Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[Guest Lester Weevils]

OS, you are certainly one self-conceited, self-deceptive, and self-delusional old coot. Please don't choke on your oatmeal and wheat germ at the breakfast table while ruminating on how omniscient you are.

Perhaps would be more respectful of OS's advanced age and wisdom to phrase it "Mister conceited, deceptive, delusional old coot". Or perhaps "Conceited, deceptive, delusional old coot Sir". [Just joking around].

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not necessarily, but that's a poor site for an unbiased view of Church/State (or likely much else on there after a quick glance around) since it only exists to evangelize Christianity, and does it on every page.

- OS

It was just a quick Google, OS, and hit the high points. I wasn't pushing the Christianity aspect of that site.

I thought it did it well enough. I haven't been able to find any unbiased ones on the internet, and am too lazy

to worry about it.

BTW, you're use of the word "deist" is argued too much for my taste. Seems a lot of folks, myself included,

could include most everyone on the planet one of them. I don't know and I really don't care. I value your opinion,

however.

Edited January 10, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Oh Shoot]

...BTW, you're use of the word "deist" is argued too much for my taste. Seems a lot of folks, myself included,

could include most everyone on the planet one of them. I don't know and I really don't care. I value your opinion,

however.

Not at all. A Deist does not subscribe to whatever God any particular religion touts. Nor does a Deist even believe God has any truck with this little planet at all -- and certainly not the paltry acts of the fearful and egotistical bipeds who overpopulate it.

BTW, I'm not a real Deist, myself -- I just lean that way a tad.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand. Sometimes I ponder those things myself.

[Oh Shoot]

I understand. Sometimes I ponder those things myself.

What I meant was, I'm agnostic, perfectly comfy that it's unknowable about whether the buck ultimately stops anywhere.

The hedged hope within Deism just puts a slightly warmer glow on an otherwise coldly mathematical cosmos, and even ole OS has some of the human frailties of the rest of the herd.

- OS

[Guest bkelm18]

No, actually he won me over -- I am humbled in the face of such an overpowering intellectual argument presented with such grace and eloquence.

- OS

He is a scholar of history and politics afterall.

[kieefer]

Mark Levin broke down a similar issue about the right to privacy in yesterdays program. 1/9

Mark Levin

I believe since he is a constitutional lawyer he makes a good case whether you like him or not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What I meant was, I'm agnostic, perfectly comfy that it's unknowable about whether the buck ultimately stops anywhere.

The hedged hope within Deism just puts a slightly warmer glow on an otherwise coldly mathematical cosmos, and even ole OS has some of the human frailties of the rest of the herd.

- OS

I guessed you did:D

[Guest ThePunisher]

He is a scholar of history and politics afterall.

You showed that you need to do some more remedial study of the basic history and political science courses before you can be admitted for freshman collegial study. Good luck on your remedial studies.

[mikegideon]

You showed that you need to do some more remedial study of the basic history and political science courses before you can be admitted for freshman collegial study. Good luck on your remedial studies.

As you sit here insulting everybody, you may want to look at yourself. You don't seem to be able to comprehend basic forum rules. Personal attacks ain't allowed. I'm guessing you might get a little remedial schooling of your own.

[Guest lostpass]

I guess I'm too shallow to understand what you are talking about. What joke?

That's how you justify what you say? By my tag line? To justify exactly what? Why don't you read the rest of Francisco's

speech before you use something to justify another. Francisco wasn't talking about relationships with women. However

he was talking about capitalism being superior to something else.

Francisco's speech is interesting. Francisco maintains that the only way to avoid violence is through trade. Francisco's point is that with money (or trade) you are free to trade your efforts for another's efforts. Without this, Francisco argues, you are left with people taking stuff from you by force. All well and good and interesting.

So, if you accept Francisco's proposition, and you apparently do. Then you accept that which can be bought and paid for with money is okay. Because that is the civilizing thing.

Thus, we find, if gays can pay for a wedding they deserve to get married.

That is just part of objectivism, part of Ayn Rand. If people are willing to trade money for it it is okay.

