JasonC SBB

You have it backwards. The Federal gov't has no authority to confer "group rights", and has no authority in ANY kind of marriage, because marriage is a SOCIAL contract. Conferring group rights is inherently discriminatory, collectivist, and in some cases, racist.

The Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights. The smallest minority is the INDIVIDUAL. This obsession with group identity is racist.

For example, "affirmative action" is racist, because the gov't forces hiring decisions based on an applicant's skin color!

The idea that the minority composition of any group is forced to reflect that of the general population, is ludicrous ... one can complain that the NBA is racist in that most of their teams are mostly black!!!

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

everyone who has had a history lesson know Hussein and the CIAs relationship.

I dont care what politicians say. I care what they do.

I didn't think we should go in to Iraq, but now we have to stay.
The country needs to act responsibly.

em99sport

iTrader: (2)

This is already the case. Period. With the exception of Kurdistan, most of populated Iraq is already dealing with secretarian violence on a daily basis.

Absolutely no argument here.

How noble of you to decide that the lives of "a few" other servicemembers are expendable simply because you were in the Army at some point. Your words reek of someone who was in uniform during the extended peace time era. My apologies if I am wrong.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

If there were no benefits to being married I would agree. A religious ceremony would fall under this concept.

But the health, death, and tax benefits make it an issue. And forcing states to recognize each others marriages/driver licenses/etc makes it a federal issue

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Take any group, put them in horrible living conditions and see what happens. Germany? were they religious fanatics? No. Its when people get desperate enough and are only fed propaganda

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

So you run your car into your friend's car, do you have your friend's neighbor take responsibility? You want the economy to be fair to everyone. But you take the self centered route of foreign policy. Interesting.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

God damn it jason stop going back and editing your posts

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Race isn't an issue, this is sex discrimination. Because they are not allowing any man to marry any other man regardless of sexual orientation. I should be allowed to marry my best friend (Joe Perez) and have sexy orgy parties and never once tough each other or look each other in the eye.

FHS

iTrader: (2)

Letting the "states deal with it" is not a socioeconomic policy. Our history began with the marginalization of people and nothing has changed, as much as people want to believe it has.

JasonC SBB

So, not "supporting" gay marriage is not discriminatory - supporting hetero marriage IS!

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

My point (which I thought I stated pretty expressly) was that unrestricted warfare waged by Israel upon Palestine, however brief, would most likely have the effect of inciting a more widespread conflict involving many if not most of the Muslim nations of North Africa and the Middle East. Regardless of the outcome of this conflict, it would most likely involve a long-term disruption in the supply of oil available to the US, Europe, and eastern Asia.

While the US and Canada do have the (currently underexploited) ability to support themselves from a petroleum standpoint, the economies of most of the European nations would collapse, along with Japan, Taiwan, China, etc. Hopefully the US and Canadian governments would impose export restrictions and price controls upon their own domestic oil production, to prevent the collapse of the global oil market from driving domestic petroleum prices to an unsustainable level as well.

Didn't I just say that?

Apparently, it's better to send young men and women to their death in a place halfway across the world that doesn't want us there than it is to risk possibly hurting a couple of baby seals, polar bears, egrets, etc. At least, I think it is.

What, nuclear war? Of course they would. Israel is located on the one piece of desert in that whole part of the world in which there is no oil, and yet they are still the target of constant harassment, attempted annexation, disputes as to the sovereignty of their nation, and generally a lot of malice and resentment. And they get this from the north, the south, and the west.

Can you imagine living in Baltimore, Maryland in a situation where all the rest of the New England states were Islamic nations who hated you and wanted you to die, and oh by the way, a group of them have declared the District of Columbia to be their homeland and are currently squatting there while shooting rockets at you over the fence.

That sort of thing is pretty much a doomsday scenario. If the Islamic nations of the area genuinely wished to seize Isreal, and managed to secure the financial and technological support of a sponsor state such as Saudi Arabia, then it would no longer be a question of whether or not Israel will survive, but rather how many Muslims they can take with them to the grave.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

are you married?

JasonC SBB

Logical fallacy of false analogy. A better analogy is, I hit his car, and he wants me to just get the **** away from his face.

Getting out of the 140+ countries that troops are in, self centered? What a laugh. You have a very very naive view of US foreign policy history.

Start by reading this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/...onomic_hit_man

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Saudi Arabia doesn't care fortunately

JasonC SBB

DOES ANYONE ELSE NOTICE? Again this has turned into the mentality of ONE ISSUE voters.

What is THE ONE biggest issues that will affect THE MOST OF US?

It's the economy, stupid!

I want to show that this plan is the real deal, (not some bullshit "stimulate spending" plan), and then one issue voter people come out and attack the man instead of the plan.

This ONE ISSUE VOTER mentality seems to be a method of DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Get the country divided into two groups with each group seemingly arbitrarily siding on various LESS IMPORTANT issues.....

JasonC SBB

Yes. So what?

JasonC SBB

I am drawing parallels.

And that should be your business and NOT THE GOVERNMENTS! Ditto for hetero unions.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

No we were talking about Iraq stop changing issues half way through a discussion. Stick to the scope.

In your analogy whose the neighbor?

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Do you file jointly on your tax returns? Do one of you fall under the health insurance of the other? Is she your next of Kin?

JasonC SBB

If there were no taxes on individual wages, no gift and inheritance taxes, guess what, the government would have nothing to do with any marriage worth worrying about!