Magox

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?

JTSP, are you persian?

Oh Jesus H Christ. Shut the !@#$ up! That's not the point he was trying to make!

Are you just being dense, again? Are you comparing the freeing of Slaves here in our country with the morality of liberating some country in the Middle East of Hussein? Is this what you are doing?

Let's dissect your ignorance. So what are you saying here? It's pretty obvious, what you are saying is that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves considering that the Emancipation only freed slaves from the South. Meaning, from your view, it was never about slavery but about exerting tyrannical control over the south. Of course, your ignorance didn't take into account that shortly after the executive order, the process of the 13th amendment began. Which pretty much blows up whatever you were trying to say. We all know the pretexts of the war, we know that States Rights was the reasoning provided from the Confederates to secede from the Union. We also know that Lincoln didn't solely go to war because he wanted to end Slavery. He wanted to preserve the Union, I stated that a couple times, but you are too much of a numbskull to see that. But make no mistake, the impetus for the war was about Slavery. If the South hadn't been so intent on keeping the status quo regarding slavery and got on board with the Republicans, then the war would have never have happened. But if you want to keep pretending that Slavery wasn't the driving force that started the Civil war, hey, that's your fantasy land and you are free to reside there.

So many words, with nothing of value. Basically your argument is "Hey, I've talked to some dudes and I know more than you, and No, Lincoln was not a good guy. Oh, and you are a simple guy, SO THERE!" Please, post more.

I'll tell you what else is cute, is your ignorance. You make this too easy. Are you insinuating that Lincoln's stated goal through the Emancipation was to just free Slaves in the South, and allow slavery to continue in the north? Is that what you are truly trying to say, numbskull? That's odd, maybe you are familiar with the 13th Amendment? Obviously not. The Emancipation was an executive order to take place immediately., the thirteenth Amendment was something that was done through the traditional channels of Government, barely a year later. Please, keep embarrassing yourself. Post more