bank, toxic loans? part of the problem wasnt regulated so business did it. regulate that, they won't.
matisforever 2 years ago
Banks make a profit by loaning people money and having those people pay them back. Without the payback, there is no profit. Why would a bank make a loan to someone who can't pay them back and why would they all start doing it at the same time? You got the order of the process correct, but you forgot the first step; government regulations forcing banks to give loans to poor people. Look up Community Redevelopment Act and then look at what Clinton did to force compliance.
williambellor 2 years ago
Then look up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their part in all of this, then go watch that video I mentioned yesterday and see the Democrats rejecting Republican efforts to put more oversight onto Freddie and Fannie.
williambellor 2 years ago
these were examples of both GD and current situation. then we should have no SEC? kinda dumb to me. there was and is a ton of stock over speculation. derivatives was business irresponsibility. not govt intervention. read more about derivatives.
matisforever 2 years ago
I have and I know that if a speculator over speculates the value of a commodity, they will lose their money and be unable to continue to invest.
williambellor 2 years ago
All of them were food, and all were under the era of a Republican President who didn't believe in regulation. The media should be responsible, but do you trust them with your life? what about drugs that are tested?
matisforever 2 years ago
If one media source didn't do its job, then I would find another who does.
Without government regulation of drugs, the pharmaceutical companies would do their own testing because it is not in their best interest to produce products that kill their customers. Any pharmaceutical company that consistently produce drugs that killed their customers would have a bad reputation and would be sued until they either changed their testing procedures or went out of business.
williambellor 2 years ago
only works if there is an infinite number of media outlets. why would it be in there best interest, tobacco companies do it? but if they got sued and changed their testing procedures, wouldn't there be some court intervention? yes, oh that means government, court system is part of the judicial branch of government.
matisforever 2 years ago
Using you tobacco company example, would not the possibility of bad media publicity and consumer lawsuits force tobacco companies to come up with more effective testing procedures and even develop a safer product? In the case of tobacco products, since it is not possible to develop a save tobacco product, wouldn't this eventually drive those companies out of business?
williambellor 2 years ago
it works, because the product kills people, and the companies don't regulate themselves, without the government, could also be similar if testing of drugs disappears.
matisforever 2 years ago
The limit of the governments responsibility is to inform people the cigarettes are dangerous. The Surgeon General did that in the '60s. After that the people who started smoking are responsible for themselves because they chose to start smoking. People who started smoking before the SG warning can sue the tobacco companies if they get cancer, but if they started smoking after the SG warning, then they are just stupid. I'm not excusing tobacco companies, but no one forced anyone to start smoking
williambellor 2 years ago
The bottom line here is I don't want the government deciding what I can put in my body. There are many things that aren't good for you, but I don't want politicians telling me what can or can't eat/drink/consume. Tobacco isn't good for you, Alcohol isn't good for you, Caffeine isn't good for you, red meat isn't good for you. Maybe you're happy with government regulating those items to, but not me!
williambellor 2 years ago
then if you don't thing the govt should regulate what you can and can't put in your body, what do you feel about crack, pot, heroin, etc.? govt regulates there what you can put in your body, should we get rid of that regulation?
matisforever 2 years ago
I don't think the Federal Government should regulate what people put in their bodies. The 10th amendment specifies that the Federal Governments powers are limited to what the constitution says they are; everything else is up to the states. Your failure is in assuming that the Federal Government is the beginning & the end of government regulation. Let the states figure out what to do about Pot, Heroin & Crack. When states rights are recognized, you have maximum freedom.
williambellor 2 years ago
The 10th applies, but so does the Elastic Clause to give broader powers to Congress. I didn't know that regulating dangerous substances like CRACK and HEROIN needed to be left to the states. I think Article One Section Eight provides enough room for that regulation.
matisforever 2 years ago
and the SG also puts warning labels on ads and the merchandise itself. that is the govt regulation that i am talkin about. rather than wait for the media to report that people are dropping like flies from some stupid drug i would have the FDA test it so its safe.
matisforever 2 years ago
The FDA has such a great record on all this. Raptiva, Avandia, Ephedra, Crestor, Fen Phen, Zelnorm, Baycol, Meridia, Neurontin, Prempro, Celebrex, Risperdal, Pemoline, Rezulin, Vioxx, Bextra as well as Painkillers like Vicodin, Lortab, Percodan, Percocet, OxyContin, Xanax, & Valium & Antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone, & Remeron were all found to have dangerous or even deadly side effects and were recalled despite FDA approval.
