Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban

[silencertalk]

I am not a Libertarian either, at least not in absolute terms. But I wish Republicans and Democrats would become more libertarian - but that is hopeless - as they both like telling people what to do.

[doubloon]

Liberals try to remove fiscal responsibility, Republicans try to remove moral responsibility, they're both anti-freedom.

Wrong. Liberals create moral hazards all over the place.
...

Sigh ...

Once again no one said they didn't and if you really pay attention to what's going on in the world around you many of the things you call "republicans" create policies that attempt to insulate people from their actions.

It seems the bulk of your political views are being fed to you from one media source or another but I'll try once more to open up a conversation on the topic and we'll see if you respond with more rhetoric.

Today's "democrats" and "republicans" are just varying degrees of the same animal except (on the whole) the former spends more time trying to get into your pocket book and spread your money to the less fortunate in the name of "economic security" and the latter spends more time trying to get into your privacy and spread your personal data to the four winds in the name of "personal security". The former erodes your financial liberties and the latter erodes your personal security. The former tries to take your money and spend it on things like alternative fuel subsidies, national health care and other altruistic crapola. The former tries to take your money and spend it on things like national ID cards, the war on drugs, anti-abortion and other moral right crapola.

Conservatism, whether fiscal or social, is just another way to say "taking away personal freedom".

This country was founded on liberalism ... not that liberal veneer over marxist agenda being pushed by today's democrats ... they're not liberals ... they're fiscal conservatives. A true liberal champions both fiscal and personal freedom the way this country was founded and the way it was intended to be run ... by the people not the oligarchy.

Both parties have been gravitating toward totalitarianism for quite some time but in general the democrats have become more marxist and the republicans have become more authoritarian, bordering on fascism (IMO) in some ways.

So get your head out of your ass and really, really look at what you call "democrats" and "republicans" today. Stop pretending that one is really all that much better than the other. They are both enemies of the people.

[Slick]

Liberals try to remove fiscal responsibility, Republicans try to remove moral responsibility, they're both anti-freedom.

Wrong. Liberals create moral hazards all over the place.
...

Sigh ...

Once again no one said they didn't and if you really pay attention to what's going on in the world around you many of the things you call "republicans" create policies that attempt to insulate people from their actions.

It seems the bulk of your political views are being fed to you from one media source or another but I'll try once more to open up a conversation on the topic and we'll see if you respond with more rhetoric.

Today's "democrats" and "republicans" are just varying degrees of the same animal except (on the whole) the former spends more time trying to get into your pocket book and spread your money to the less fortunate in the name of "economic security" and the latter spends more time trying to get into your privacy and spread your personal data to the four winds in the name of "personal security". The former erodes your financial liberties and the latter erodes your personal security. The former tries to take your money and spend it on things like alternative fuel subsidies, national health care and other altruistic crapola. The former tries to take your money and spend it on things like national ID cards, the war on drugs, anti-abortion and other moral right crapola.

Conservatism, whether fiscal or social, is just another way to say "taking away personal freedom".

This country was founded on liberalism ... not that liberal veneer over marxist agenda being pushed by today's democrats ... they're not liberals ... they're fiscal conservatives. A true liberal champions both fiscal and personal freedom the way this country was founded and the way it was intended to be run ... by the people not the oligarchy.

Both parties have been gravitating toward totalitarianism for quite some time but in general the democrats have become more marxist and the republicans have become more authoritarian, bordering on fascism (IMO) in some ways.

So get your head out of your ass and really, really look at what you call "democrats" and "republicans" today. Stop pretending that one is really all that much better than the other. They are both enemies of the people.

Thanks for the tip, but my head's not in my ass, and I'm quite comfortable with the depth and scope of my education and experience that has gotten me to where I am now.

To some degree we seem to be talking past each other.

[Slick]

I am not a Libertarian either, at least not in absolute terms. But I wish Republicans and Democrats would become more libertarian - but that is hopeless - as they both like telling people what to do.

I'm still wondering what the things Republicans want to tell others to do are.

Frankly, I don't know many people who really give a crap if prostitution is legalized. And I don't hear of many people of any political bent who really want all drugs legalized.

[silencertalk]

I'm still wondering what the things Republicans want to tell others to do are.

Keep prostitution illegal.
Keep the war on drugs.
Keep the legal drinking age 21.
Keep the IRS and the progressive income tax.
Ban MGs

[Slick]

I'm still wondering what the things Republicans want to tell others to do are.