As far as I know Ayn Rand disliked homosexual's on a personal level but adamantly loathed the notion that the government could discriminate against them. Discriminating against them would, in fact, include not allowing them to marry.

Now you'll argue some half baked notion about making churches recognize gay marriage. You are the only one saying that can happen or will happen. States would be forced to recognize the union but churches would be free to do want they want to. I'm not sure if you realize this but there are quite a few churches in America that don't recognize Jesus as part of triumvirate. There is no law on what churches have to recognize and the state recognizing gay marriage won't change that.

Really, you didn't get the joke? Even after I explained it? Okay, I'll try one more time.

So you get married when you're young. She's beautiful, you go at it hammer and tongs for a few years. Your success in your job grows as does her weight. Pretty soon you are living with a human dugong that stays home and spends your moony on Amazon. She's got more rolls than a hillary's ankles. Twenty year olds are hitting on you because you own a mercedes and your own business. Back at home, cankles is complaining because the toilet on the third floor is running.

You've got a few choices. You can kill cankles which would be wrong and land you in jail or you can get a divorce. The divorce takes half of your dough.And it is your dough, cankles didn't do crap. But that is the price you pay for getting married.

The gay guy can't get married. He hook up with a gay cankles, cankles gets fat and he can just walk out and keep his money. Which further explains the joke that marriage is a curse and not a gift.

The juxtaposition here is that while gay people argue what they really want is to be like straight people and get married what they don't understand is that it is a burden.

Ahh, never mind. I know when I am beaten.

[Guest ThePunisher]

As you sit here insulting everybody, you may want to look at yourself. You don't seem to be able to comprehend basic forum rules. Personal attacks ain't allowed. I'm guessing you might get a little remedial schooling of your own.

It has never been my intent to hurl any insult to anyone on this forum nor did I expect any insults either. Just because someone disagrees with my opinion on the discussions forum, did I expect to be accused of being put in the tin-foil status category. Nor did I expect that by mentioning the word Bible in my discussions that it would be like wearing a red shirt in front of a bull, and then be challenged to some p..sing contest about how knowledgeable I am about the world religions.

I respect everyone's right to worship and believe just like the founding fathers, but I expect to have the same right and not not be challenged to a p..sing contest to prove my religious knowledge or to be persecuted by the non-believers especially by someone self-delusional and egotistical trying to prove how intellectual they are.

This childish tit for tat BS is something I'm not use to participating in, nor did i expect this on this great forum.

I certainly hope I have clarified my intent of purpose for participating in these discussions.

[mikegideon]

It has never been my intent to hurl any insult to anyone on this forum nor did I expect any insults either. Just because someone disagrees with my opinion on the discussions forum, did I expect to be accused of being put in the tin-foil status category. Nor did I expect that by mentioning the word Bible in my discussions that it would be like wearing a red shirt in front of a bull, and then be challenged to some p..sing contest about how knowledgeable I am about the world religions.

I respect everyone's right to worship and believe just like the founding fathers, but I expect to have the same right and not not be challenged to a p..sing contest to prove my religious knowledge or to be persecuted by the non-believers especially by someone self-delusional and egotistical trying to prove how intellectual they are.

This childish tit for tat BS is something I'm not use to participating in, nor did i expect this on this great forum.

I certainly hope I have clarified my intent of purpose for participating in these discussions.

Nothing like a discussion about religion to start a good bar fight ... or even a war.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Nothing like a discussion about religion to start a good bar fight ... or even a war.

Yeah, but I never thought that just the mention of the word Bible would ever start a war.

[TMF]

You showed that you need to do some more remedial study of the basic history and political science courses before you can be admitted for freshman collegial study. Good luck on your remedial studies.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Everything is cool.

[Oh Shoot]

Nothing like a discussion about religion to start a good bar fight ... or even a war.

There was never a debate on my part about any religion itself, and certainly not the underlying divinity thereof.

In one thread I commented on verifiable history compared to the Biblical and the secular, and in this one, the degree to which Jewish culture as reflected in the Old Testament influenced US Constitutional law, and quite a brief little aside it was at that.

