Magox

The case that you are making is that regardless of the information provided, if you happened to have gotten it wrong then you are fired for life specially considering the damage that this particular decision has and is continuing to cause. Fine, I can accept that reasoning, however I do believe that is a faulty way to view things. If you were to tell me that someone has a history of voting for interventionist forms of foreign policy and that this particular vote was just yet another confirmation of what you suspected of that candidate and you are ideologically a non interventionist, then in my view you'd have a valid rationale behind your decision. But that's not what is happening here. What's happening here is that this is a litmus test. Litmus tests in my view are for ideologues. I can't begin to describe my view on litmus tests, I find them to be completely nonsensical. Litmus tests eliminate reason and the ability to evolve on positions. Haven't we all got it wrong before? Haven't we changed our views on certain things after more light had been shed? I certainly have. Reddog brought up the point that there were other politicians who had voted against the authorization of war and inferred that since they were the ones who got it right that they must have viewed all the intel and came to a different conclusion than the ones who voted for the authorization of war based on the very same intel. Ok, let's go with that. However, when you look at the politicians who voted against the authorization of war, coincidentally the vast majority of them are politicians who are either non interventionists or quasi pacifists that live in states and districts that line up with their ideologies. I don't believe that they read the intel and came to a different conclusion than the other 75% that vote for the authorization of war. I don't believe that was a coincidence. That was purely ideologically and politically driven. In other words, not what Reddog was saying.

Nearly 75% of the House and over 75% of the Senate voted for the war. The one's who did not vote for it, the great majority of them are politicians who in most circumstances would hardly ever vote for any authorization of war. And you know what? In this circumstance they were right. But let's not pretend that they were provided different intel than the other 75% of those that did vote for it or that they had some sort of epiphany leading them to this decision, it was just a vote that fit their ideology. Which is a non interventionist form of foreign policy that plays well with the constituents that vote them in.

If you are telling me that being provided faulty intelligence and happening to believe in that information is a sin, then I disagree with that characterization. Now if you are telling me that if you were a politician and that you knew that the intelligence was inaccurate and you went to war anyway, then I'd agree with what you are saying. I happen believe that most politicians that voted for the war relied on that intelligence as being accurate and that their intentions and votes for the authorization of war were not for any other reason than them believing that S. Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In regards to my response to Reddog, he's a virtually a singular issue based voter. Everyone is free to vote on the issues that matter to them, and I'm free to mock anyone who I believe to be a irrational single issue based voter.

So what determines your vote more than anything is how someone voted on the war based on faulty intelligence more than a decade ago? Get a grip, man.

What happened to many of the local municipalities and state governments here in the US was a microcosm to what happened over in Greece. Public sector unions corrupted officials with support for their campaigns and in return they wanted more local/state jobs, even higher wages and ridiculous worker protections. We had a couple RE/Dot.com bubbles that gave us a false sense of security believing that we could just continue to keep doing these things. Of course, it was unsustainable. Once the bubble burst, there wasn't the tax revenues nor the funding through the bond markets to keep up all these jobs, hence the massive state/local government layoffs throughout the 2008-2012 time period. Similar thing occurred in Greece. There was never any problem with foreign creditors buying up their crappy bonds chasing after those high yields. One thing that the world wide downturn did achieve is that it forced these creditors/investors to examine their finances a little more closely. After a while, with crashing revenues and a horrid fiscal picture, everyone bailed. It's not that Greece in itself is the risk, its who is the next shoe to drop? That's the risk. Of course, Greece is in quite the dilemma. They are being told by those mean old Germans who are primarily the ones who have been bailing them and other irresponsible southern European countries out, how to run their finances. How many government jobs they have to ax, the pensions they promised have to be reduced and what the newer higher accepted tax rates will look like. People are ignorant, pretty much everywhere. Yes, they elected these fools that made these decisions. But many of these people now have to go through a very painful down sizing process. So I feel bad for many of these folks. Unfortunately, it is a necessary evil. The only way they will get through this are with draconian measures. This is what happened a couple years ago, and of course the Greek people were upset that the Germans were dictating their lives, hence the new uber left wing party came into power, promising to stand up against the Meanies from the North. Well, they got what they wanted.

Populism at it's finest.

I had them make a cake of Elsa and the other chick, my daughter liked it.

This wasn't an attempt to blow up the private health insurance markets so that it would pave the way for single-payer. That may end up being the end result down the road but the the main goal from the Obama administration was to expand coverage primarily to lower socioeconomic families. Don't get me wrong, if they could have single-payer they'd do it in a heart beat. But their thinking was that melding the private insurance markets along with additional government regulations and subsidies that they could transfer wealth from upper class to lower class folks. Of course, that isn't exactly what happened, it was also a transfer of wealth from the young and healthy to the poor, old and sicker folks. The law definitely provides health insurance to many that would have never of obtained insurance but it also punishes many middle to upper middle class folks who don't qualify for subsidies and that have to purchase insurance on the private exchanges. It also has made most small business health insurance rates to go higher, either forcing companies to pass on those costs to their employees through higher deductible and premiums. My guess is you'll see a shift of companies deciding to eat the penalty and dumping their employees on to the exchange. There are a number of things that can be done to improve the ACA. My guess is we'll see some additional reforms within the next decade.

