Comments by loonpt
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on November 14 at 12:52 p.m.
Suleminagic brings up a great point. Sometimes it's hard for people to remember that we're supposed to be living in a free country.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 14 at 12:20 p.m.
Barney, are you SERIOUS?!?! There is no WAY you can find four honest judges in Chicago!!
AShaw,
You seemed to have missed the point regarding the miscegenation laws. The point is that state licenses were initially employed as a means of outlawing inter-racial marriage. Before that, marriage was handled by religious institutions, because that is what marriage is, a religious institution. Now that we have all sorts of tax laws and rights given to married couples, homosexuals just want to be treated equally under the law. If marriage was no longer a state function, then homosexuals wouldn't even want to get married. If they did, then they would find a preacher or pastor willing to perform the ceremony, and do it on private property. It would never affect your life in any way, shape, or form. One easy way to fix this problem is to say that everybody in the state who gets married in fact receives a civil union license, and leave the marriage part to the churches.
Prop 8 is similar to thought legislation. It's also anti free speech. In fact, the idea of "Protecting Marriage" through government decree is just plain retarded. I understand that religious institutions feel they are under attack, but it would be much more beneficial for them to stand up for their rights to practice their religion how they choose rather than taking rights from others.
Posted on November 14 at 9:53 a.m.
But I was late to work!!
Rabble Rabble Rabble!!
Posted on November 10 at 10:37 a.m.
Holly, you keep saying that it is the government's job to "cut costs". Do you mean cut the true cost or subsidize with taxpayer dollars?
If you mean cut the true costs, then you are foolish to think that government has the ability to make our medical establishment more efficient through decree. Besides, they don't have any right to do so.
If you mean cut the costs by subsidizing with taxpayer dollars, then the MIC (Medical Industrial Complex) will be able to raise their prices significantly and profit immensely from the government subsidies. So at first your scheme to help poor people suddenly turns into a scheme to help big pharma and the MIC, while simultaneously killing the poor and middle class through taxation.
For this reason, socialism rarely if ever benefits the poor and middle class. If you look at net change, socialism generally benefits the extremely wealthy monopolies and actually hurts the poor and middle class. We can see this very easily by looking at both the national and the worldwide increase in the wealthy-to-poor income gap over the last century since the Federal Reserve and Income Tax were implemented in 1913.
I recommend reading Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul. Start out with page 76 and 77 to get a detailed analysis of what I just described. Learn how freedom works for all, while socialism and tyranny only benefit the elite. You've been tricked into working for the wrong team.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 10 at 10:25 a.m.
The reason that states initially implemented wedding licenses earlier in the century was to control inter-racial marriages. If you don't think Prop 8 is discriminatory, then you haven't really thought about it.
Besides, from this we can see that there really is no reason the state should have anything to do with marriages. The government's job is to enforce the contracts, there is no reason they need to have anything to do with what the contract states.
People should not get tax breaks because they are married. People who are married should not have to add their taxes together in order to create a household income. There is no reason for any of this nonsense. There is really no reason the state needs to know anything about our personal lives.
Marriage was originally a religious institution, not a state institution. All these people arguing language are arguing about religion, not the state, which is supposed to protect equality for all individuals. Let the people and the churches handle it, and don't worry what your neighbor down the street is doing because it doesn't affect you unless you let it. If marriage was purely a religious institution, and not a state institution, there are very few, if any, gay people who would want to get married in the first place. They are only asking for it because it is a state function, and the state is not treating individuals equally in this case.
And to anybody who voted "Yes" on Prop 8.. screw you. Your fascist authoritarianism sickens me. Now, I know you may have voted that way because you felt your religion was being threatened, but you shouldn't enact fascist laws to fight fascism. Instead, try enacting freedom. That is the Christian answer. Freedom of religion is inherent in the constitution. There is no reason why any religion should be forced to marry gay couples or authorize gay marriage, this would be taking away their freedom to practice their religion.
Posted on November 10 at 9:57 a.m.
Any Obama supporters out there agree with Obama's stance on mandating community and civil service? The federal government is not allowed to enslave the population. This is a slippery slope. We're going to have some tough years ahead, and a lot of disappointed Obama supporters to be sure.
Biden has already assured us that a "generated crisis" will occur in the first 6 months of the Obama administration, and that most of his supporters won't agree with Obama's actions.
The elite are also restructuring our monetary system. Get ready for global governance. About 70-80% of the legislation that goes through the average European country comes straight from the European Union.. Our sovereignty as a nation is highly threatened.
Posted on November 10 at 9:54 a.m.
The reason that the economy does better under Democratic candidates is due to credit expansion by the Fed. It is incidental and has nothing to do with the Presidents' policies. If you are interested in economics, begin researching Austrian Economic theory. Mises.org is a great place to start.
I'm glad that people around the world celebrated when Obama was elected, and as far as international relations and diplomacy I think it is great what he is bringing to our country. Where I do not agree with Obama is on his foreign policy of pre-emptive warfare. I do not agree that we should continue our overseas empire, whereas Obama wants to expand it. I don't support the western puppet dictator in Georgia that Obama supports.
I also don't support the central economic planning that is ahead. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that we have had something of a semblance of a free-market in this country, and actually have the gal to blame our current situation on a non-existent free market. What a load of bull. We haven't seen anything CLOSE to a free market since before 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax was implemented. Since then, corporate socialism has been out of control, which lead to the depression and the need for individual welfare. Now we have the Fed giving banks an investment firms cheap credit (making money cheaper for them), and you can see what happens when the government manipulates the price of money. It causes booms and busts leading to a giant crescendo of a bust, which we're all about to see.
If we had a truly free market, and the state protected property rights we would be living in a very green world. Many see the protection of private property rights as a method of protecting polluting industries. This is just more Orwellian double-speak to get you to submit to the state. Protecting private property means prosecuting polluters who pollute others' air, water, private property or other resources. This is the view Ron Paul holds regarding private property, and he has explained how during the industrial revolution, industries colluded with the government in order to allow them to pollute others' private property, completely circumventing our constitution. Ron Paul could have saved our country. There may be people celebrating in Morocco and all over the world, but Al Qaeda is planning another attack due to our recent clandestine CIA operations and bombing campaigns using drone airplanes. Ron Paul would have shut down our bases overseas and brought our military home so that they can be free to protect the United States rather than protecting multi-national corporations for the elite. Al Qaeda is attacking us because of our military presence over there, and this will not change under an Obama administration.
Every answer to every problem we face is in the constitution. Freedom works, and it has been proven. Anybody who tells you otherwise would have us submit all of our rights to the state.
Posted on November 7 at 8:25 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted on November 5 at 8:43 a.m.
There was a pornography class at UCSB several years ago, I imagine it's still going, though they didn't mention it in the article.
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on November 14 at 12:54 p.m.
syfr, can I ask you what crime was committed by the defendent?
Last time I checked we were protected by the first and second amendment for everything that went on that day.
On Overpass Gunman Gets Reduced Bail