Idiot, Control-Freak, Do-Gooder Liberals [Reader Post]

Loading

Remember, when you are a Democrat, you leave your individual rights and preferences at the door. You are now a cog in the great machine. You will comply with approved party policy, or you will be branded a heretic and will become fodder for a Keith Olbermann rant.

Per the Party Grand Poobahs, the fun at the Democrat Convention will be supplemented with some proper dietary rules.

Warning to Southern delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver this August: it will be a no-fry zone.

As part of the effort to make the August 25-28 convention the greenest ever, the Democrats’ guidelines for food catering include one that strikes at the heart of Southern cuisine: no fried food.

No fried chicken. No fried catfish. No fried green tomatoes. No fried okra. No fried anything.

In promoting healthy eating habits, the Democratic guidelines say every meal should be nutritious and include “at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, purple/blue and white.”

“It’s the new patriotism,” says Denver Mayor and Regional Enforcer of Dietary Compliance John Hickenlooper, the driving force behind the greening of the Democratic convention.

However, if presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain starts gaining in the polls on Barack Obama, who will accept the Democratic nomination in Denver, the Democrats may find they’ve got bigger fish to fr? – uh, make that – bake.

Only Democrats would cheapen patriotism to equate it with a political party’s food rules. In other words, the less freedom you have to eat what you want, the more patriotic you are. Maybe eating a few more french fries would clear their fuzzy heads.

Michelle Malkin has more silliness. It seems Comrade Hickenlooper has also has issued Politburo orders that every bit of merchandise at the Denver convention must be organic and union-made.

H/T lgf

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

0 0 votes
Article Rating
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Saw their requirements on another site…

This is what scares me about the libs..
They want total control of how they think we should act.. and every other aspect of our lives.

IF Obamalongadingdong wins in Novermber.. be very afraid
Socialism is not a good life..

McCain should rent a food truck or three and serve fried food right outside the convention. It could get real crazy if the security that tells him to leave faces his security. Cops vs cops Secret Service vs Secret Service.

It’s just the same kind of nanny state control over our daily lives that their entire party would impose on ALL of us if Obama is elected.

Isn’t it odd that a party which claims to be “pro choice” thinks it is patriotic to take away the freedom to make even the most basic choices like what to eat?

Get used to it!

dems don’t want you to smoke they don’t want you to drink, no french fries, no fried chicken, makes you wonder what they will let you have. wait i know organic, unpasturized juice that would hopefully get the entire convention very sick tummys. they want to control every aspect of our lives because they know better than we do about what we should be doing. they want to take awy every basic freedonm that has ever made this country great.

Welcome to Chicago! Leave your brain at the border.

Control Freak only the Dems?

You mean like the GOP that insists on controlling who consenting adults have sex with? The same GOP that has a horde of crusading theocrats that want to control what kind of books, music, and/or tv shows should be “allowed”; i.e. only “wholesome” shows, books, music could be produced? The same GOP that believes in forced pregnancies, science suppressed in the name of religious beliefs, and certain religious beliefs enshrined as federal law? You don’t see a Control Freak problem there?

You mean like the GOP that insists on controlling who consenting adults have sex with?

A bit disingenuous there don’t you think? If you are speaking about gay marriage that is completely different than who one has sex with. There are still a majority of Americans that oppose gay marriage.

The same GOP that has a horde of crusading theocrats that want to control what kind of books, music, and/or tv shows should be “allowed”; i.e. only “wholesome” shows, books, music could be produced?

Once again, you’re stretching things just a bit here. I seem to recall Tipper Gore being the spokesperson for Parental Music ratings. What group is pushing for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be revived? There are no crusading ideologues on the Democratic side?

The same GOP that believes in forced pregnancies, science suppressed in the name of religious beliefs, and certain religious beliefs enshrined as federal law?

Forced pregnancies?!? You, young lady, over here, spread your legs and allow me to impregnate you. Get a freaking grip. I don’t want to get into a debate on when life begins or whether abortion should be legal or not. It currently is and that is the law. But, no one from the GOP is forcing women to get pregnant. Most schools are giving away birth control (with everyones tax money) without notifying parents and we still have unwanted teen pregnancies?

