Posted by Tina
The next time you write that big fat check for healthcare coverage for yourself or your employees think about the billions of dollars transferred to Californians so their healthcare insurance could be a cheap:
That federal aid went to about 800,000 California households, state officials said Monday. Those individuals and families paid $1.1 billion in premiums themselves, meaning for every dollar they spent the federal government paid an additional $3 to their health insurer.
Nearly 90% of enrollees in the Covered California exchange qualified for financial help based on their income. The average monthly subsidy was $436 per household, according to the state.
Okay that’s bad, but you just wait till next year!
Breitbart has details of a new report:
In a report entitled “Immigrants Tend to Live in High Welfare Benefit States,” published on Jan. 26, 2015, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) determined that “the generous welfare benefits offered by some states have magnetic effects and alter the geographic sorting of immigrants in the United States”-attracting many to California.
And we wonder why we’re feeling like we have no representation in this state.
Here’s a PS to that sad California tale: The California DMV has been ordered to “overlook identity theft by illegals.” (The crazy never stops!)
Wonder how many who choose to not work will come here because their state cut the extended unemployment benefits.
Study: 60 percent of 2014 job growth caused by expiration of unemployment benefits:
“The authors found that employment grew fastest in states that had high unemployment benefits before benefit extensions expired. This suggests that high unemployment benefits had been holding back job creation in these states, causing them to catch up quickly once benefits fell closer to those in low-benefit states.
The study gives ammo to conservatives who argue that welfare benefits for able-bodied adults encourage people to live off government handouts instead of seeking work. Only 62.7 percent of civilians are members of the labor force, the lowest rate since 1978. Participation was even lower prior to women joining the labor force at accelerated rates in the 1970s.
Labor force participation is down three percentage points since President Obama took office in 2009. It has fallen only 0.1 percentage points since unemployment benefits were cut in December 2013.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-60-percent-of-2014-job-growth-caused-by-expiration-of-unemployment-benefits/article/2559267
DMV article: So, we now have kings in DC and Sacramento who are picking and choosing which of our laws will be enforced.
Off Topic:
Also, did you see this? Obama says he won’t meet with Netanyahu because his visit to the US is too close to Israel’s election and doesn’t want to appear to affect their election. But Obama’s election team is now in Israel working on getting Netanyahu’s opponent elected.
Obama allegedly deploys ‘hit team’ to Israel to defeat Netanyahu in election:
“According to the left-wing newspaper, Haaretz, which is Israel’s answer to the New York Times — and admittedly does not endorse Netanyahu and his political party — the Obama administration sent what can be characterized as an anti-Netanyahu campaign team to Israel to defeat the former special forces officer and war hero in his reelection.
“Obama won’t meet Benjamin Netanyahu Washington when he addresses the [U.S.] Congress in March because of Netanyahu’s visit’s proximity to the Israeli elections. And Obama, of course believes in protocol and propriety which is why he won’t get involved. No, he’s not getting involved at all. He’s just sending his 2012 field campaign manager to Israel to run a campaign to defeat Netanyahu. That’s all. No interference whatsoever,” said noted journalist and author Caroline Glick who covers the Israeli war on Islamic terrorism.
Haaretz reporter Roy Arad revealed in his article that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice,” is bankrolling the 2015 campaign to defeat Netanyahu’s national camp in the March 2015 Knesset Elections. While the team from the United States — headed by Obama’s national field director in 2012, Jeremy Bird — is not there to help an opposing political party, they just want to make sure the winner of the election is “just not Bibi,” a reference to the nickname given to Netanyahu by those who love and admire him. The fact that the Obama team is handling the task as not campaigning on behalf of any candidate, the U.S. cash spent on the anti-campaign operation is immune to Israel’s campaign finance laws. One Voice is a pro-Palistinian organization that is funded by left-wing Jews who oppose Israel and favor the Palestinians.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-allegedly-deploys-hit-team-to-israel-to-defeat-netanyahu-election
Peggy California is paving the road to destruction faster than even they can imagine. Narcissist don’t look to the future or to unintended consequences.
I did see that piece in Haaretz about Obama’s team working in Israel to defeat Netanyahu.