williambellor 2 years ago
The FDA is ineffective at preventing these issues because it is a government bureaucracy and can't be held accountable for its failures. Bad publicity and crippling lawsuits of pharmaceutical companies producing bad products would destroy those companies and the survivors would learn from their mistakes; benefiting everyone!
williambellor 2 years ago
By your rationale, the FDA doesn't work. So we get rid of it. Now all drugs can be rushed to market, no approval necessary. When people start experiencing "dangerous or even deadly side effects" we must wait for the media or some person on a blog, to connect the dots, which could take days, or weeks, or years to do. Then the informed population doesn't take that drug, because the media broke the story, right? Why put millions of Americans at risk of death, when we could use FDA to test drugs?
matisforever 2 years ago
only works if there is an infinite number of media outlets. are they going to keep multiplying? what if we run out? drug companies testing themselves? we'll get to the down side of that soon.
matisforever 2 years ago
Blogs and internet news sources are the new news media and they're popping up all the time. Many important stories are broken on the new today & not the main-stream media. The Monica Lewinsky story wasn't broken by CBS or NBC or CNN, it was broken by Matt Drudge on the web. That's the beauty of the internet; anyone who has a concern about anything can start a blog or an internet news source & express their opinion or report news that is important to them. At least until Obama censors them!
williambellor 2 years ago
yea on the internet you also have the benefit of knowing that everything you read is the ultimate truth, because it can be edited by everyone even the experts. i just learned that the holocaust was fake and dinosaurs were put in the ground by the Jews in the 1650s on new blogs.
matisforever 2 years ago
No, everything on the internet isn't truthful anymore than everything you hear on CBS, NBC or CNN is. That's where personal responsibility come in. It is your responsibility as a citizen in a free country to make wise decisions. Freedom and freedom from responsibility are incompatible with each other; they are an either/or proposition and you can't have it both ways!
williambellor 2 years ago
But it could take years for a news agency to break a story about a dangerous food or drug, when FDA regulation could have napped it during testing.
Do you trust the "aggressive media" with your live when getting food or drugs?
What about sponsers of media outlets being drug companies? conflict of interest right? we could never know about the danger.
The PFDA was used as precedent for the need of certain regulation. and it was 100ish years ago. i think 102 under TR.
matisforever 2 years ago
The motivation of self survival would result in pharmaceutical companies taking product testing seriously and they would probably do a better job at it because when the government does the testing, a pharmaceutical company can simply throw up their hand and say, "hey the FDA approved it". There wouldn't be any passing the buck if they did their own testing. Part of the marketing campaign would include convincing the customer that their product is safe. UL did it for electronics companies!
williambellor 2 years ago
Do we get information about bad drugs any quicker when the government regulates pharmaceutical companies? The truth is the first time most of us hear of a dangerous drug or food is when the media tells us about it! That would not change, except that the media might become more diligent about monitoring drug and food companies because it would certainly be a feather in their cap if they exposed a product that was killing people.
Can you say Pulitzer?
williambellor 2 years ago
Conflicts of Interest are possible in the government to. What if a pharmaceutical company makes campaign contributions to an influential Congressman or Senator. It already happens; the mortgage crisis was allowed to fester partly because Obama, Dodd and other prominent politicians were recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. If a pharmaceutical company is paying off a media outlet for their silence, then the Pulitzer goes to the media outlet that exposes the conflict.
williambellor 2 years ago
Regarding the PFDA; a hundred years ago this was a different country. A hundred years ago there wasn't as much competition. A hundred years ago there weren't 24 hour cable news sources. A hundred years ago there wasn't the internet. A hundred years ago people used wagon wheels. A hundred years later we no longer use wagon wheels because there are better options and it is the same with government regulation.
williambellor 2 years ago
why do we have seatbelts in cars? why do we have seatbelt laws? started with early regulation and continued because it is smart and it saves lives. just like the Pure Food and Drug Act did in 1906. continuing to save lives with regulation. why would business worry so much about there customers health, when tobacco companies kill 500,000 customers a year. wouldn't it be in their best interest to have those paying customers live? wouldnt they be much more dangerous without the govt? yes they would
matisforever 2 years ago
I disagree! No one argues that seat belts are a good idea, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether government has the right to mandate their use. I think seat belt requirements would work better if the issue was addressed by insurance companies. Something like "if you are in an accident and not wearing a seat belt, the insurance company doesn't have to pay you".
