YouTube account canceled

[Mike.357]

what the heck else you gotta do Boner?

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I need to be goin' my monkey ass to sleep, since I gotta get up at 5:40 to babysit the grandson, again but, as usual, it ain't happenin' captain.

[RobertNashville]

this thread is great, it has it all.

 

C'mon, no quitting it yet.   Hate I had to bail on it this morning.

 

Yes MikeGideon I am as old and probably fatter than you.  but at least no one has yet accused me of being a commie aside from being an AK lover over that lame AR platform.  

 

Hey I AM fat.  Just another reason for me to burn in hell.  At least it won't be for hating Gays like some here deserve.

 

Seriously all this thread now misses is 1911 vs. the POS Glock argument.  oops.....

1911s is the greatest semi-auto pistol design in the history or mankind.  I have a few....I love them.

 

I also have a few Glocks too because they work pretty much no matter what I do (or even don't do) to them and if I ever have to shoo someone I'd rather lose a $500 Glock than a $2,500 custom 1911..

 

More importantly, only .45ACP or 10MM is worthy of being carried.

 

Camaro's are FAR better than Mustangs and most Corvettes for that matter (mostly because Corvette owners tend to be assholes).

 

Finally, Marry Ann is better than Ginger any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Still like 'Stangs better than Cam-o-ros, though, Chevy always seems to be one step ahead of'm and you can't beat a Vette for the money but don't like any but the current ones or the pre 68 ones. And Mary Ann makes me drool. :up:

[tnguy]

Bringing this all back to the issue at hand, the same argument applies.  Do the states have the lawful authority to deny specific groups the benefits and protections of the law simply due to an arbitrary characteristic such as sexual orientation (or race as was the case with slavery)?  I say no.  The Constitution says no.  The political philosophy behind the Constitution says no.  

 

So the question becomes if a state disagrees with the consitution and decides to seceed from it, do the other states have the right to band together and enforce mandatory compliance?

 

The secession was about slavery, the war was about the secession.

[RobertNashville]

Still like 'Stangs better than Cam-o-ros, though, Chevy always seems to be one step ahead of'm and you can't beat a Vette for the money but don't like any but the current ones or the pre 68 ones. And Mary Ann makes me drool. :up:

I have a lot of respect for Mustangs; I've never really admired their technology though.  However, I have a lot of respect for FORD and will likely never buy another GM or Chrysler product again.

 

My tastes these days run toward Nissan's and Infinities. :)

[RichardR]

So the question becomes if a state disagrees with the consitution and decides to seceed from it, do the other states have the right to band together and enforce mandatory compliance?

The secession was about slavery, the war was about the secession.

Same could be said about what is currently happening the institution of marriage, because of this forced rift that has been created between our nations secular & religious Americans by special interest groups America has become divided once again.

The sad thing is that it was completely unnecessary, the secular alternatives were already in several states, civil unions / domestic partnerships provided the same contracts & benefits, without usurping traditional marriage.

But of course this wasn't good enough because it didn't divide Americans into "hostile to each other" opposing ideological camps, as clearly demonstrated by some of the participants in this thread.

The balkanization of America is going as planned, shame so many are so seemingly willing to engage in it.

[RobertNashville]

Same could be said about what is currently happening the institution of marriage, because of this forced rift that has been created between our nations secular & religious Americans by special interest groups America has become divided once again.

The sad thing is that it was completely unnecessary, the secular alternatives were already in several states, civil unions / domestic partnerships provided the same contracts & benefits, without usurping traditional marriage.

But of course this wasn't good enough because it didn't divide Americans into "hostile to each other" opposing ideological camps, as clearly demonstrated by some of the participants in this thread.

The balkanization of America is going as planned, shame so many are so seemingly willing to engage in it.

There would be no "rift" if the government had kept itself out of an issue it didn't really need to get involved in.

 

The concept of marriage is a religious one and that's where the issue should stay - if a church wants to "marry" OR not marry a man and woman, two men, two women, a man and a dog or a woman and a cat I really could not care less..each religion/church/denomination, etc.should make that decision for itself.

 

The only legitimate place I see that government should be involved at all is where this issue impacts a human being's civil rights - if two human beings have decided to live as a "couple" then there needs to be a mechanism to easily recognize that.  Such issues as joint property, etc. The civil issues can be dealt with fairly and simply but instead the government spins it's wheels arguing about what is and isn't marriage.

Edited July 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

....
The sad thing is that it was completely unnecessary, the secular alternatives were already in several states, civil unions / domestic partnerships provided the same contracts & benefits, without usurping traditional marriage.