Science suppressed in the name of religious beliefs? Please, give me examples of that occurring. I can show many attempts of religion being attempted to be suppressed in the “name of science” or because someone is “offended”. It is the THEORY of Evolution. There is also a theory of creation, intelligent design and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Certain beliefs enshrined in Federal law? Yeah, you’re right. The laws of this country have their basis in Judeo-Christian principles. You are free to practice any religion you like or none at all. The government will not tell you that you have to practice a certain religion but lets not try and rewrite history here.

With that said, there are extremes throughout society on both sides, I will not even try and argue that point.

**
A bit disingenuous there don’t you think? If you are speaking about gay marriage that is completely different than who one has sex with. There are still a majority of Americans that oppose gay marriage.
**

And a majority of Americans used to accept slavery and laws against interracial marriage.

Tell me, if two gay men, or two gay women, get married, how does that harm you? It doesn’t harm me.

**
Once again, you’re stretching things just a bit here. I seem to recall Tipper Gore being the spokesperson for Parental Music ratings. What group is pushing for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be revived? There are no crusading ideologues on the Democratic side?
**

Let’s see, one example from 20+ years ago is all you got? Man, that reminds me of people who constantly deflect the criticism of GOP racism by bringup up Byrd’s long repudiated association with the KKK.

How about these:

James Dobson, anyone? Focus on the Family? Medved? Heritage Foundation? Robertson? Falwell? Paisley? Currently, the religious zealots wanting to control peoples’ lives are on the extreme Right.

The Fairness Doctrine would not censor anyone. However, it would be interesting to see how Rush would talk if he made statements about drug dealers should be in prison then somone points out on the same station – hey – wait a minute – didn’t Rush have a drug problem? Why isn’t he in prison? Practice what you preach! Why does a single conservative man who espouses “Family Values” need Viagra? Isn’t that something you claim should wait until marriage?

**
Science suppressed in the name of religious beliefs? Please, give me examples of that occurring. I can show many attempts of religion being attempted to be suppressed in the “name of science” or because someone is “offended”. It is the THEORY of Evolution. There is also a theory of creation, intelligent design and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Certain beliefs enshrined in Federal law? Yeah, you’re right. The laws of this country have their basis in Judeo-Christian principles. You are free to practice any religion you like or none at all. The government will not tell you that you have to practice a certain religion but lets not try and rewrite history here.
**

Stem cell research, anyone? Britian and Singapore, amongst others, are far ahead of us in this regard.

You confuse the use of the word THEORY. No surprise. Spend some time at SciAm; you’d learn quite a bit.

Country founded on Judeo-Christian values? Where is that in the Constitution? Specifically? Just remember, trying to favor one particular religious belief over others will eventually bite you in the ***.

It’s funny, and kind of sad, as a small business owner I would prefer to vote Republican as I think their business ideas make better sense. First and foremost, however, I believe it is far more important to protect individual rights. That means it’s no one elses’ business what goes on between consenting adults. Period. The GOP could build a lasting majority, but the Religious Right needs to be publicy and forcibly removed. Otherwise, a large amount of Independents like myself will not support them.

Gay marriage or polygamy is equivalent to sex between consenting adults, Phalanx?? Had no idea they were all so conventional as to practice abstinence until they married or granted civil unions…. And I wonder how all those hetro couples manage to still stumble happily thru their lives without that govt issued piece of paper.

So refusing federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is “suppression”? Weird concept. Go talk to the free market medical researchers who evidently decided their R&D money is better spent on other stem cells sources, and quit bothering us with pears at an apple festival.

And if Britain and Singapore are so far “ahead”, how come their medical treatment doesn’t reflect what you purport their achievements to be? Or, if you decide you need their “advanced treatment”, flights leave daily to both locations. Get your passport now.. the waiting line is long.

With your statement that “the Religious Right needs to be publicly and forcibly removed”, I’d say your claim to protect “individual rights” just flew out the window as a pile of BS. Evidently, you care only of the individual rights of those that agree with you.

One can say that the GOP does have it’s hoard of crusading theocrats…. just as the DNC has it’s hoards of socialist/Marxists who seek to silence religion, and expunge it from our history. I’d say the latter have made more inroads than the former in influencing legislation.

However neither side has the monopoly on extremists… they are just different extremes. Hard to believe you cast yourself as in indy, as you are a great example of the DNC extremist.

BTW, Udder… you pretty much said everything I wanted to say. But just couldn’t resist an extra couple of cents.

