How liberal/conservative are you?

[intothewoods]

I think the fear that clergy would be forced to perform gay marriages (that sounded so dirty) is overstated. I'm not saying it's impossible some wackadoo might file a lawsuit, but clergy don't have to perform all het ceremonies so why would they have to perform all of the gay ones either?

 

[RawHumor]

I think the fear that clergy would be forced to perform gay marriages (that sounded so dirty) is overstated. I'm not saying it's impossible some wackadoo might file a lawsuit, but clergy don't have to perform all het ceremonies so why would they have to perform all of the gay ones either?

I don't think it's likely, but all it takes is one wackadoo who feels that he/she is being discriminated against and then the NAACP gets involved and all of a sudden one guy in a small parish is faced with law suits by million dollar lawyers... once the precedent is set, the ball starts rolling...

Again, I'm not suggesting such a scenario is likely.

 

[graceanne]

Again, I'm not suggesting such a scenario is likely.

I am. We live in a society where you can sue because you spilled your coffee on your lap AND WIN! If an idiot can do something, they can sue about it.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't think it's likely, but all it takes is one wackadoo who feels that he/she is being discriminated against and then the NAACP gets involved and all of a sudden one guy in a small parish is faced with law suits by million dollar lawyers... once the precedent is set, the ball starts rolling...

Again, I'm not suggesting such a scenario is likely.

The NAACP?

Oh my, times will indeed have changed if every clergy person who doesn't perform a gay wedding loses a lawsuit and has to pay.

 

[Netzach]

I think the fear that clergy would be forced to perform gay marriages (that sounded so dirty) is overstated. I'm not saying it's impossible some wackadoo might file a lawsuit, but clergy don't have to perform all het ceremonies so why would they have to perform all of the gay ones either?

Srsly. If I show up at a RC church screaming "Marry me!" how far would that go? No one's using my waste of everyone's time as a reason to halt Jewish weddings though.

 

[Netzach]

You have a point about Joe. I'd be willing for him to get some help too but if he wants to keep playing ball with ADM, even when they're fucking him in the ass with no lube, then he's got no one but himself to blame when he loses the game. It's not our job to try and rig it in his favor.

As for Wanda, I don't know her trials and hardships either but I've met very few people who are so unteachable that they can't do something. Hell even training her as a bag-person would at least make her a productive member of society. Some of the best bagger's I've ever met are also the most mentally deficient (literally, as in mental retardation).

If she's unskilled, well that's the point of a job-training program. If she's fucked up then she needs to be getting help (working a program, seeing a therapist etc.) if she wants to continue getting any gov't money. In my experience, being unskilled is often a lack of opprotunity and education and is highly correctable if you give a person a chance. Being fucked up is usually the result of poor choices (not always but more often than not) and it's not our job to keep patting a person on the head and paying them to keep making more poor choices.

ETA: I did mention that I'm a bitch right? I'm selfish in that I bust my ass to support myself and my daughter...not Wanda and hers. I don't mind giving to charity but I am offended that the state forces me to do it.

Robin Hood is a cute fairy tale, not a justification for stealing from me to give to Wanda.

You cannot put a roof of any kind over your head in a city where you can live bagging distance from bag-it grocer without additional subsidy unless you crowd seven to an apartment. It is just *literally* not possible. I'm not trying to beat the drum for the sake of Wanda who could be the laziest loser on earth, but you're still going to be paying. Forcing such person into a min wage workweek for the sake of proving a point is still an expensive point to make, because it's simply not enough money, no matter how you slice.

It's not Robin Hood, it's a society. We're all here and should I ever get so fucked up (which is not the result of fucked up choices remotely as often as the result of hard luck and illness in combination, but that's a scary prospect to admit till you have to) I like to think I won't be wished dead by everyone I meet.

My meager 1200-2000 bucks in taxation could go for Wanda, a missile, school for other people's children because I don't have any, social services for other people's children, because I don't have any, playgrounds for other people's children because I don't have any - but I do see a VALUE in all those things.