It appears to me that the argument is a matter of semantics. Marriage, legal civil unions or what have you, call it what you want, the point of contention for me are that these couples enjoy all the same benefits provided to heterosexual couples. Maybe I should read up more on this ruling. Isn't that basically what this is mainly about, equal rights, equal benefits?

This is the case. I would never suggest that the government should impose that a church recognizes gay marriage. However, if a heterosexual couple happens to be receiving benefits because of their interpersonal recognized legal union that they have with one another, then shouldn't gay couples be entitled to those same benefits? Of course they should.

If a heterosexual couple is receiving benefits due to their married status, are gay couples entitled to those same benefits?

I suppose it was this line that rankled your feathers, even though you were pretty miffed before this statement. If you read that in a vacuum, then I could see how you could come to that conclusion. But it wasn't incorrect. Most American's DO view what Lincoln did as noble, whether you believe that or not. If you go back and read (which I highly recommend you don't waste any further time on it) what I wrote in chronological order, was that the conversation began again for me when I basically indirectly called out Jboy for his moronic 20-30 year slave statement, and that the Civil War did more good than harm for African Americans and the country. For the life of me, I don't know why that could possibly be something that offends you, but it obviously did. And from there the conversation morphed into the alleged unconstitutional basis of Lincoln's actions. The argument, while I acknowledged that I could understand the opposing view of the constitutional case that was being made, my views was that the actions of the Confederacy merited action from the North to override that argument. Clearly, if someone makes a moral case, they are a "touchy, feely" sort of person with estrogen coming out their !@#$. Obviously, and not saying you, but that is caveman talk. I don't take that personally considering the sources. But, I thought it was worth mentioning. So the discussion between us was that it was the Constitution and the protocol of the branches of argument VS. the immorality of the positions held by the confederacy. Somewhere lost in the argument, you guys or you anyway believed that I was saying that Lincoln in all his benevolent might solely went to war to free the slaves. That's not what I said. I said that the stated goal was to preserve the union, but that the impetus for the war was the Confederacies intransigent stance on slavery. And that the State's Rights argument was the mechanism used by most of the states that seceded from the Union to defend their rights to have slaves. That at the core of the entire conflict was slavery.

You didn't have one substantive thing to say out of all that gibberish. That was impressive, moron.

You see, all that for nothing...If you had just read what I wrote rather than perceive what you wanted to see what I was saying, we could have avoided most of this.

Historically, yes. But just like many other things, they evolve. Look up the definition of "marriage" in what is accepted in virtually every arbiter of the English language. The law (I believe, I'm not 100% sure) does not say that religious entities have to recognize the marriage, but more from the legality of it and the benefits provided under the law for married couples. Now I may be wrong, if the court ruled that religious entities have to perform and recognize these marriages, then that's another story. And I would not be in favor of that portion of the ruling. You can call it "co-opt" all you want. The fact remains that marriage is not solely recognized by religious institutions but by the government as well. If you have a problem with that, then you can take it up with Webster or any other arbiter of the English language. Now that it is the law, the libertarian view is live and let live.....

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/178954-church-shooting/page-29 Post #569 I always had that position.

What's funny is that you actually believe what you just wrote. The points that have been made have been echoed by numerous posters, which first and foremost, the impetus for the war was slavery. Sure, Lincoln more than anything wanted to preserve the Union, which I've stated multiple times in this thread but you hard-heads want to create your own narrative of how this discussion has devolved. But make no bones about it, if slavery hadn't of been rejected by your ancestral Confederate brethren, then the war would have never have happened. I'm not going to continue to repeat what I posted just so I can attempt to re explain myself to some dipshit. If you want to try to understand what I wrote, then re read it. There are plenty of posts, with plenty of explanations that are filled with reasonable explanations backed by facts. The only ones that are rewriting history here are you yahoo's. And lets not forget, it was you who declared that slavery would have only lasted another 20 to 30 years. It was that moronic comment that brought me into the fold.

Yes, I agree. You are a moron.

Wrong! Marriage is not solely performed or recognized via a religious institution, it is an interpersonal union that is also recognized legally. Therefore allowing gay couples to be entitled to the very same benefits that the government provides for legal marriage. That would be the true libertarian take on this matter.

They took their ball and went home, huffing an puffing all the way.

Being an American doesn't preclude you of being of another descent. Your sympathies seem to lie much more so for Shias than the Sunnis, I was just curious. But, your answer of No, I suppose answers my question.

If you are anyone who has any sort of libertarian streak with you, then how can you possibly be against this ruling?