I addressed 100 year old laws yesterday and am not going to repeat myself and I addressed tobacco deaths in my previous post.
williambellor 2 years ago
seat belt laws are absolutely in the realm of mandates. thats crazy. seat belt laws are over intervention by government then?
matisforever 2 years ago
Yes! The Federal Government has a law that says if states don't pass seat belt laws they can deny that state highway funds! And let's not forget that it was government that forced car manufacturers to install seat belts in cars in the first place. Government does the same thing with speed limits.
Once again, I think seat belts are a good idea, but they should be implemented because car manufacturers & insurance companies decide that it's a good business decision, not due to government threats.
williambellor 2 years ago
ok. you go with that one. i have nothing to say, because i love living and if the government says, " if you don't wear a seat belt we can fine you , oh and by the way if you don't wear this thing and you are in a car crash you may die." that to me is govt responsibility to the fullest, but guess not. whatev.
matisforever 2 years ago
You and I are both intelligent to wear seat belts because they are a good idea, but I don't like the idea of giving up my freedom even in cases like this because if the government can pass a law saying I must wear a seat belt or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then they can also say I can't drink a beer because it causes liver disease or I can't eat red meat because it causes heart disease. I don't want the government having that much control over my life! I can make my own decisions!
williambellor 2 years ago
But you only fear things that come from your own logical fallacy! You are intelligent, but keep falling for the same fallacy in logic! The Slippery Slope. if this happens, then this could happen, which could lead to this, which could create the chance that a pig flys right out of Joe Biden's mouth. You have some illogical fears.
matisforever 2 years ago
Have you noticed that every time I bring up the argument that if we expand the definition of marriage to include gays, we will also have to expand it for polygamy, you write it off as a logical fallacy? I guess those two words absolve you of having to explain why my argument should not be a real concern. I know that in debates and even in wars, people use the best weapon they have that will get the job done, so I must conclude that your only option is to diminish my argument by calling names.
williambellor 2 years ago
Because if you could make an argument that I'm taking this issue to a silly extreme, you would have presented it by now. We both know that expanding the definition of marriage to include polygamy is a very real likelihood if we have already set the precedent of changing it to include gays. I haven't heard you say that polygamy should also be included under the new expanded definition of marriage, so I must assume that you are I are in agreement on that.
williambellor 2 years ago
The problem is that all the arguments you are making for gay marriage could also be made for polygamy; they're consenting adults, they love each other, why should society discriminate against them just because there's three or more of them? You can hear the arguments now.
williambellor 2 years ago
But I'd like to look at this from another angle. I have a friend at work who is openly gay and very much in favor of legalizing gay marriage. On the day of the Prop 8 vote in Ca. (Ca. is my home state in case you weren't aware) I asked him what he really wants from of gay marriage. He told me that he wants the tax benefits that come to married couples, the same rights to make medical decisions for his partner that married couple have & the same estate inheritance rights that marriage brings.
williambellor 2 years ago
Ignoring the fact that with the exception of the tax benefits, gays already can get most of what they want without being married; one can designate anyone they want to make decisions for them in medical emergencies and one can leave their estate to anyone they choose by simply witting as will. Granted, with married couples, these issues are automatic & require no additional steps, the fact is they already exist. I would even be in favor of allowing gays the tax benefits that come with marriage.
williambellor 2 years ago
If wanting the right was all the gay marriage issue was about, then this should be the end of it, but it isn't. Gay marriage is about taking over and changing the definition of marriage; an institution that has the foundation of human existence for over five thousand years. I notice that when I brought up the issue of civil unions (which I also agree with) you discounted that with another bumper sticker slogan "Separate But Equal", but this isn't really a valid argument.
williambellor 2 years ago
The problem with the Separate But Equal argument as it was applied to freed slaves, is that there was no desire for any kind of equality in that case. It was still OK to murder a blacks with little or no consequences, it was still OK to deny blacks the right to vote or access to schools or access to the justice system or even an acknowledgment of basic human rights!
I don't see anything like that being directed towards gays today! Do you?
williambellor 2 years ago
To reject the idea of Civil Unions simply because one time in history Separate But Equal didn't work, is problematic.
So, as I see, it, there are two ways gays can go forward with this.