Well, we sure got away from discussing the menu of only “red, green, yellow, purple/blue and white.” food forced on those attending the convention. Would it not be for red meat and white potatoes, hubby would be starving that week, no way does he do green, yellow, purple or blue unless it’s Lifesavers, jellybeans or Skittles.

Missy:
I’m a proud carnivore myself. Veggie pizza is an abomination. So is tofu.

MataHarley:
Polygamy would be fine with me, as long as a woman was free to have multiple husbands. It shouldn’t go just one way. Or do you argue just that?

Civil Unions are, in may state, not worth the piece of paper their printed on. Like I said above, if two consenting adults want to get married, how does that harm you or I?

Hmm…. Which group of extremists have had the power for nearly 12 of the past 14 years? Abstinence only education? Creationism/Intelligent Design? AIDS groups only getting money if they follow certain conservative religious beliefs?

Stem cell research has been suppressed. Are other countries ahead? Yes. 40 prominent American researchers have relocated to Britain in the past few years due to a lack of Federal R&D funding. The Brits are putting money into stem cell research. Here, we allowreligious beliefs to interfere with scientific progress. It’s like allowing a carpenter to only use half his tools to build a house, since the use of other tools offends another groups “religious beliefs”.

I tell you what; since you obviously don’t believe in said research when treatments are available, and that will happen, anyone who believes that said research is immoral should not be allowed access to said treatments. Does that sound fair?

All you have is the old Marxist crap? That is a common canard against Dems. So is calling me a DNC extremist. Is that an ad hominem? Can you verify, in any way, that I am with the DNC? Or a registered Democrat? Does such a comment really further any discussion?

As for the theocrats who run the GOP, I look at it this way. I will oppose any group of people who think the objective of political parties and process is to force a certain outdated set of religious beliefs on everyone else. I have yet to see the Dems try to force personal religious beliefs on anyone. You can not honestly say that about the GOP.

Tell me, if two gay men, or two gay women, get married, how does that harm you? It doesn’t harm me.

I am not arguing that two consenting adults should not be allowed to cohabitate together. I beleive that they are more than free to do so and if they would like to have legal contracts between them, that is fine as well. They can even have a religious ceremony if they wish. Should those same people be given the same tax benefits as a traditional couple? Social Security Benefits? Workman’s Compensation? Veterans Benefits? As a small business owner, should you be required to provide benefits to same sex couples? What exactly is the definition and purpose of a society and marriage? If we want to get scientific, if we were to take a deserted island and populate it with all men and come back in 100 years, would there be a society? Should 2 bisexuals be allowed to each marry a person of each sex?

James Dobson, anyone? Focus on the Family? Medved? Heritage Foundation? Robertson? Falwell? Paisley? Currently, the religious zealots wanting to control peoples’ lives are on the extreme Right.

You overlooked the part where I said there are extremes on both sides. Michael Newdower, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Rev Wright, James Cone and Liberation Theology, Al Gore and Global Warming, the majority of the Democratic Party, Feminists, MADD, Sharpton, Jackson. We both could go on ad naseum with this list. Everyone on this forum will have a different list on either side I am sure.

Stem cell research, anyone?

There is nothing that is stopping States or individuals from pursuing stem cell research. California is slated to spend about $3 billion over the next 10 years on stem cell research. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t live in California and they are not using my tax dollars to fund it. That is the way it should be.

Country founded on Judeo-Christian values? Where is that in the Constitution? Specifically?

Let’s take a look at the document that the founding fathers turned to when they sat down to write the Constitution, The Magna Carta. They were very specific not to respect one religion or prohibit the practice of one but their descisons were most certainly based in part on religious ideals. There are plenty of examples of Religious Discrimination in US State Constitutions. We cannot get through the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence without the authors recognizing a God or creator.

First and foremost, however, I believe it is far more important to protect individual rights.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in this respect. You must remember though that your “rights” stop at my nose. When your “rights” interfere with my “rights” and vice versa, we have an issue. My belief is that government should be the strongest at the local level. The Federal government should stick to Section 8 of the Constitution and allow the 10th amendment to do the rest. My argument is not so much on a religious foundation as it is on a moral/taxation level. Stem Cell research is a good example of what I am trying to express. If the population is divided on an issue, the decision should be left to state and local governments. The citizen then has more of a choice on whether they want their money to go towards the research.

That means it’s no one elses’ business what goes on between consenting adults. Period.