It could even fund a golden toilet seat or congressional blow, it's just the crap shoot I have to take as a participant in this country everyone loves till it's time to pull out your checkbook.

 

[WriterDom]

You cannot put a roof of any kind over your head in a city where you can live bagging distance from bag-it grocer without additional subsidy unless you crowd seven to an apartment. It is just *literally* not possible. I'm not trying to beat the drum for the sake of Wanda who could be the laziest loser on earth, but you're still going to be paying. Forcing such person into a min wage workweek for the sake of proving a point is still an expensive point to make, because it's simply not enough money, no matter how you slice.

It's not Robin Hood, it's a society. We're all here and should I ever get so fucked up (which is not the result of fucked up choices remotely as often as the result of hard luck and illness in combination, but that's a scary prospect to admit till you have to) I like to think I won't be wished dead by everyone I meet.

My meager 1200-2000 bucks in taxation could go for Wanda, a missile, school for other people's children because I don't have any, social services for other people's children, because I don't have any, playgrounds for other people's children because I don't have any - but I do see a VALUE in all those things.

It could even fund a golden toilet seat or congressional blow, it's just the crap shoot I have to take as a participant in this country everyone loves till it's time to pull out your checkbook.

The truth is everyone you and I know will never pay enough taxes in our lifetime to fund the USPS for one quarter. And they could turn a profit if they would cut back to 5 days a week and make changes to the retiree health care program. But the limp dick Postmaster General, who makes 850,000 a year by the way, is powerless to make any changes without congressional approval.

Now you want government run banks and car companies? Good luck with that.

 

[JMohegan]

I think the fear that clergy would be forced to perform gay marriages (that sounded so dirty) is overstated.

Overstated indeed.

See the Supreme Court of Iowa:

The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”).




And Connecticut:

Finally, religious autonomy is not threatened by recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry civilly. Religious freedom will not be jeopardized by the marriage of same sex couples because religious organizations that oppose same sex marriage as irreconcilable with their beliefs will not be required to perform same sex marriages or otherwise to condone same sex marriage or relations.

Because, however, marriage is a state sanctioned and state regulated institution, religious objections to same sex marriage cannot play a role in our determination of whether constitutional principles of equal protection mandate same sex marriage.




Even the Catholic Church, to its credit, acknowledges the point. See Catholic News Service:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Even if all of the states in the U.S. legalize same-sex marriage, legal experts and religious leaders at a March 13 forum agreed religions will not be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

One of the biggest misconceptions in the same-sex marriage debate is that religious clergy may be legally required to perform wedding rites for gay couples in a church sanctuary, said a group of legal scholars, religious leaders, and advocates and opponents of gay marriage at a discussion on the topic at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion makes it unlikely that a church would be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary, said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.

 

[Homburg]

Overstated indeed.

See the Supreme Court of Iowa:

The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”).

Could this be a more perfect expression of the state's role in this? Kudos to Iowa's SC for getting it right.

Even the Catholic Church, to its credit, acknowledges the point. See Catholic News Service:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Even if all of the states in the U.S. legalize same-sex marriage, legal experts and religious leaders at a March 13 forum agreed religions will not be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

One of the biggest misconceptions in the same-sex marriage debate is that religious clergy may be legally required to perform wedding rites for gay couples in a church sanctuary, said a group of legal scholars, religious leaders, and advocates and opponents of gay marriage at a discussion on the topic at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion makes it unlikely that a church would be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary, said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.

To me, this idea makes no sense. Well, not the CNS' take on it, the ideas that churches will be forced into marrying gay couples. Nonsense. Churches have every right to refuse to marry anyone, and do it to straight couples all the time. When viv and I were first talking about marriage, her family wanted a catholic wedding. I refused to convert, so the catholic church wouldn't do it. If they can legally exclude on the basis of faith (or lack thereof in my case), they can easily exclude for sexual inclination.