Keep prostitution illegal.
Keep the war on drugs.
Keep the legal drinking age 21.
Keep the IRS and the progressive income tax.
Ban MGs

First three, who cares?

I'm in the hospitality industry, and I can tell you that if you want a hooker, drugs of any sort, or underage booze, you will have very little difficulty in getting it, unless you're an idiot. The legal penalties for engaging in such are also pretty minor, unless you're stupid enough to get caught more than once.

That said, hookers? Really? Do you know people who use the services of hookers, or even want to?

The last two, the only people talking about getting rid of them at all are republicans, which refers back to my earlier point that many "republicans" in power aren't really republicans at all.

But even the vice laws, there are compelling public-order arguments to be made, and even if one does not agree with them, they cannot be dismissed out of hand. And I'd hardly call those restrictions authoritarian. Is anyone's life really diminished because they can't visit a hooker, buy heroin at the drug store, or buy booze as a teenager?

And this coming from someone who drank as a teenager, and still smokes pot as a middle-aged adult. You know how many of my friends (same age) still smoke pot? None.

Sorry, the older I get, the sillier these arguments for unlimited vice seem.

[silencertalk]

How can the govt tell someone they cannot take a plant - that grows in nature, and ingest it? No one should be able to compel someone to not ingest something. There should be no concept of controlled substances. And really, along those lines, I should not need a prescription to buy eyeglasses.

Is anyone's life really diminished because they can't visit a hooker, buy heroin at the drug store, or buy booze as a teenager?

You have this backwards. I was not thinking of this from a male perspective of wanting prostitutes to be available. In fact I am kinda caught off guard by how you asked - it never occurred to me as a male issue. I was thinking of it as a woman's right issue - they should be free to earn money.

I hate drugs, yet I badly want them to be legal. This is because I care more about freedom of choice.

You really don't see how absurd it is that the govt can tell a woman she cannot charge money for sex? Even to survive or feed her kids? Even in private off the street? It is beyond belief to me. What if that is her best opportunity?

[doubloon]

I'm still wondering what the things Republicans want to tell others to do are.

Keep prostitution illegal.
Keep the war on drugs.
Keep the legal drinking age 21.
Keep the IRS and the progressive income tax.
Ban MGs

@robert
That's a good start, it hits the highlights and the easy topics anyway. Items 3 and 5 shouldn't even be talking points they're so ridiculous. But still solid examples of authoritarianism.

@slick
This is why I said "head up your ass" in the earlier response. You are not even aware of the agenda the republicrats are pushing. You're "wondering" what the how the republicrats are working to limit personal freedom and the answers are all around you.

If you prefer, head buried in sand or living under a rock or can't see the forest for the trees or waiting for a train at the bus station ...

[silencertalk]

I am ok with zoning laws, and building codes.

They both limit freedom. A Libertarian would probably say that anyone should be able to build any house they want and it is up to the next person to research if it is safe to rebuy and live in.

So I do pick and choose what freedoms I want to limit. This is the problem. Slick thinks 'Of course you should tell people they can't drink when age 20.'

I think 'It is outrageous you can tell a 20 year old adult they cannot drink, but it is fine that you can tell someone they cannot use asbestos insulation.'

And I have no defense for my picking and choosing.

[doubloon]

I'm not for anarchy either, society needs rules to prosper but it also needs a sense of personal responsibility that cannot flourish in a nanny state.

[Selectedmarksman]

I'm still wondering what the things Republicans want to tell others to do are.

Keep prostitution illegal.
Keep the war on drugs.
Keep the legal drinking age 21.
Keep the IRS and the progressive income tax.
Ban MGs

First three, who cares?

Last one, who cares?

...hear that from your Congressmen and see how you feel about that line of reasoning.

[silencertalk]

So let's start with you should be able to do what you want with your body. Take drugs, not wear a helmet or seat belt, sell it for sex, etc. But I would not automatically include abortion, as I don't consider a fetus to be 'your body.' One has a responsibility to protect the new developing life. Maybe that is easy for me to say, as I have not knocked anyone up, that I know of. If I did and was young, poor, or married to someone else - it would really have some serious effects. But it is also very serious ending someone's developing live - it is just hard to notice because it is concealed at first. There is a proposed TX law to require the mother to see ultrasound before an abortion - and pro-abortion people are fighting that.

