Typical TBD Guy

Taking Philosophy 101 at your local Christian community college in Boondocks, NY, doesn't make you an expert epistemologist. You don't want to continue debating the idea that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" because your understanding of the biological sciences is terribly flawed. Invoking "natural law" is a convenient way to claim a universal code for human morality without having to resort to the unsubstantiated idea of The Omnipotent Invisible Man. It also allows you to ignore the overwhelming evidence of homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom because humans, after all, uniquely posses free will...right? But then your very claim that homosexuality is immoral hinges on the theory that human sexual inclinations are entirely chosen (i.e., environmental and not genetic or prenatal) when no credible scientist has yet to - or probably ever will - make such a claim. Evolutionary scientists don't definitively know yet why human homosexual behavior persists in spite of the obvious fact that it doesn't lead to procreation (one interesting thought, for your reading pleasure: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519...xplained.html); however, a present lack of conclusive scientific knowledge for one claim has never suddenly been conclusive proof of the opposite claim...in this case, the claim that homosexuality is non-intrinsic. Paragraphs 3-5 of your post are just loaded with ugly, nonsensical bigotry toward "uber-queers" and "absolute flamers." Your reaction to a hypothetically gay son is despicable. You admit that the media can have a great influence on our perceptions, so isn't it possible that the media has influenced your own opinion of how pervasive homosexual behavior is in young people today? That is, unless you normally loiter with the young ones (a la David Wooderson) at high schools and such despite being in your early 30's? Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the overall population, so even if their behavior is immoral under your personal code of morality, I doubt condoning their behavior is going to somehow cause the vast majority of marriage-minded heteros to dump their spouses and start getting it on in a decadently gay orgy. The last sentence in your post really irks me. You have the gall to question my understanding of "liberty," yet you care so much about what people do in their private lives that you want government to regulate who gets tax/health care benefits based on whom they choose to love? I don't personally believe government has ANY business whatsoever in regulating romantic relationship contracts, and that includes heterosexual marriage. I believe government's only business is in protecting individuals from the forceful behavior of others and not from one's own behavior, including personal behavior that happens to offend sanctimonious pieces of sh-- like yourself.

Having any corporate taxation - especially excessive taxation - is not "playing by a higher standard" or "racing to the top." Rather, it forces many companies out of business and many employees out of jobs. It prevents many new companies from forming and many new citizens from finding employment. It increases the cost of goods and services on the consumer. Your indifference to trade with China and other emerging international markets only highlights your fundamental ignorance in basic economics. You may not care about additional wealth creation, but most rational Americans do. It's not about wanting to be #1 in everything; it's about wanting the best standard of living that's possible for a 21st century civilization.

A most convincing retort! I was admittedly still on the fence after the first eye rolling emoticon, but the second one has pushed me solidly in the Keynesian economic camp. Well done, sir!

So let me get this straight. Based on what you've posted in this thread, your ideal plan for America's 21st century economy would involve: 1. Denying trade with 3 of the biggest and most innovative players on the international free market stage. 2. Making corporate taxation uniformly high for every state in the union, just like in the flourishing laissez-faire utopia that is the state of New York. 3. Expanding the ultra-efficient public bureaucracy for every state in the union in true Keynesian fashion, just like in the state of New York. Brilliant.

To countries that have no corporate taxes, I presume. HINT: It will probably be China, South Korea, and India.

This seems to be the crux of your entire argument: that homosexuals choose their behavior because they have chosen to be gay. You can't prove that to be true at the moment based on our current understanding of the biological sciences, just like I can't prove the opposite at the moment (but who knows what scientists will discover years from now). Reason, however, should guide us to 2 key points: 1. Gays don't choose to be gay in the same way that (presumably) us heterosexuals don't choose our own id-like inclinations for ladies with low waist-hip ratios, symmetrical faces, smooth skin, and big ol' titties. 2. Even if gay behavior is completely chosen, why the !@#$ does it matter to you personally or to government so long as their gay behavior isn't interfering with your own individual liberties and willful pursuit of happiness? By the way, I thought you weren't going to post here again because we are all just too stupid for Stupid?