I mostly agree with you. Once again, what two consenting adults want to do between themselves is their business. That is fine by me except when I am asked to pay for it, then it becomes my business. I can have many reasons; religious, moral, ethical, financial. At a local level, we the people, should be making those decisions, not 100 pompous asses in Washington.

Phalanx, you lost any sensibility and/or credibility when you equated … let’s see, how did you put it in your original post?

You mean like the GOP that insists on controlling who consenting adults have sex with?

Right. State and federal regulations for marriage benefits affects consentual sex. Huh?

But since you asked of my personal beliefs… here ya go. Marriage was born of a religious rite. Over time religion morphed from multiple wives in the old testament to one spouse now. Don’t know the history of that, and don’t care. Frankly, if it’s a religious rite, IMHO leave it as a religious rite . And the non-believers shouldn’t be redefining it to suit their own agenda… which apparently isn’t equal benefits, since they don’t want to fight for an equivalent civil union. They want to possess that word, marriage, as their own.

Also somewhere in between the govt incorporated that religious rite of marriage for regulating sundry spousal benefits. Again, something about the whole battle just escapes me personally. If all everyone wants is to ensure rights of inheritance, hospital visits, etal between a couple, then leave it marriage for the religious, and civil unions for same sex. I have no problems with this.

I oppose multiple spouses for the govt funds abuse. It’s hard to oppose it on religious grounds as Islam permits multiple wives, and I don’t presume to cast judgment on their religious beliefs. But when it’s paychecks for welfare and govt support coming out of my earnings, you bet I oppose it. And too many… uh ahem… are looking to the govt for funding everything.

As far as the “extremists” GOP Congress. I don’t support any one party holding power of all three branches. So if you think I’m rooting for a DNC POTUS to swing the extreme balance the other way, you’re quite wrong. This nation has always done better with some healthy (note the word *healthy*) dissent. Bush should have been saying no to domestic spending a long time ago, and the GOP is just as corrupt as the DNC.

I find nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. In fact it was taught to me by my parents, and by me to my son. Instead, while you lobby for what kind of “govt curriculum” we should have, I find it mortifying we’re placing sex education into the hands of government at all. Frankly, they should go back to reinstationing phys ed, American History and Civics instead of sex ed and tolerance classes, and leave the moral teachings to the family.

Stem cell research has been suppressed.

You repeat this bizarre notion that if the govt doesn’t provide funds, that progress is “supressed”? There is no where to go with you on this because of your mentality. That you equate the lack of taxpayer funds with supression – or because the UK is doing it, it must be right – is just so off the wall, it’s not worth addressing.

Then again you flagrantly blow off individual rights unless they mirror your own when you say “anyone who believes that said research is immoral should not be allowed access to said treatments.” That’s about as sane as me saying to you that if you don’t support ROTC on campuses, you don’t deserve the protection of the US military and we should just use you as kidnapping bait in the Middle East.

There’s far more federal funding I don’t want to see approved besides embryonic stem cell. Did it ever occur to you that if it’s to be done to the best quality, and best price, it won’t be done by government? Govt botches up just about every welfare program it attempts.

I believe in the free market. If private investors feel that R&D expense is worthy of the cash input, they do it. Federal funds for grants/studies/research are abused for income, and are not the good housekeeping seal of approval on the best path to achieving an end goal. For heavens sake, Congress is made of up lawyers and millionaires. They haven’t got a clue. They just know someone’s standing up in front of them with their hands out, playing on their emotions with feel good causes.

Just as you said, those 40 prominent types – standing there with their hands out to Congress – couldn’t justify the expense of their research to a private investor. When Uncle Sam didn’t cough up, they left to sponge off the UK taxpayer. Suits me just fine. Trust me, if they have a modicum of success there, everyone will be paying for those R&D costs… whether it came from govt or private funds, costs get covered. But at least with private investment, the taxpayer’s not paying for it if it falls flat on it’s face as a failed experiment. This simple fact apparently escapes you.

The ol’ “Marxist” association is hardly a canard. I can look at BHO/DNC proposed policies and find it’s foundation in Maxism. If you’re uncomfortable being a socialist/Marxist, then that’s your problem. But at least have the fortitude to examine what you are and, if you’re so dedicated to these socialist principles, at least admit it with pride. Your cries of foul are embarrassing. If you’re not requesting the govt (ala the taxpayers…) to provide for your personal needs at every turn, then you should re’examine your policy wishes.