Some nerve - they not only want to be able to kill, but to not have to think about it. Imagine if the law allowed you to have anyone killed but with one stipulation - you had to look at a photo of them first. Then imagine saying that is too much of a hurdle and you should be able to kill without looking at the photo.

[silencertalk]

There is pressure among NFA owners to keep new MGs illegal - to protect their prices.

It is even worse with taxi licenses in Boston. There are just 1800 of them, and they have sold for up to $400,000 due to the limited supply. Boston could just add more if the city wanted, but the people who paid a lot of them actually would be financially wrecked if more were added, so it is a very strange NFA-like situation where the people who are pro-taxi but already have a license can't really lobby for more licenses.

The crime is letting NFA and the taxi license get to where it is at to begin with.

[Slick]

I'm still wondering what the things Republicans want to tell others to do are.

Keep prostitution illegal.
Keep the war on drugs.
Keep the legal drinking age 21.
Keep the IRS and the progressive income tax.
Ban MGs

@robert
That's a good start, it hits the highlights and the easy topics anyway. Items 3 and 5 shouldn't even be talking points they're so ridiculous. But still solid examples of authoritarianism.

@slick
This is why I said "head up your ass" in the earlier response. You are not even aware of the agenda the republicrats are pushing. You're "wondering" what the how the republicrats are working to limit personal freedom and the answers are all around you.

If you prefer, head buried in sand or living under a rock or can't see the forest for the trees or waiting for a train at the bus station ...

No offense, but you've said nothing remotely compelling in this discussion, other than insulting me.

[Slick]

How can the govt tell someone they cannot take a plant - that grows in nature, and ingest it? No one should be able to compel someone to not ingest something. There should be no concept of controlled substances. And really, along those lines, I should not need a prescription to buy eyeglasses.

Are you equating chemicals that alter one's brain chemistry with eyeglasses? Have you ever smoked pot?

Is anyone's life really diminished because they can't visit a hooker, buy heroin at the drug store, or buy booze as a teenager?

You have this backwards. I was not thinking of this from a male perspective of wanting prostitutes to be available. In fact I am kinda caught off guard by how you asked - it never occurred to me as a male issue. I was thinking of it as a woman's right issue - they should be free to earn money.

Should people be able to sell their kidneys?

I hate drugs, yet I badly want them to be legal. This is because I care more about freedom of choice.

Heroin? PCP? Rohypnol?

You really don't see how absurd it is that the govt can tell a woman she cannot charge money for sex? Even to survive or feed her kids? Even in private off the street? It is beyond belief to me. What if that is her best opportunity?

I believe in self-governance.

I don't see many people worried about the fact that prostitution is illegal.

Regardless, I am quite sure that any woman who wants to earn a living as a hooker can do so, with a modicum of discretion, without much trouble legally.

[silencertalk]

Yes, people should be able to sell their blood and kidneys.

I am not equating eyeglasses with pot. I am saying that it is also silly that I cannot buy eyeglasses over the internet. I have my own diopter test set. As for pot, I have never smoked a complete joint, but I did take a puff on one as it was passed around a circle. I have never tried a cigarette.

Yes, Heroin and PCP should be legal. There should not be a concept of a controlled substance, except something like VX or Antrax.

Your argument that not a lot of people are worried about prostitution being illegal is not compelling. The VPC relies on that not a lot of people worry that MGs are illegal as that debate is not even on the table to them and so they don't need to lobby to keep them illegal as there is no public debate. They will tell you if you want a MG so bad, join the military. So I maintain, in the interest of freedom, it needs to be made legal.

[doubloon]

...
No offense, but you've said nothing remotely compelling in this discussion, other than insulting me.

No problem, so far mostly what I've seen from your side is "republicans are not authoritarian", republicans are far superior to democrats, strong disagreement with words that no one uttered, a bunch of passive aggressive questions and, as far as insults go, you are throwing your fair share they're just indirect like calling Robert "silly".

I can only assume you didn't read the post on the difference between conservatism and liberalism and how the former stifles personal freedom while the latter thrives on it or you still think republican == conservative and democrat == liberal which couldn't be farther from the truth. The words republican and democrat represent political parties not political views. The democratic party was liberal at one time but no longer and the republican party was conservative at one time but no longer.

But that's OK, it's fun watching you try to convince Robert that prostitution doesn't have to be legal for a woman to make a living at it legally, making arguments that it's OK to everyone lose certain freedoms as long as they are freedoms you don't personally care about and saying as long as it's possible to do illegal things without getting caught it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not.