Yes you have. In post #85 of this thread, you recall the stereotype of the dangerous AIDS-infested homosexual as a reason for denying the opportunity for gay couples to have the same health care rights as heterosexual couples. In post #126, you use another tired stereotype of the homosexual relationship - based purely on the carnal - as a foil for heterosexual relationships that are implied to be based on more "noble" concepts like love. In post #180, you express emotions of anger and disappointment upon the theoretical discovery of a relative's homosexuality. And pretty much all of your posts in this thread make reference to some nebulous contempt for gay marriage because it personally makes you feel disgusted and uncomfortable. You have also repeatedly failed to articulate how condoning gay marriage will unravel the social fabric of our country, why the gay marriage issue alone deserves so much focus if one assumes social standards happen to be in a grave state of crisis at all, or whether gay marriage is even "immoral" by any universal (read: non-religious) standards of human ethics. And perhaps worst of all, you continue to invoke a "tyranny of the majority" rationale (example: post #138 of this thread) for using government to deny gays the same rights as heteros...the very antithesis of thought upon what this once great country was founded.

They're also known for having a great work ethic, which surprisingly isn't a given at this level of competition (see: Peters, Jason; Dockery, Derrick).

You don't think the Catholic faith guides Keyes and Buchanan in their morality? Those two aren't exactly "cafeteria Catholics." I might even suggest Keyes and Buchanan are "cafeteria classical liberals," since they have no qualms picking and choosing which rights for which individuals can be granted equal protection under the law. Seriously now, did you even watch Stupid's YouTube link? Gay couple adoption inevitably leads to incest?!

Totally incorrect. Keyes is a devout Catholic who warps selected parts of Enlightenment philosophy to advance a bigoted religious right agenda. You think Keyes is harmless compared to the Pat Robertson types because he doesn't quote scripture; I'd argue that he's only relatively harmless because his audience is so small.

Half man flu, half bird flu, half pig flu....ManBirdPig flu!

Alan Keyes is a perfect example of how religion causes otherwise rational men to twist themselves in completely illogical knots. Why am I not surprised to discover Stupid thinks so highly of him?

LMAO I had the same thought while reading Stupid's drivel. Not only that, but the "statistics" he used to support his argument are mired in cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies.

The elderly disproportionately strain the various welfare state services that you liberals love so much. As do the mentally and physically disabled. As do blacks and Hispanics. As do single moms. In fact, all of these groups would "strain the system" more so than the tiny percentage of gay married couples. Using this half-baked logic, the only subset of the population that should be allowed to marry are white, young, healthy, middle/upper class heterosexual adults....the subset LEAST likely to need government welfare programs.

It's not destroying "natural law." Homosexuality is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom, including all species within the primate order. Gay couples can't adopt and raise children? They can't do a better job than trailer trash parents? And should we also prevent sterile couples and elderly couples and couples who choose not to have kids from marrying? You need to read about the origins of marriage to find the real reasons for this civil institution. Exactly who is coercing whom here?! You're using government to prevent a minority (gays) from having the same rights (tax benefits, property rights, health care access, etc...) as the majority (heteros) based on their individual sexual preferences of which you don't personally approve. Homosexuals aren't using government to prevent YOU from marrying, are they?

I have yet to read one credible, rational, specific answer to this question from the anti-gay marriage crowd.

George Wilson the safety? He re-signed with the Bills on April 4.

2001: Moorman, Schobel 2002: Reed, Denney 2003: Lindell, McGee, Kelsay 2004: Evans, Wilson 2005: Parrish That's 10 players left, 8 if you count Kelsay and Parrish as good as gone.

A player like Parrish can take those 10-12 plays and dramatically alter the outcome of the game. Also, that $3 mill per season saved is less important now that Peters is gone. I say keep Parrish, have him take some of the punt returning load off of McKelvin, and try to be more creative with incorporating Rosoce's unique skills into the offense.