 

[JMohegan]

Could this be a more perfect expression of the state's role in this? Kudos to Iowa's SC for getting it right.



To me, this idea makes no sense. Well, not the CNS' take on it, the ideas that churches will be forced into marrying gay couples. Nonsense. Churches have every right to refuse to marry anyone, and do it to straight couples all the time. When viv and I were first talking about marriage, her family wanted a catholic wedding. I refused to convert, so the catholic church wouldn't do it. If they can legally exclude on the basis of faith (or lack thereof in my case), they can easily exclude for sexual inclination.

The idea only makes "sense" as a tool for exploiting the ignorance of some Americans, in order to fuel opposition to gay marriage.

Iowa = support for Netzach's theory on solid midwest farming stock.

 

[Netzach]

The truth is everyone you and I know will never pay enough taxes in our lifetime to fund the USPS for one quarter. And they could turn a profit if they would cut back to 5 days a week and make changes to the retiree health care program. But the limp dick Postmaster General, who makes 850,000 a year by the way, is powerless to make any changes without congressional approval.

Now you want government run banks and car companies? Good luck with that.

Honey, the USPS is my lifeline. I use it literally DAILY. I have a much better sense of it than when I was just picking up stamps and mailing something once a month. It's pretty damn good. I can bug everyone at Lit because I can mail things right now while typing this.

I use endicia, and everything I use is sent USPS. Yeah, some shit gets lost, but UPS is satan incarnate and I never get anything right with them. Fedex = Ford Motors. They're not fuckups. However, they charge more than I want to spend and they're so paranoid about signature that my customers are supposed to sit home and wait all day?

The postal service has raised their game a little to compete with the privates, and is doing a good job of it. You'll have to try the DMV if you want me to get annoyed about a giant bloated process that takes too long.

This idea that every federally run thing is a giant sucking waste of suck simply is not true. I have to use one every day and I prefer them to the private competition.

Yeah, I do want government health care. We're so stupidly arrogant, what everyone in Australia is dead now? Everyone in Norway died of untreated swine flu yet? Better yet, it can be opt-in so if you STILL want UPS for your health care, go for it. If you want Fedex and you can afford it, Mazel T'ov. If you look at the post office and go "wow, when I really need to get something to Singapore they got it there in a week, huh" you can roll the dice with a national plan.

The only people who are dragging their feet on some other approach to this is BCBS. I've never been in a hell of paperwork with any federal agency not even the IRS like the one they put me through, so.

 

[Netzach]

Overstated indeed.

See the Supreme Court of Iowa:

The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”).




And Connecticut:

Finally, religious autonomy is not threatened by recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry civilly. Religious freedom will not be jeopardized by the marriage of same sex couples because religious organizations that oppose same sex marriage as irreconcilable with their beliefs will not be required to perform same sex marriages or otherwise to condone same sex marriage or relations.

Because, however, marriage is a state sanctioned and state regulated institution, religious objections to same sex marriage cannot play a role in our determination of whether constitutional principles of equal protection mandate same sex marriage.




Even the Catholic Church, to its credit, acknowledges the point. See Catholic News Service:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Even if all of the states in the U.S. legalize same-sex marriage, legal experts and religious leaders at a March 13 forum agreed religions will not be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

One of the biggest misconceptions in the same-sex marriage debate is that religious clergy may be legally required to perform wedding rites for gay couples in a church sanctuary, said a group of legal scholars, religious leaders, and advocates and opponents of gay marriage at a discussion on the topic at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion makes it unlikely that a church would be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary, said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.

In fact it PERMITS churches that would like to do it to actually do it, and not gay wedding theater.

Seems like it's not the people against who are having freedom abridged, but any church that doesn't have an issue is being told what to do.

 

[Netzach]

The idea only makes "sense" as a tool for exploiting the ignorance of some Americans, in order to fuel opposition to gay marriage.

Iowa = support for Netzach's theory on solid midwest farming stock.