[CThomas]

I really have to question some of the logic here about the legalization of drugs. Drugs do nothing but destroy lives, families and peoples financial well being. People do not do drugs in a vacum, they do it among us and society has to deal with the consequences. The consumption of alcohol is legal but it is illegal to drink and drive. Everyday however innocent people are killed and injured by drunk drivers in this country because some idiot made the decision to not only break the law but to simply ignore common sense. So we should allow people to get high on pot, herion or coke etc now. Of course it will be illegal to do these drugs and then drive but we all know so many will ignore the law and go on to kill. Perhaps the next to die will be your friend, your neighbor or perhaps your wife and child. Please do not give me that BS about that is the price we pay to live in a free society as there are common sense points in life that to go beyond them are just stupid.

Take cigarettes or any other tobaco based product, we know they are a deadly product and I believe they should also be made illegal. So despite the warnings and know facts of tobacco use thousands die ever year. Many die while on medicare or medicaid ie the tax payers dime. So a person makes another life choice to destroy their life but on someones elses dime, just like with welfare etc which so many of the same people advocating for the legalization of drugs rail about.

OK you want to legalize drugs and use them, here is the solution. You have to have a health insurance policy that you pay for to cover every dime of your own medical care so when you fry your brain or your lungs become diseased with cancer etc your not a burden on US. You have to purchase a 50 million dollar bond so when you decide to make a munchie run after getting high on your weed or whatever your drug of choice is and you run over some guy who was minding his own business living his life supporting his wife and kids and you kill him the family does not go on welfare and become a burden on US.

[doubloon]

I really have to question some of the logic here about the legalization of hand guns. Hand guns do nothing but destroy lives, families and peoples financial well being. People do not use hand guns in a vacum, they do it among us and society has to deal with the consequences. The discharge of a hand gun is legal but it is illegal to discharge a had gun in city limits. Everyday however innocent people are killed and injured by hand gun discharges in this country because some idiot made the decision to not only break the law but to simply ignore common sense. So we should allow people to own tracers, armor piercing ammo or .50+ caliber rounds etc now. Of course it will be illegal to discharge these munitions in city limits but we all know so many will ignore the law and go on to kill. Perhaps the next to die will be your friend, your neighbor or perhaps your wife and child. Please do not give me that BS about that is the price we pay to live in a free society as there are common sense points in life that to go beyond them are just stupid.

Take shotguns or any other projectile based product, we know they are a deadly product and I believe they should also be made illegal. So despite the warnings and know facts of projectile use thousands die ever year. Many die while on medicare or medicaid ie the tax payers dime. So a person makes another life choice to destroy their life but on someones elses dime, just like with welfare etc which so many of the same people advocating for the legalization of guns rail about.

OK you want to legalize guns and use them, here is the solution. You have to have a health insurance policy that you pay for to cover every dime of your own medical care so when you shoot your foot or your lungs become diseased from cordite residue etc your not a burden on US. You have to purchase a 50 million dollar bond so when you decide to take a shot at a duck, squirrel, groundhog or whatever your game of choice is and you hit some guy who was minding his own business living his life supporting his wife and kids and you kill him the family does not go on welfare and become a burden on US.

As a note, this is the group think that already exists in the U.K. where hunters are required to have Public Liability Insurance.

[Ben B.]

Nice retread, illustrates the point cleanly, well done!

[CThomas]

[quote="doubloon"][quote="CThomas"]I really have to question some of the logic here about the legalization of hand guns.

doubloon a most excellent come back. It speaks to the old slippery slope of course. I however consider the ownership of firearms an absolute right that serves a purpose. Yes, there will always be times when some loon kills or injures but what argument can you make for getting high. Is there an absolute need for someone to get high?
I guess one man's common sense solution to an issue causes another man's outrage.

[BWT]

Interesting discussion.

Guns are inanimate objects, drugs impair observational skills, are physically addictive (Ever seen someone go through withdrawals), impair judgement and can cause permanent and irreversible damage (I've got a friend that has seizures now, after a year or two with certain drugs), and these are some of the most addictive substances on the planet.

I'm all for liberty, but, that argument doesn't make jive, one is a substance that is taken and one is an object that has psychological associations. I've never seen someone Over dose on guns, by all means, tell us about that.

I'm going to have to agree with Ben B. and Slick.