Didn’t know the govt was forcing you to believe in any God, or attend some organized church. Poor abused soul. You misconstrue freedom of religion as freedom FROM religion. It is the historical foundation of this country. “Tolerance” is just some banner slogan you fly while professing your intolerance of those with religious beliefs. And I sincerely doubt you’ll end up on some govt psychiatrist’s couch because someone in your vicinity said a prayer.

BTW, Udder… you pretty much said everything I wanted to say. But just couldn’t resist an extra couple of cents.

We were thinking along the same lines. You word things much better than myself though.

You do more than fine yer bad self, Udder. But thanks for the compliment.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in this respect. You must remember though that your “rights” stop at my nose. When your “rights” interfere with my “rights” and vice versa, we have an issue. My belief is that government should be the strongest at the local level. The Federal government should stick to Section 8 of the Constitution and allow the 10th amendment to do the rest. My argument is not so much on a religious foundation as it is on a moral/taxation level. Stem Cell research is a good example of what I am trying to express. If the population is divided on an issue, the decision should be left to state and local governments. The citizen then has more of a choice on whether they want their money to go towards the research.

Unfortunately, you seem to be implying that my rights to not be swamped with religious BS are supserseded by the supposed rights of religious zealots to have their rights trample mine.

You should check out this and this. I find the reading on Hein v. FFRF decision interesting. I have a very big problem with my tax dollars supporting religious activity; but according to Ms. MataHarley I should just shut up.

That means it’s no one elses’ business what goes on between consenting adults. Period.

I mostly agree with you. Once again, what two consenting adults want to do between themselves is their business. That is fine by me except when I am asked to pay for it, then it becomes my business. I can have many reasons; religious, moral, ethical, financial. At a local level, we the people, should be making those decisions, not 100 pompous asses in Washington.

I have asked no one to pay for anything when it comes to two consenting adults. My problem with the local level is we tried that before; Jim Crow, anyone? Miscongeation laws? Following your reasoning, what recourse do people have if their rights are being violated at the local level, and the Feds are not to be involved? Is it just tough luck for them?

When people try to use any level of gov’t to give a certain religous viewpoint superior rights, that affects my (and others!) rights, and we have an issue.

Let’s take a look at the document that the founding fathers turned to when they sat down to write the Constitution, The Magna Carta. They were very specific not to respect one religion or prohibit the practice of one but their descisons were most certainly based in part on religious ideals. There are plenty of examples of Religious Discrimination in US State Constitutions. We cannot get through the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence without the authors recognizing a God or creator.

The links above address this statement. The Founding Fathers were most likely Dieists. The closest thing to them today would be Unitarians and Humanists.

But since you asked of my personal beliefs… here ya go. Marriage was born of a religious rite. Over time religion morphed from multiple wives in the old testament to one spouse now. Don’t know the history of that, and don’t care. Frankly, if it’s a religious rite, IMHO leave it as a religious rite . And the non-believers shouldn’t be redefining it to suit their own agenda… which apparently isn’t equal benefits, since they don’t want to fight for an equivalent civil union. They want to possess that word, marriage, as their own.

Also somewhere in between the govt incorporated that religious rite of marriage for regulating sundry spousal benefits. Again, something about the whole battle just escapes me personally. If all everyone wants is to ensure rights of inheritance, hospital visits, etal between a couple, then leave it marriage for the religious, and civil unions for same sex. I have no problems with this.

I oppose multiple spouses for the govt funds abuse. It’s hard to oppose it on religious grounds as Islam permits multiple wives, and I don’t presume to cast judgment on their religious beliefs. But when it’s paychecks for welfare and govt support coming out of my earnings, you bet I oppose it. And too many… uh ahem… are looking to the govt for funding everything.

As far as the “extremists” GOP Congress. I don’t support any one party holding power of all three branches. So if you think I’m rooting for a DNC POTUS to swing the extreme balance the other way, you’re quite wrong. This nation has always done better with some healthy (note the word *healthy*) dissent. Bush should have been saying no to domestic spending a long time ago, and the GOP is just as corrupt as the DNC.

I find nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. In fact it was taught to me by my parents, and by me to my son. Instead, while you lobby for what kind of “govt curriculum” we should have, I find it mortifying we’re placing sex education into the hands of government at all. Frankly, they should go back to reinstationing phys ed, American History and Civics instead of sex ed and tolerance classes, and leave the moral teachings to the family.