Eh. Flighty and gov't paranoid midwestern farming stock. Robin hood, nanny state, and government run parking lots, run for your liiiives! Farming stock. Who do, grudgingly, accept that their 401K's bottomed out, and that guy looks like he knows what he's doing even if I don't like everything he's doing. When they realized that a lot of the left isn't coming to confiscate their guns they re-thought.

Probably a good way to put your finger on the pulse of the people you need to get into your fold to win an election - they're nobody's base but the mobile middle. Hint: they don't want to add piddly shit into state constitutions about bachelor farmers and abortions, they want a job.

A lot of them also feel very insecure from a you and your government perspective on the last eight. If Obama continues to play the Gitmo and torture issue all George Bush like he's going to lose the attention of some people who are not part of his left-wing base at all, they're going to get very disillusioned and go back to third parties and tin foil hats. That's a trend I can't see him weathering if it eats into the desire for clean up that most people are feeling on various levels.

Jeff Flake is an interesting republican to watch at the moment. He's taken a lot of black eyes from his own party, but seems to be the only guy paying any attention to his constituents at all. A neo-neo con? Doesn't win you any friends on the hill, for sure, but they're not hiring you.

 

[Keroin]

Honey, the USPS is my lifeline. I use it literally DAILY. I have a much better sense of it than when I was just picking up stamps and mailing something once a month. It's pretty damn good. I can bug everyone at Lit because I can mail things right now while typing this.

I use endicia, and everything I use is sent USPS. Yeah, some shit gets lost, but UPS is satan incarnate and I never get anything right with them. Fedex = Ford Motors. They're not fuckups. However, they charge more than I want to spend and they're so paranoid about signature that my customers are supposed to sit home and wait all day?

The postal service has raised their game a little to compete with the privates, and is doing a good job of it. You'll have to try the DMV if you want me to get annoyed about a giant bloated process that takes too long.

This idea that every federally run thing is a giant sucking waste of suck simply is not true. I have to use one every day and I prefer them to the private competition.

Yeah, I do want government health care. We're so stupidly arrogant, what everyone in Australia is dead now? Everyone in Norway died of untreated swine flu yet? Better yet, it can be opt-in so if you STILL want UPS for your health care, go for it. If you want Fedex and you can afford it, Mazel T'ov. If you look at the post office and go "wow, when I really need to get something to Singapore they got it there in a week, huh" you can roll the dice with a national plan.

The only people who are dragging their feet on some other approach to this is BCBS. I've never been in a hell of paperwork with any federal agency not even the IRS like the one they put me through, so.

Yes. To all of this. Trust me, the USPS is fine and dandy.

I have to deal with the stone age publishing world that will not accept manuscript submissions via email. *Grumbles* I mail my hard copies from this island and cross my fingers that they make the deadlines...but usually they don't. Sometimes they get there in two weeks, sometimes two months, sometimes nine months, sometimes not at all.

Canada and the US are rich countries, we have it good on so many levels. Most people have no idea. In fact, some of the things I hear folks complain about here just leave me scratching my head. But I agree that you guys should have universal health care.

Oh, and WD, the Canadian government regulates banks and mortgage companies. Consequently, no sub-prime mortgages or any of that nonsense. We'll still take a ding, since you're our biggest trading partner, but our financial institutions aren't going under.

 

[Netzach]

Yes. To all of this. Trust me, the USPS is fine and dandy.

I have to deal with the stone age publishing world that will not accept manuscript submissions via email. *Grumbles* I mail my hard copies from this island and cross my fingers that they make the deadlines...but usually they don't. Sometimes they get there in two weeks, sometimes two months, sometimes nine months, sometimes not at all.

Canada and the US are rich countries, we have it good on so many levels. Most people have no idea. In fact, some of the things I hear folks complain about here just leave me scratching my head. But I agree that you guys should have universal health care.

Oh, and WD, the Canadian government regulates banks and mortgage companies. Consequently, no sub-prime mortgages or any of that nonsense. We'll still take a ding, since you're our biggest trading partner, but our financial institutions aren't going under.