1, Gays can continue to attempt to get gay marriage imposed on the nation by having judges override the will of the people in a blatantly unconstitutional act & then live with the fact that sixty plus percent of the people hate them & reject their unions because Americans votes were repeatedly disregarded.
or
williambellor 2 years ago
Gays can get civil union laws put on the ballots in every state, being very specific that civil unions have all the same rights responsibilities and privileges as marriage. Every poll I've ever seen shows that Americans are in favor of civil unions, so it would an easily law to pass in most (if not all) states. It would also be a terrific gesture and a sign of respect for married couples by the gay community; a level of respect that would be returned by the straight community.
williambellor 2 years ago
Since there would be very little opposition to this type of bill, gays would get the rights they desire right now, rather than the current system which gives them rights and then takes them away again. On top of this, if the bills were written correctly and did very specifically spell out the rights that come with civil unions, gays would have a legal standing for suing in court if one of those rights was being denied.
williambellor 2 years ago
So, on the one hand, you have gays taking marriage by force and having everyone hate them for it and going to court to block them, resulting in zero gains in their desired to get the rights they really want.
or
Accepting civil unions, getting all the rights they want within a year or two, winning the blessings of the straight community and having a real legal standing to do something if someone is denying you the rights as written in the law.
williambellor 2 years ago
Looking at it this way, I can't understand the opposition of gays to civil unions except for the very childish reaction of "Gimme Gimme Gimme, we want it because we want it, Now Now Now"!
I just don't think that laws should be passed based on temper tantrums!
Please tell me why I'm wrong.
And please, make a real argument. Don't just write me off with a "separate but equal" argument. I spend nearly two hours detailing my position on this, so please don't respond with a bumper sticker slogan.
williambellor 2 years ago
but you won't call it marriage because they need their own separate institution. would expanding civil unions to gays lead to polygamy civil unions? see i just made fun of your argument, cheap shot i know, but it was funny.
matisforever 2 years ago
i do, it is still OK to deny gays the right to marry, which i would consider a "basic human rights!"
matisforever 2 years ago
why not change marriages definition to include gays? since they are gay, they don't deserve it? i think for "over five thousand years" gays have been denied their "basic human rights" if that is the institution of marriage.
matisforever 2 years ago
but since their gay, they are second class citizens and can't marry and must jump through hoops A, B, and C so that they can get the same rights. that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. like if women had to do that too that would be discriminatory and unconstitutional, what makes the gays different?
matisforever 2 years ago
It seems your friend wants the equal rights that you want to deny him on the basis that he is gay.
matisforever 2 years ago
I say logical fallacy, because arguments can't be based on flawed logic. Just as a car can't run with a faulty engine, arguments can't stand when entrenched in faulty logic. Since you say i do name calling i am going to do some more, you fine good standing right loving American, use an argument, that is discriminatory. Gay people don't get the right to marry because they would be in a gay relationship, which is discriminatory, and being discriminatory is quite un-American and unconstitutional
matisforever 2 years ago
First off, I want to thank you for posting your entire response in a single string of text rather than scattering it all over this page, it makes it much easier to follow this debate when a response is posted in only one place. I am going to do this from now on and hope you will do the same.
williambellor 2 years ago
Now, on to your response. I read your posting a few times and realized I could counter each point you made, but in a way that would probably not satisfy you. I'm guessing that we both have solid, well established opinions on this issue and neither of us is likely to change the opinion of the other.
williambellor 2 years ago
But I noticed one point you made in your last post that I believe reveals the central difference of opinion between us and I believe that this point is the foundation that the entire rest of your argument is based upon. Therefore, by discrediting that one single point, the whole rest of your argument collapses under its own weight. That point is when you said you believe that marriage is a "basic human right". I couldn't disagree more!
williambellor 2 years ago
Marriage is not a human right; it is a religious ritual that has been usurped by the state for the purpose of granting benefits; benefits like inheritance rights, tax benefits and etc. Religion has been performing marriage for thousands of years longer than the US has even been in existence, so it is beyond arrogance for the US to think that it has the right to change the definition of a religious ritual.
williambellor 2 years ago
The US has no more right to expand the definition of marriage than it would to, say, expand the definition of baptism to include people urinating on each other. The only power that the state has in this entire issue is to expand the number of legitimate unions it recognizes and grants benefits to (Marriages and Civil Unions, for instance).