Nope, didn’t ask you for your personal beliefs. However, the statement “Don’t know about the history of that, and don’t care” pretty much sums up that you are not open to new ideas.

I don’t have a problem with parents teaching abstinence to their kids. I have a problem when my taxpayer dollars are used for religious based abstinence prgrams, at Federal, state, and/or local levels. But again, you seem to think I just need to shut up and not be offended.

Why is it okay for you to rail against tax dollars being used in areas you don’t like? Are only conservatives allowed to have a voice on such things?

As for Fed dollars and research, look at this. Without the space program, many of today’s technological advances would not have happened. Who funded the space program?

Oh, and I see nothing wrong with denying stem cell treatments to those who oppose the research. If one finds said research to be against their religious beliefs, what does that make them if they then take advantage of a treatment developed from something their religious beliefs tell them is wrong? You don’t have a right to any certain treatment or procedure, so there’s no denying of rights here.

And one other thing. Where’s the proof I am a Marxist? Where in any statement above do I call for the forcible redistribution of wealth? As I mentioned before, I own a small business. I am highly aware of how screwed up tax laws and the like are. But there is no way I would support the idea of taking from someone who works hard and giving to someone who doesn’t.

Mr. Uddercha0s – you, sir, have a most unique posting name. Very cool! I happened upon this site by accident looking for stuff about $200 a barrel oil. If you’re one of the mods, the graphics are genuis. I like the Wild Wild West motiff. I think the Browncoats would like the place. Anyway, this is one of the first times I have posted anywhere; I usually stick to photography and technology blogs. Thank you for your reasoned comments!

Oh my… Phalanx, the quintessential wounded victim speaks. Caution… woman with “edge” here on mini tirade today again.

I have a very big problem with my tax dollars supporting religious activity; but according to Ms. MataHarley I should just shut up.

Pray tell, what “religious activity” do you suggest your tax dollars are “supporting”? Abstinence as birth control is “religious”? What a dunderhead…. it’s called biology and common sense. Don’t want to cut yourself? Don’t play with knives. It’s that simple. No god involved. And just what “rights” are swamped with “God”? Rights are equally for the God’less. I hang on your every utterance waiting for that one… NOT.

BTW, I never suggested you “shut up”. I suggested you quit your b*#tching about possibly hearing some one around you say a prayer. This nation does not revolve around you and your hypersensitivity. We manage to live with you on the planet. I suggest you learn the same. And repercussions for your “free speech” is part of the package, BTW.

I have asked no one to pay for anything when it comes to two consenting adults.

You can’t be this dense. Govt “sanctioning” of marriage and civil unions is *all* about benefits… i.e. surviorship or tax benefits/deductions for property, social security, etal. Translation, “payment” or rights that may involve payment of some kind. Otherwise it would have remained just a religious rite. Why bring the govt in at all?

BTW, if you don’t need all these things, and “marriage” is nothing but religious ritual to which you do not subscribe, what the hell is your beef?? Go stand in front of a friend/witness, say your vows, and enjoy your life.

You say you won’t “ask” to go on welfare, or seek marital/civil union benefits – or as you put it, “I have asked no one to pay for anything when it comes to two consenting adults.” But with your demand for legal mandates and it’s financial benefits, law can’t exempt just you. It’s for no one, or everyone. Don’t be so narcissistic. Look around. There’s others here besides you and your wants.

I’ll say it again so it sinks in. If you want to exempt yourself from all these, then you don’t need the govt recognizing you as “married”. You only need to be “recognized” as married in the eyes of you and your partner. Afterall, you say you aren’t religious, and you don’t want the financial/marital benefits. Why demand it?

But you aren’t asking for nothing really, are you? So you’d better come clean what is IS about to you.. and that’s about forcing the world to see relationships as *you* see relationships. It’s about tearing down what the faithful to a deity believe about marriage as a religous right. Well go blow it out your ear, bubba. You’re fooling yourself about one issue or another. You either want the govt bennies, or you’re into tearing down a religious foundation. Which is it?

Nope, didn’t ask you for your personal beliefs. However, the statement “Don’t know about the history of that, and don’t care” pretty much sums up that you are not open to new ideas.

First sentence. Yes you did. See your below comment, which asks about my belief on multiple spouses, and harm.