 

There is no separate legal contract you can make with the federal government. It either acknowledges benefits or not, and that's the fed's call entirely.

 

Right now, it recognizes marriage if the state recognizes it. And for the states that do, there's only one type of contract for all couples, and that's referred to as "marriage".

You may interpret it as anything you like, but that doesn't matter to the state or the fed.

 

- OS

Edited July 9, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RichardR]

Path of least resistance = federal recognition of secular civil unions/domestic partnerships if the ultimate goal is equal benefits for everyone.

Path of most resistance = federal redefination of a traditional religious institution to include "blatenly sinful behavior" if the ultimate goal is to divide Americans along religious/secular lines.

There is no other rational explaination for fundamentally transforming the institution of marriage at the federal level, at least not when viable alternate compromises were already implimented at the state level.

America 2.0 is going to be a very interesting place after all of this dirty remodeling work is finally finished.

[RobertNashville]

The federal government doesn't need to "recognize" anything...there is no reason for the feds to give preferential treatment to any one group over another...no special or even non-special benefits for "married" or "non-married"...just treat everyone as an individual.

 

My tax rates...my health insurance...my "fill in the blank" doesn't need to be dependent or altered because I'm married or not married; gay or straight; black or white or brown; Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist or nothing at all.

[leroy]

Folks, OS made a great point in post #384 above; and Robert made a great point in post #386.  Look at it this way:  Each individual state has marriage laws duly passed by that particular state's legislature, voted on by that particular state's individual citizenry who duly elect these "state representatives".  Each state passes marriage related legislation (...marriage licenses, fees, definitions of who can get married, on and on...).   Remember, this (...marriage definition, ect.  ..) is a STATE issue; keep that in mind.  The individual states pass differing state legislation concerning marriage (...example-- New York, Kalefornia, Hetro, homo.--- Tennessee, alabama, georgia -- hetro marriage only...).   Remember, in every case marriage here is defined by the individual state(s); not the federal government. 

 

Now remember back in our little speech about what the supreme court did.  There was a FEDERAL LAW called DOMA that defined marriage as one man, one woman that wuz passed on the Clinton watch just after the "gay marriage" thing wuz passed in one of the states (...probably new york or kalefornia, dont know for sure...); i think, as a push back against the "gay agenda".   Things rock along and no one complains until the two rich dykes from New York do their "estate planning" (...see the post several pages back...).  They discover they have to pay a inheritance tax (...to the FED, i think, not the state...).  They discover that even though they are legally "married" according to new york state law, they have to pay this tax that evidently a straight couple would not have had to pay.

 

They sue and the suit moves all the way to the Supreme Court.  The supremes rule that all forms of marriage recognized by the several states have to be treated the same way by the Federal Gubmt. 

 

Said another way; the DOMA law said, in effect, that Hetro couples got a tax break on inheritance, the dyke couple didnt.  The DOMA thing wuz struck down due to the "equal protection under law" thing.  It says that the several states regulate (...marriage, in this case...) the state (...and the federal government, in this case...) has to treat even handedly.  Said another way; dont punish legally married gays causing them to pay a tax that hetro couples are exempt from if they are "legally married" as defined by that particular state;  and reside in the state that recognizes that marriage.  That's what all this is about; nothin more.  That's why DOMA was struck down.  It gave preferential treatment to one class of marriage over another.

 

The moral of this little story (...i think is two fold...):

 

 (1)....What the several states regulates; the state and the federal government has an obligation to even-handedly treat as to taxes, benefits, etc. etc.

 

(2)...Regulation of marriage has been reconed to be by the Federal Supreme Court to be a STATE ISSUE.  That's a good thing.  For the first time in a long time, the power of the federal government has been limited.  That means that there aint a "right to marriage (...regular of homo...) in the Constitution.  We can all be thankful for that one.

 

Finally, if ya dont want the state to make a law allowing gay marriages; see to it that you elect folks that see things your way and see to it that they stay that way.  That's why the gay jhadists are talkin about moving the "fight" to the individual states.  I think this is the story up to now.

 

leroy

Edited July 9, 2013 by leroy

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I have a lot of respect for Mustangs; I've never really admired their technology though.  However, I have a lot of respect for FORD and will likely never buy another GM or Chrysler product again.