I believe all the direct personal insults have been strictly one sided, and are not unusual when one quickly depletes his store of more appropriate ammo in defense of an assault that doesn't even exist.

I am quite aware of the TGO "personal attack" clause -- any appellations the other party may actually well deserve by now have remained tacit on my part.

Because I'm a frigging saint. Right.

- OS

Edited January 11, 2012 by OhShoot
split post

[Oh Shoot]

Back to Santorum/civil union thread, though, it seems quite the fortunate thing, at least in the practical sense, that all Catholics don't follow the Pope's admonitions regarding contraception, otherwise we'd be many more than "only" 7 billion of us. There was a time, actually almost ALL the time up until maybe the 1960's, when large families served necessary and practical purposes. And I'm certainly NOT suggesting that any laws could or should ever be passed to limit that, of course. On the other hand, I think folks that have two or less ought to get a tax break!

I do get a sense that Rick, even though he denies it, certainly would, if he could, push "social laws" that suit his religious viewpoints. And I certainly admit I don't like that.

And consider all the gay couples who adopt some of the unwanted overflow -- certainly if their unions were legitimized, they'd have an easier time of it, and it's undeniable that certain other financial resources already discussed in this thread are withheld from them, which can affect the adopted kids' welfare in a very real way, too.

Now, note how he hammered the religious/moral card in Iowa, because it played well there, then hid his light under a bushel in NH, cause there it didn't (and even got heckled and jostled). So it's time to crank it back up in SC, because the conventional wisdom says it'll play there, and after all it's the only real hold card he has left. But futile overall.

But it galls me, these pols' religious hypocrisy I comment on now and then. Most of them aren't any more religious than Adam's house cat, but they have to play it that way. I have no doubt that RS is a True Believer, but selective use of even his real heart felt faith as a selective tool strikes me as quite hypocritical too.

- OS

Edited January 11, 2012 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

There was never a debate on my part about any religion itself, and certainly not the underlying divinity thereof.

In one thread I commented on verifiable history compared to the Biblical and the secular, and in this one, the degree to which Jewish culture as reflected in the Old Testament influenced US Constitutional law, and quite a brief little aside it was at that.

I believe all the direct personal insults have been strictly one sided, and are not unusual when one quickly depletes his store of more appropriate ammo in defense of an assault that doesn't even exist.

I am quite aware of the TGO "personal attack" clause -- any appellations the other party may actually well deserve by now have remained tacit on my part.

Because I'm a frigging saint. Right.

- OS

I just hate it when folks pick on the old guys

[Fallguy]

Going to give this thread just a little bit more to get back on track and for the direct personal attacks (name calling) to stop.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Mark Levin broke down a similar issue about the right to privacy in yesterdays program. 1/9

Mark Levin

I believe since he is a constitutional lawyer he makes a good case whether you like him or not.

Yes he is a Constitutional Lawyer.. and yes he broke it down correctly.. Rights to Privacy began in 1961 in the Poe vs Ullman case with Justice Harlan's dissenting statement to the case, the left use this dissent to spring board off of, beginning with abortion and the surge has been on ever since. The other spring board case for the left was the Griswald vs Conn of 1965.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poe v. Ullman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mike.357]

He's alive. Nice to see you again Froggy. You have been MIA.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Naw, not totally MIA, just tired of the blah blah blah.. if you know what I mean.

[94user]

He's alive. Nice to see you again Froggy. You have been MIA.

This^ Hey Randy!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

For those who still wish to discuss this, a marriage is performed, usually by a priest,

and is sanctified by a church. A civil union is a piece of contract law that can be used

to codify a similar "joining" of two or whatever people. Justices of the Peace and others

can accomplish the same thing, but it is still in the eyes of a God, I think.

If you keep the two separate by leaving the church alone, and no unnecessary laws

for the sole purpose of requiring churches to accept gays, which some do and some

don't, I have no problem with that. My problem is calling something what is may not

be and codifying more behaviour. That is government intervention where it has no

business.

We are a society that is being manipulated by evil sources, believe it or not, and if

you think concensus is the way to run society, then throw out the Constitution and

get the communist party started. See how your concensus ends up after that.

Useful idiots. Who said that?