Polygamy would be fine with me, as long as a woman was free to have multiple husbands. It shouldn’t go just one way. Or do you argue just that?

Civil Unions are, in may state, not worth the piece of paper their printed on. Like I said above, if two consenting adults want to get married, how does that harm you or I?

You asked, you got it. Now you whine. Why am I surprised?

As for your second sentence, my comment about how Christianity morphed from Old Testament muliple wives to single spouses in the new Testament has nothing to do with “open to new ideas”. Gawd, your mind is like a pin ball.

Ponder this. It’s irrelevant to me whether Christianity sanctions one or multiple spouses. An “open mind” does not mean I dictate to the church how their beliefs evolve. If my mind were closed, as you suggest, I would vehemently reject either multiple or single spouses as an erroneous change in doctrine.

… like shooting fish in a barrel, this one…. Must be a SF public education.

Why is it okay for you to rail against tax dollars being used in areas you don’t like? Are only conservatives allowed to have a voice on such things?

It’s okay for me to rail against waste of tax dollars because I earn those tax dollars. And you *do* have a voice. In case you haven’t noticed, you and your socialist “spread the wealth” friends have plenty of media time… far more than conservative views. When conservative views *are* covered, it’s to portray them as heartless skin flinks *because* we rail at the very idea of giving you and your nanny causes our tax dollars. Not to mention, you’re talking plenty here without censorship. Ridiculed because you’re an idiot, yes. But not censored. Free speech includes the right to be a public cyber village idiot.

As for Fed dollars and research, look at this. Without the space program, many of today’s technological advances would not have happened. Who funded the space program?

You really are dense. Embryonic stems cells compared to NASA?? NASA is integral to national communications, economy, etal. I have no problem with tax dollars for R&D on vital infrastructure. I don’t want tax dollars to be spent in controversial (because of scientific results showing less promise than other stem cells, NOT religion) medical issues. Let the private industry take care of which research shows the most promise, as they have in the past. That way when they’re wrong, you and I haven’t paid for it.

And of course you “see nothing wrong with denying stem cell treatments to those who oppose the research.” That’s because you are a selective elitist/Marxist. As I said the equivalent of me doing the same to you is saying that since you oppose the ROTC (and probably the military), your ass ought to be hung out as bait for terrorists. You don’t deserve protection since you don’t support them. And you don’t deserve to live as a result of those protections. But I don’t say that… just you. And you can’t see the difference. But that’s okay. Our nation even protects cyber village idiots.

To be a Marxist, you don’t need a “stinking badge”. You need only to believe in your heart of hearts that the Marxist principles are those this nation should adopt. And you do.

Your call for “redistribution of wealth” is the call for federal goverment to fund your marital/civil union benefits, medical research, probably health insurance, and anything else you think is a feel good cause. Taxes that pay for all you want is a redistribution of wealth – take from us all collectively, and give back to a few. If your next door neighbor gives it to you as a gift, it’s called charity. One is mandated. The other is given freely. Learn the difference…

If you don’t know that your principles and policy wishes are Marxist, I suggest you stop putting your cyber foot in your mouth, and start using your keyboard to research socialism/Marxism as the steps to Communism. Get back to us when you’ve learned something besides where the “send” button is. You might get a better reception.

Until then, anyone got a fly swatter? This human gnat is really on my nerves.

Man, this is getting too funny……

So, one is a Marxist if one believes in Federal funding for stem cells. You say it is redistributionist. Well, so is taking my tax dollars for NASA! I think private aerospace companies can do a better job! Under your logic above, that makes you a Marxist!

Oh, I’m a veteran, and I know kids who have been commissioned via ROTC. It’s a difference to say hey you don’t agree with the military they shouldn’t defend you, and pointing out the hypocrisy of anti-science types who would take advantage of any treatments developed from said science that is against their religious beliefs.

I took a look around the site; Just For The Record says it well with the koolaid comments.

Unfortunately, you seem to be implying that my rights to not be swamped with religious BS are supserseded by the supposed rights of religious zealots to have their rights trample mine.

I am not implying that at all.