 

My tastes these days run toward Nissan's and Infinities. :)

If Ford could just put a little more HP into the Boss 302, it would match the Camaro. Already does handlin' wise but bein' 111hp short on power don't help it on the straight none. Still prefer the ol'Stangs, though. Nothin' past 1970, mostly but that bein' said my fave body style of "Ford" is the 67-68 Mercury Cougar, preferrably the 429 Boss GTA (or is it GTR, cain't remember). Just always loved that body style, for some damn reason. Always preferred Ford chassis but had more luck (only a smidge) with Chevy powerplants. Currently have a 94 Chevy truck with a 350 and a 07 Trailblazer LT 4x4. So far, so good on the Trailblazer, 'cept for the occassional 'lectrical glitch. Could use some more torque, though. Only got 80K on it, right now. We'll hafta wait and see how it does when it's got 208K like the truck does. Wish I had my ol' 79 Ford truck, again, with a new engine. Loved that truck. Bought it with over 100K on it and drove it several years 150-200 miles a day to work and back with a rod knockin' for a year and half and two years with no second gear before the rod decided it was gonna crap totally out on me. Still made it back home without it comin' apart, though. Sold it to a friend for his dad, several years, ago and he put a 351 Cleveland and another FMX Iron tranny in it and it's still a goin'. Even fixed the air in it. I feel sad, now.

 

Cousin is a certified Nissan and Toyota mechanic. His take on'm is this....Nissan chassis=great, engines=suck. Toyota chassis=suck, engine=great. Their engines are why they never prevailed in racin' like the Toys have. Stay away from Nissan's full sized truck, at all cost, accordin' to him. Just sayin'.....

[Moped]

Stay away from Nissan's full sized truck, at all cost, accordin' to him. Just sayin'.....

 

On this, we can agree! :)

[RobertNashville]

On this, we can agree! :)

I have an Armada...my second one...they are great vehicles and mechanically are identical to the Titan

 

Better yet, unlike GM and Chrysler, Nissan doesn't belong to Obama.  ;)

Edited July 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

,,,,  Things rock along and no one complains until the two rich dykes from New York do their "estate planning" (...see the post several pages back...).  They discover they have to pay a inheritance tax (...to the FED, i think, not the state...).

 

Yep. They had already paid whatever tax burden to the state of NY. Even though NYS had not yet legalized gay marriage when Windsor's mate died, they recognized the couple's Canadian marriage as valid in NYS, and taxed the estate according to whatever the same code was for normal married couples in that state.

 

The suit was indeed over the federal inheritance tax issue only.

 

- OS

[daddyo]

Since gay rights supporters are constantly telling us that discrimination is a bad thing, I believe it would only be right for the legislature to pass a law that would make it illegal to discriminate against individuals or groups who hold the belief that homosexuality is deviant behavior.

 

This means that churches and other faith-based organizations would remain free to express their opposition to gay marriage, remain free to refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and free to refuse to hire anyone who did not hold the same views regarding scripture.

 

It also would mean that other employers would not be able to discriminate against prospective or existing employees if they refused to state that they embrace "diversity".

 

Anti-discrimination and fairness should work both ways, right?

[Oh Shoot]

....

This means that churches and other faith-based organizations would remain free to express their opposition to gay marriage, remain free to refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and free to refuse to hire anyone who did not hold the same views regarding scripture.

 

What minister cannot express his opposition to gay marriage right now from the pulpit? From any denomination? AFAIK, a minister is only held to account by his congregation and any larger affiliate (Southern Baptist Convention, Catholic Church, etc). Certainly not by the government.

 

What church is forced to perform gay marriages?  And what church is forced to hire anyone they don't want to?

 

- OS

[leroy]

Daddyo:  RE: This...

 

...This means that churches and other faith-based organizations would remain free to express their opposition to gay marriage, remain free to refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and free to refuse to hire anyone who did not hold the same views regarding scripture.  ...

I think (...for now, at least...) ya already got this protection via the First Amendment on the "opposition to gay marriage and refusal to do the ceremonies" thing.   This is clearly an issue of "church doctrine" and is an issue of public interest; so its all protected under the First Amendment.  

 

There aint been much said about it (...it doesnt fit the narrative....); and i think it's probably workin its way thru the Federal Court system; but the Obamacare Mandate that faith based organizations (...think catholic, and protestant hospitals, churches, etc... here...)  provide birth control and "morning after" abortion pills when the tennants of the church are against those things has resulted in court rulings against this stuff as well.  I think this one is a slam dunk too, since it goes against the Bill of Rights (...First Amendment, freedom of religion stuff...).   We'll do some diggin later; but i think this one is settled. 

 

RE:  I think the same thing happened with the "hiring" thing; i just cant remember the details. 

 

This stuff is real First Amendment stuff.  The Democrats and the great Obama have got a miserable track record on tryin to over-ride the Bill of Rights via these mandates and funny legislation.  They have also got a miserable track record of winnin against the Bill of Rights in the federal court too (...thankfully...).