While your link isn't working for me, I assume it shows how Fox News has a right wing bias. I couldn't agree any more with that claim, but... The first guy interviewed is obviously an inarticulate moron, but this very same CNN reporter didn't blink twice when Bush was called a fascist and visually compared to Hitler at an anti-war rally two years ago.

conner last posted in this thread Sunday night. It's now Wednesday night. Since then he's gone on to start another thread and add numerous other posts of various length on the PPP board. But apparently he still doesn't have time to return here. Of course, when your only argument is that you TRUST Obama will do the right thing, what else is there really to say? It would be nice if he could assuage my fears of hyperinflation within the next two years or so, but apparently the fundamental principles of economics don't apply to the United States when The Chosen One is in office.

Not entirely true. Certainly not in this particular economic climate. Giving tax breaks to the middle class is a very good thing, but a significant percentage of that money is going to go towards paying off debt and not towards consumption of goods and services like Barack Hussein Keynes hopes. I'd also argue that this tax cut money SHOULD go toward debt payments and general savings rather than further consumption. America needs fresh capital for a healthy economy in the long term, not continued borrowing from lending sources shrinking in size and in willingness to lend to a nation of materialism addicts. By the way, why do you continue ignoring the role of the supply side? The wealthy 5% spend money as well, but their money goes to create the vast majority of JOBS in America; furthermore, whatever remaining jobs the government provides is only due to taxation revenue generated mostly from - surprise! - those 5% of wealthy Americans.

at this post. It's pretty late, so for now let me just focus on the bolded part above. Right there you at least acknowledge that a large national debt is unsustainable in the long term. That's a start. So if Obama wants his legacy to be that of a good president on economic issues, he must manage the debt he inherited from Bush. How? Well, he has 3 options: 1. Slash government spending. 2. Raise taxes. 3. Have the Federal Reserve print more money to make ends meet. Option 1 is a joke, as we know Obama and Pelosi want to do very much the opposite over the next 2 years that will dwarf Bush's TARP. This will only further increase the absolute value of our national debt, made comparatively worse if the national GDP shrinks at the same time (it almost certainly will, as it already is). Option 2 was a seemingly innocuous plan put forth by Obama during the campaign season, but also the reason why so many "white trash tea-baggers" have decided to protest on the eve of Tax Day. Obama claims that he wants to lower the taxes on most of America and only slightly raise taxes on the wealthiest 1-5%. If that turns out to be a lie, then the protestors were correct in assuming that Obama - like all politicians - was lying to win votes. Even if Obama spares the middle class and raises exorbitant taxes on only the very wealthy, such a decision will further shrink the pool of already shrinking wealth producers in this nation (who, in turn, are the ones who provide the bulk of tax revenue in the first place). If, however, Obama was telling the truth on his tax policy, then how on Earth are we going to balance the rapidly expanding national budget under the Democrats' watch? Because as it stands now, our deficit is MUCH bigger than when Bush left office. Which leads us to Option 3... Option 3 has already been done under Obama's watch, but I fear a lot more is to come. This is perhaps more terrifying than any sort of income tax raise, as it will absolutely crush the poor and middle classes the most...the 95-99% of Americans whom Obama and the Democrats allegedly care for the most. The inflation results may take 2-3 years to be felt, but they will be felt. I can already anticipate your retort to this post...that Option 1 will be a forced public "investment" in energy, health care, infrastructure, government jobs etc... which will prompt spending from the lower classes and wealth production from the investing classes so that just enough tax revenue can be collected under Obama's current tax plan to balance the budget. Two problems with that: 1. When has government ever been efficient in allocating its revenue resources for planned public tasks? Have you seen our public education system lately? How are the New Orleans levees doing? How well was Fannie and Freddie Mac managed? How often do public bureaucrats get fired for doing their job poorly? 2. You're assuming private investors and the free markets couldn't do this all more efficiently and FASTER if our politicians would actually release the litany of economic shackles that have been simultaneously placed on employers and laborers alike. As a side note, please stop lumping me in with Republicans and conservatives. I'm libertarian and have never voted for a Republican in my life. Coolidge, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were all freedom-hating statists by my standards.

In essence, a Carter-style economic policy that will lead directly to: 1. Inflation 2. High interest rates 3. High unemployment ...resulting in: 1. Lower standard of living for all Americans 2. Loss of individual freedoms as government's powers expand 3. Prolonged recession for as long as Keynesian economic policies are maintained

Nope, he's too busy getting anally raped by demons in the afterlife to have time posting about the Bills.