When the people who think that health care is best taken care of by the free market show me a plan that improves the status quo, I'm all ears.

All I know is that I'm supposed to think everything is going to get worse if we change anything.

 

[Keroin]

When the people who think that health care is best taken care of by the free market show me a plan that improves the status quo, I'm all ears.

All I know is that I'm supposed to think everything is going to get worse if we change anything.

Of course change is bad. Change is very, very bad. Only communists like change.

Here's another TV and a bag of potato chips, heck, we'll even give you a flag to wave. Now go sit in the corner like a good girl.

 

[WriterDom]

If they went to 5 day service and cut back on retiree insurance they would fucking turn a profit. All these union people keep cushy insurance plans when there is the government model. Medicare. But I guess that isn't good enough for a union man.

 

[Netzach]

If they went to 5 day service and cut back on retiree insurance they would fucking turn a profit. All these union people keep cushy insurance plans when there is the government model. Medicare. But I guess that isn't good enough for a union man.

Wanna know why it sucked as long as it did as hard as it did?

Pork.

Every bumfuck hamlet has a post office and thus someone's brother in law who gets to be postmaster.


I'm telling you, I really don't care. The service is tolerable, fast, and priced in reach. You think cutting benefits is going to help?

And I AND all my customers like seven days a week, and it is seven, if you're near a 24 hour branch. Small business doesn't sleep. The whole idea is to be commensurate with the private services. I'm paying in as a taxpayer to a service that eases, speeds, and is integral to my own business.

I deal with a million privately run entities that suck worse than USPS. No quality, service, or concern, competing only with cents on the dollar.

 

[JMohegan]

If they went to 5 day service and cut back on retiree insurance they would fucking turn a profit. All these union people keep cushy insurance plans when there is the government model. Medicare. But I guess that isn't good enough for a union man.

Why is it that right wingers so often bitch about the "cushy" pay and benefits earned by union members, rather than the staggering perks, bonuses, and salaries of executives?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking.

 

[Netzach]

Why is it that right wingers so often bitch about the "cushy" pay and benefits earned by union members, rather than the staggering perks, bonuses, and salaries of executives?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking.

Right. Because postal employees should have to retire and eat cat food, that will really help. And I'm supposed to be into social levelling.

 

[Keroin]

Why is it that right wingers so often bitch about the "cushy" pay and benefits earned by union members, rather than the staggering perks, bonuses, and salaries of executives?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking.

You mean like this?

 

[WriterDom]

Why is it that right wingers so often bitch about the "cushy" pay and benefits earned by union members, rather than the staggering perks, bonuses, and salaries of executives?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking.

It's called capitalism. Not many people can run a Fortune 500 company. The market sets the price just as it does for people who can throw a baseball 100 mph. Why does Georgia pay Mark Richt almost 3 million dollars to coach football when any generic coach would work for a million? Because he wins.

The unions killed the car companies by paying workers over 70 dollars an hour for turning bolts with an air wrench. When Toyota and Honda was paying 50 dollars an hour. I don't know about you, but I'd rather make 50 dollars an hour at a company who will be successful than 70 at one who might not survive. And that is counting benefits.

They might not be in such a mess if Chrysler was allowed to fail 30 years ago or whenever it was. I'll never set foot on a Chrysler or GM lot.

 

[WriterDom]

Right. Because postal employees should have to retire and eat cat food, that will really help. And I'm supposed to be into social levelling.

No, they make pretty good money I imagine. I just think they should use government medical that you are always harping on.

 

[Keroin]

It's called capitalism. Not many people can run a Fortune 500 company.

Yes, but apparently just about any of them can run a Fortune 500 Company into the ground. Heck, I'll bankrupt your company for half of what those CEOs are getting paid and I won't even ask for a private jet!

Capitalism is a nice theory. In reality, not so good.

 

[Shankara20]

Now go sit in the corner like a good girl.

yes Ma'am....


​