 

leroy

[otnman]

....
This means that churches and other faith-based organizations would remain free to express their opposition to gay marriage, remain free to refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and free to refuse to hire anyone who did not hold the same views regarding scripture.

What minister cannot express his opposition to gay marriage right now from the pulpit? From any denomination? AFAIK, a minister is only held to account by his congregation and any larger affiliate (Southern Baptist Convention, Catholic Church, etc). Certainly not by the government.

What church is forced to perform gay marriages? And what church is forced to hire anyone they don't want to?

- OS

Used to be that churches or organizations they paid for did not have to supply contraceptives to employees that knew what the church believed. Not so much anymore. Slippery slopes...not unlike private businesses that can be sued for not wanting to provide services for homosexuals...I.e. The b&b in Hawaii and the baker out west that got sued. Give an inch take a mile...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Edited July 10, 2013 by otnman

[daddyo]

What minister cannot express his opposition to gay marriage right now from the pulpit? From any denomination? AFAIK, a minister is only held to account by his congregation and any larger affiliate (Southern Baptist Convention, Catholic Church, etc). Certainly not by the government.

What church is forced to perform gay marriages? And what church is forced to hire anyone they don't want to?

- OS

Of course they can do all this.... for now.

[Mike.357]

I have an Armada...my second one...they are great vehicles and mechanically are identical to the Titan

 

Better yet, unlike GM and Chrysler, Nissan doesn't belong to Obama.  ;)

 

 

how many years and miles have you kept them Armada's for?

[leroy]

RE:  The "faith based birth control -- mornin after abortion pill" demand thing:

 

It's gettin ready to get hot.  Check this out:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obamacare-contraception-mandate-opponents-reject-finalized-coverage-rule

 

I think it's interestin that the Obamaite administration is attempting to "smooth this over" with everybody and stay out of court.  I think they do not want this one to go to the supremes. Right here is the heart of the matter:

 

 

....Eric Rassbach, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm challenging the contraception coverage rule in federal court, said "it doesn't really change the overall way they're trying to do this." 

"As we said when the proposed rule was issued, this doesn’t solve the religious conscience problem because it still makes our non-profit clients the gatekeepers to abortion and provides no protection to religious businesses," Rassbach said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obamacare-contraception-mandate-opponents-reject-finalized-coverage-rule/#ixzz2Ydwy5VXG

 

I believe this one is another "slam dunk" and the "Becket Fund for Religious Liberty" guys and the Obamaites know it.   They are just doin the negotiation thing as a delaying tactic to keep this stuff out of the news as long as they can.  It aint workin too well.  This was written on 6/29/13.  Just 11 days ago.  Even Selebus and Obama are finally (...i believe...) gettin the idea that it wuz a bad idea to pick a fight with the supremes and they know full well that this is a First Amendment case they will loose when it gets to the supremes.

 

Here's hopin

leroy

[RobertNashville]

how many years and miles have you kept them Armada's for?

Depends...vehicles like my Titan pickup and Armada and QX56 (the earlier one which mechanically was an Armada) are my "everyday vehicles"...I put about 30-40K per year on them but in more recent years I only have them a year before turning them in for a new model which doesn't say much for determining longevity such as 200 or 300K miles, etc but is enough time to ferret out any significant defects.

 

The only problem I ever actually had with any of them was with the first year of production Titan (brakes and a hard to find electrical issue) which I think can be chalked up to a 1)totally new manufacturing plant, 2)a totally new workforce which had never built any vehicle before and 3)a completely newly designed vehicle. 

 

Their IQS scores have been pretty good since the initial year or two of production.

 

I've had zero issues with my "Zs" or with any of the Infinities I've had/have...my 330Z Nismo met an early end when a stupid woman turned left in front of me, totaled my Z and sent her to the hospital for two weeks...I've got a G37 IPL Convertible on order to replace my deceased Z. :)

Edited July 10, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Bonedaddy]

My cuz talks a little better of the Infinitis but still don't like much anything else Nissan related, powertrain wise, that is. I think everything I've ever owned had some kinda electrical glitch, at one time or another. The Trailblazer quite often forgets the memory settings for the seats and mirrors and, once, forgot to engage the front transaxle with the rear and set there like I had just the front brakes on, yet the rear was tryin' to go somewhere. Every once in a while, the info center lights will not come on. I hafta turn the ignition off and restart for it to act right. Several of my Fords had funky crap like that, too, 'cept the ol' 79 truck. I'm sad, again, now. Shoulda never sold it. Just keep fixin' it and hung onto it. Always wanted to put a 348 in'r but I probably couldn't have kept her thirst quinched, these days.