williambellor 2 years ago
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This basically means that the US will not create an official state religion, but also that it will not interfere in the affairs of any particular religion. Based on that, the US forcing religion to change the definition of their ritual would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
williambellor 2 years ago
Once that foundation is undermined, the whole rest of your argument collapses, with one exception which is where you asked "Would[n't] expanding civil unions to gays lead to polygamy civil unions?, and the answer to that is, NO! The slippery slope argument only works if judges override the will of the voters and expands the definition of marriage based on the arguments you have satisfactorily presented above.
williambellor 2 years ago
In order for Civil Unions to become the law of the land, the people or their representatives would need to vote for the issue and the same would apply to polygamy. Right now, there is virtually zero support from either the people or their representatives for polygamy, but if polygamists were able to win the support of the people for recognition of their unions, then and only then would it become an issue.
williambellor 2 years ago
I look forward to continuing our debate!
williambellor 2 years ago
Marriage is much more than a religious ritual adapted for taxes it is a basic human right. Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the US in 1948ish, states the following: (see next post)
matisforever 2 years ago
"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
matisforever 2 years ago
When you say that Religious definitions would have to be changed is irrelevant. Two people can be married under law, and do NOT need any validation from a Church as Church and State are and need to be separated. In fact the expansion of rights to gays, would change only those who get marriage licenses, signed by a clergy men or justice of the peace(not religiously affiliated).
matisforever 2 years ago
so you see, the religious definition of marriage doesn't change as the government would only be changing the legal definition of marriage as that definition is the only definition that matters under US law. furthermore, the religious definition of marriage is not a determining factor on US law as the First Amendment states, which you know so well, but in this case misinterpret. by accepting the religious definition, the US would be supporting an established religious belief, which is a no-no.
matisforever 2 years ago
Irrelevant. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and supersede any laws or treaties passed by politicians or diplomats. The Constitution and Bill of Rights get priority because they were ratified by the states and no individual or small group of politicians can override that.
williambellor 2 years ago
If a diplomat signed onto a treaty that said, in part, that slavery was acceptable, that would not make it legal in the US to keep slaves, because slavery was deemed unconstitutional as a result of the 14th amendment. Next, when you get to the three provisions of the UN treaty you listed above, they are open to a quite a bit of interpretation.
williambellor 2 years ago
The first provision mentions "Men and women of full age", but the term "full age" is vague at best, since it does not specify what exactly constitutes "full age"? I would assume that full age has the same definition as "age of consent" but age of consent varies wildly from nation to nation. In some nations, age of consent is as low as 12, and if that is what the treaty means by "full age" that would mean that US laws banning pedophilia are in violation of the treaty.
williambellor 2 years ago
I also don't see anything in the wording of the treaty stating that a marriage must be limited to two people or even to living people, which means that polygamy and necrophilia are both on the table. I do notice that the treaty says that marriage will not be limited due to race, nationality or religion, but I see nothing about sexual orientation.
williambellor 2 years ago
I think that to understand these provisions, one must look at them through the eyes of the people who wrote the treaty and what they were thinking at the time. It seems clear to me that the treaty sought to prevent states from banning marriages due to race (i.e. between blacks and a whites), due to nationality (i.e. between Americans and a people of French decent), or due to religion (i.e. between a Catholic and a Jew).
williambellor 2 years ago
What it doesn't say is that a state cannot prevent a marriage that doesn't conform to the definition of a traditional marriage (i.e. between one man and one woman). Everything else is speculation. Since they were quite specific when they listed race, nationality or religion in the treaty, I have to figure if they planned to include gay marriage as a protected class, they would have included sexual orientation on that list.
williambellor 2 years ago
Like I said before, all of this is irrelevant because our laws are not specified by the UN, they are specified in the US Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.
williambellor 2 years ago
When you said "In fact the expansion of rights to gays, would change only those who get marriage licenses, signed by a clergy men or justice of the peace (not religiously affiliated)", that misses the point completely because the moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, it will become a civil right and an act of discrimination against any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage based on their beliefs.
williambellor 2 years ago
Ever notice how the ACLU tries to sue churches who receive government funding for faith based charities when those churches refuse to hire homosexuals or even people outside their faith. Do you really think that the ACLU will remain quiet if a church refuses to perform a gay marriage? Government interference starts out seemingly benign but always pushes way past its limits.
williambellor 2 years ago
The last thing you said was [by recognizing the religious definition of marriage] "the US would be supporting an established religious belief, which is a no-no". I couldn't disagree more; there is a huge difference between establishing a religion and acknowledging one. Any convergence between a religious marriage and an established religion would be eliminated of the government simply chose to recognize Civil Unions.