I have never smoked a complete joint, but I did take a puff on one as it was passed around a circle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bktd_Pi4 ... re=related

Mmmhmm... Heard that one before. (Kidding by the way)

No offense, but you've said nothing remotely compelling in this discussion, other than insulting me.

Honestly, if he acts like a child, treat him like one, quit acknowledging his posts, quit replying to him, talk to the adults in the thread.

ETA: I operate on a simple premise, treat people with respect, whether they agree with your or not, whether you like them or not.

Just a simple guideline.

I'd also like to add, that same friend, can't drive because of seizures now... honestly, he's not attending college until he can get his license back, he's been in multiple automobile accidents.

Go ahead and tell me how drugs don't affect lives, it's pie in the sky ideals and good philosophical arguments that an individual's discretion is enough to deter these things.

But How many of you have done drugs? And think back to when you did them?

Let that sink in. How many cops, judges, lawyers, doctors, etc, tried something back "in their college days" or "high school days" and moved on? And how many tried that and didn't "move on"?

I'm all about freedom, I think it's a hard situation. Honestly.

What kind of percentages are we looking at, that don't move on?

ETA 2: I'd also like to add that that's not an isolated story in my life... I know quite a few individuals.

As for the prostitute... they'll get old eventually, they'll get less attractive, and they'll have to find a job doing something else, eventually. To completely extricate the morality of the discussion, Maybe they need to spend their years going to school or working, rather than making it by on a good life style being a prostitute.

It's like being a model, eventually, you just can't do it anymore.

[doubloon]

One man's common sense is another man's folly.

I believe, and try to always practice, one man's personal freedom ends where mine begins.

The thing that blurs that line is government regulation, legislation ... laws.

Strong arguments are made every day that firearm ownership serves an obsolete purpose. Plenty of societies exist around the globe without the notion of a firearm at all. Some of the most advanced societies on the planet do not embrace firearm ownership as an individual right.

You ask, "Is there an absolute need for someone to get high?" when you obviously know the answer.

So, I ask ...

Is there an absolute need for someone to own a gun? a house? a car? a refrigerator? a TV? a computer? a Xbox? a dog? a cat? a goldfish?

We could yield complete control to the government, let them decide what kind of job is best for us, give them all our money and let them provide shelter, transportation, food and entertainment.

So what makes a heroine fix different from a TV?

Sitting in front of the TV all the time will just as surely ruin your health and make you a burden on the health care system as shooting dope every day. The only difference it what ailments you will be treated for in the hospital.

I submit to you that it is not the TV watcher or the dope smoker or the meth head that are imposing their burdens on you, it is the government trying to "take care of you" that imposes the burden of welfare on you.

[BWT]

There is no parallels to be drawn between an inanimate object and a substance ingested by humans to alter their state of mind, other than some people don't like one or the other or both and think they should be banned.

That's where the similarities end.

Nobody that owns these things

Is there an absolute need for someone to own a gun? a house? a car? a refrigerator? a TV? a computer? a Xbox? a dog? a cat? a goldfish?

has severe cerebral damage to the point of having seizures from them.

That friend we took shooting and out on a jet-ski, the inner ear noise, (after he did meth for a few years, and he's a 100% clean now) caused him to have a seizure and nearly drown.

Has your Goldfish cause you to seize and drive through an intersection in a busy downtown atlanta area and plow through a sign and into a parking lot?

There is a severe physiological repercussion from some of these drugs.

Morphine is one of the most addictive substances on the face of the planet.

I've studied addiction enough to know that some of it's psychological and some of it's physical.

So what makes a heroine fix different from a TV?

http://www.amenclinics.com/brain-scienc ... rug-abuse/

Browse through that article, T.V. doesn't affect your neural system. Sure you may be dumb because you waste time watching T.V., but you can turn the T.V. off and read books, or acquire education. There are repercussions from drugs.

This isn't women feeling empowered breast-feeding in public, this is life and death. Like I said, how many people do you know that have O.D.'d on T.V.?

[silencertalk]

Why is pot illegal? How is it worse than alcohol? Why not just ban alcohol also? Oh wait, we tried that in the 1920s. Why is pot illegal?

Oh yeah - it is a 'gateway drug.' See, people who do hard drugs started with pot. Not to mention, they started with coffee. And water before that.

Why not make all guns illegal - they kill lots of people. Oh, it is the person who kills someone, not the gun. Why is it not the driver who kills someone, not the drug?