You must separate what “preachers and fools” say on the TV to the laws that actually are enacted. I would have a problem if the school’s said that you must say The Lord’s Prayer every morning. I don’t even have a problem with someone respectfully declining to recite The Pledge of Allegiance because of the “one Nation under God” portion. I find it silly, but that’s my opinion. But, if the majority of people wish to pledge, it should not be removed because of one. Do you wish to talk about “footbaths” being installed in public Universities in Dearborn, MI?
Universities Install Footbaths to Benefit Muslims, and Not Everyone Is Pleased

What is your opinion on that? Are you outraged?

The links above address this statement. The Founding Fathers were most likely Dieists. The closest thing to them today would be Unitarians and Humanists.

I was waiting to see if the Deists arguement came out. From everything I have been able to gather, the majority of the writers/signers of the Constituiton were not Deists. Here is but 1 article that shows the “faiths” of the signers:

The Fifty Five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

The founders indeed, used in part, the Bible and the Magna Carta for reference when writing the Constitution and were “religious” men. The links you provide are interesting and I like opposing viewpoints. The problem is when you post a link to a group that is Freedom FROM Religion.

Are we going to argue that the 1st amendment doesn’t, in part, give us “freedom of religion”? If so, I won’t continue on.

Now, if we want to talk about the proverbial “Separation of Church and State” (the Establishment Clause) and Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, that is a different debate and I more than welcome your viewpoint.

(You don’t need to know this, but I will tell you so that you know where part of my viewpoint comes from. I was born and raised as a Byzantine (Greek) Catholic. I do not subscribe to the politics of the Church and I left it many years back over the whole covering up of the child molestation thing. For those that don’t know, yes, we’re under the Pope, as opposed to the Orthodox.)

I have asked no one to pay for anything when it comes to two consenting adults.

I am not going to labor on this too long because I see that MataH has already addressed it and hers and mine viewpoint on this appear to be quite the same. There are some 1,800 rights/benefits that are bestowed upon couples who are married at the state and federal level. There are 1,800 rights of marriage. If you’re gay, take 6.

My problem with the local level is we tried that before; Jim Crow, anyone?

San Francisco anyone?

Mr. Uddercha0s – you, sir, have a most unique posting name. Very cool! I happened upon this site by accident looking for stuff about $200 a barrel oil. If you’re one of the mods, the graphics are genuis.

Thank you. Contrary to some people’s belief, I have used this moniker for almost 2 decades now. Ahh, 2400 baud, echo mail and BBS’s. The good old days. It has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”. Hey, he can send me some royalties! I can be reached on Yahoo! with the same name.

I am not an author or maintainer of FA. I’m just a fool with an opinion that they have allowed me to voice. Kudo’s to Curt and all of the authors and community here. Thank you.
Much like you, I happened upon this site while looking for information for something else and I stuck around. I found a forum where ,what I believe, the posters are seeking the facts and don’t buy into the “talking points” of politicians and “followers”. I, and many others here it seems, don’t suffer fools very well.

Mr. Uddercha0s – 2400 baud? Eek! I remember those days. I remember when a 386 was considered an awesome computer. And BBS’s run by 486’s. I had a friend who did that.

Rush should most certainly send you royalties. I’m not the greatest at this web stuff but I’ll certainly try to find you on Yahoo!. I would be most curious to talk to a Greek Orthodox person. In my area there are a number of Orthodox churches. I’m not certain if any are Greek; many are Balkan(?)/Croatian/Eastern European. There is a Marronite(?) Catholic church not too far away.

I’m just a fool with an opinion that they have allowed me to voice. Kudo’s to Curt and all of the authors and community here. Thank you.

I’m down with that. I’ll have to drop the Mod(s) a nice email; I’m curious about who made the graphics. Knowing me it’s probably listed but as usual I somehow miss it.

I figure if you have an opinion, and you manage to piss people off from both ends of the political spectrum, you’re doing something right. YMMV.

I found a forum where ,what I believe, the posters are seeking the facts and don’t buy into the “talking points” of politicians and “followers”. I, and many others here it seems, don’t suffer fools very well.

I’m a skeptical cynic. Or maybe that’s a cynical skeptic. Facts are great things. I have unfortunately found a tendency on all ends of the political spectrum to be very selective with facts. Either way, I’m not big on pundits, talking points, political focus groups, political correctness, or either of the two major political parties. So I guess I’m screwed as the Libertarians are still a minor political force in this country.

As a side note, I do think we might be better off if we had, say, 3-5 parties, like Canada or Europe. *shrug* Just my .02.

Crap. I thought I did that right. Sorry for the double post!