williambellor 2 years ago
I look forward to your response!
williambellor 2 years ago
There is a difference between refusing employment and refusing participation in a religious ceremony. The former is regulated by law. The latter cannot be regulated by law because it would be a violation of the 1st.
docmoriarti 2 years ago
Churches are allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Because they are... well, churches. Many clergymen won't perform interfaith marriages. It's not illegal because churches don't have an obligation to be open to everyone. Such an obligation, if mandated by law, would be a government mandate of a religious practice on the clergymen.
docmoriarti 2 years ago
Very well said.
switchfootrelientk 2 years ago
but by the time the story breaks, people are dead. why sacrifice the lives, when you could keep the regulation?
matisforever 2 years ago
So you are saying that people don't die today despite all the regulations we currently have? If the regulations aren't saving lives today, why are we wasting money on them?
williambellor 2 years ago
can't be perfect, but they do save people. how can you say they don't?
matisforever 2 years ago
You seem to believe that the best way to do something is to get the government involved. Can you name one thing the government does better than the private sector? Can you name one thing the government does well? Who delivers packages better, the post office or Fed Ex?
williambellor 2 years ago
what the heck are you talking about? i am saying we old school wrastelin this issue, with a governmental-private tag team. its the best of private and governmental , where they can share info and double the amount of testing. lets work together.
matisforever 2 years ago
The government doesn't share power, it dominates everything it touches. Ever heard the saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
Besides, what makes you think that an elected politician with no expertise in a particular field can regulate that field better than the experts?
williambellor 2 years ago
That is why experts come and testify at the committee hearings. But if we go with you idea that the experts should regulate their particular field, then we have an oligarchy with the experts making the decisions, which would be great for science, and bad for you anti-abortion stance. But power does corrupt, and that is why we regulate companies who get a tad too much power. and the government does share, checks and balances and separation of powers, for power sharing examples within govt.
matisforever 2 years ago
we only hear about the drugs that made the test, and then went bad, what about drugs the FDA got? you can't get every drug, so rather than kill the entire system, why not tighten up the testing with the partner hood of a UL, which does good work? why not tighten the agency to make it work more properly than get rid of half of the defensive from bad drugs.
matisforever 2 years ago
The point about UL is that it is a private organization, not a government agency. It is also Exhibit A as my evidence that companies are motivated to produce products that don't kill their customers. If UL can do it, why not pharmaceutical companies?
williambellor 2 years ago
Malcolm X said everybody has an angle. the motivation of business is to make money, right? pharmaceutical companies are businesses, right? those drug companies are driven by profits. therefore their testing is in their best interest to make money. the testing would be a conflict of interest, as the company wants to make money and their drugs is the way, which could be drop in quality. my idea was combine the testing of UL and government. double whammy. right? double protection. is that wrong?
matisforever 2 years ago
It is in the best interest of any company to produce a product that improves the customers life. If a product ends up killing the customer, then that isn't improving anyone's lives & any company that has a reputation of producing products that kill their customers, they won't be around long.
Self regulation & government will never work well together, because government will always insist (right or wrong) that they have the final say and they will always win because they can put people in jail.
williambellor 2 years ago
ok, i am going to let you go on that, but the tobacco issue is a corollary to that, but since we talked about that one above i won't here.
how do you know self regulation will not work together we haven't tried it, because republicans instead of doing that, always wanted to destroy the governmental side.
matisforever 2 years ago
I know human nature. Humans want to be successful and the best way to do that is to produce a product that people need/want that allows them to survive to buy more of your product. When you kill your customers, they cease to be a customer in the future.
Does that mean that there aren't evil corrupt people out there who will sell dangerous products anyways? No, but does regulation prevent that from happening? No, it just puts obstacles in front of people who want to do make an honest buck.
williambellor 2 years ago
It does help stop dangerous products though, you know that, you aren't telling me that regulation has never stopped a danger are you?
But it is a way to test products to the fullest, you see it as an obstacle i see it as a precaution.
matisforever 2 years ago
what are they trying to do give us a glimpse of the future.
Mrcharliebobo 2 years ago
Alan pulled a really good one
metalxmustang 2 years ago 3
great,real funny,but becoming more possible every day with Obama, what a big Mistake for America.
ralphdjeeper 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hate FOX news but I gotta admit, this was actually funny. As hard as it has for FOX to have a humorous show (they've tried and failed), maybe they need to let Colmes have a comedy hour.
TheDystopiaInside 2 years ago