According to The Free Beacon the group, One Voice, is funded by the State Department!
I was very happy to hear Boehner has invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress!
My first thought was, “It’s about time someone showed that Imperial tyrant in the White House that other leaders of our co-equal branches of government also have phones and pens!
My first thought on Boehner inviting Netanyahu to speak was it’s about time he grew a pair. Sorry, but I did.
With “co-equal branches of government” he has every right to invite whomever he wants. He doesn’t need the president’s approval just like the president doesn’t need Congress’ approval.
The hypocrisy of this administration is just mind blowing. They really do think we are all stupid and will get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. Obama really believes the 2014 election wasn’t about him and his policies even though he said they were on the ballot.
I also heard his campaign team has done this same thing in other countries. So, it makes since why they are on the State Dept.’s payroll to influence other countries election outcome. With Israel though it is a direct slap in the face of millions of Americans who have supported Israel and always will.
With this administration’s failure of supporting leaders friendly to America and other freedom loving countries they should not be spending our tax dollars helping set up more dictators who want to destroy us.
Steve Forbes refers to Netanyahu as the “Churchill of our time.”
I absolutely agree and can’t wait to read his speech!
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/bibi_netanyahu_ranks_high_as_racist_demagogue_20070119/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10710700/Netanyahus-sued-by-former-caretaker-over-racist-and-physical-abuse.html
Bibi is using our congress to campaign. That is why we do not get involved with heads of states during another countries elections.
In fact there is questions all over the place.
There are legal questions as well. But again he will lobby for that war in iran everybody wants so bad. We can not stop making weapons and war! There is money to be made.
This is unacceptable and legally questionable behavior.
The Democracy is gone.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/05/anyone-but-bibi-israel-election-netanyahu-poll
That rumbling sound you hear is being made by moving vans as they transport Taxifornia residents to other states.
Soon, all that will be left are Illegal Aliens and Demwits.
Robert Schneider thanks for commenting we appreciate hearing from new voices and welcome your opinions and those of the resources you cite.
With respect, your accusations are dead wrong. But to be fair I’d like evidence that Netanyahu is racist; can you produce examples? Just saying he is racist doesn’t cut it.
Netanyahu quote: “Israel will always preserve full equal rights, both personal and civil, of all citizens of the state of Israel, Jews and non-Jews as one.”
Israels Knesset in Israel has Arab and Palestinian representatives. Israels schools welcome all children.
The nation and Bibi are guilty only of defending themselves.
Bibi is using our Congress to inform those who represent us about the nuclear threat Iran poses.
A request for this invitation was sent to the WH last year following the protocols, and the President’s staff never bothered to respond…not even a polite no. The administration operates outside of protocols constantly itself.
Obama associated, state department sponsored political action committee, “OneVoice” is openly campaigning in Israel to try to defeat Netanyahu.
The administration has declared outright that it does not intend to cooperate with Congress, “I have a phone and a pen,” warning the Congress to send only bills he will sign…my way or the highway!
Our President has treated America’s allies with contempt, in particular, Israel. He has not earned the respect you seem to think he’s owed.
Something is rotten in DC and it begins at the head. Obama’s bumbling incompetence will put nukes in the hands of terrorists. His negotiating plan is to clear the way for Iran to supply them. Nobody wants a war with Iran. Unfortunately our third grade level leader is happily paving the way for it to happen.
What “democracy?”
America is a republic!
The Prez is doing everything he possibly can to destroy it! He calls it “fundamental transformation.”
Once again Obama is caught in another lie.
From the Times of Israel:
Actually, a US president did host an Israeli PM just before elections:
“Denying it is snubbing Netanyahu, White House cites ‘long-standing practice’ of not inviting candidates close to polling day. So what was Clinton doing with Peres in 1996?
In 1996, prime minister Shimon Peres, fighting a close campaign against challenger Netanyahu, visited the Clinton White House on April 30, just less than a month ahead of the May 29 elections.
Peres’s substantial lead, in the aftermath of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, was crumbling due to a series of suicide bombings in early spring. In town for the AIPAC annual conference, as Netanyahu will be, Peres met with Clinton in ostensible preparation for additional work on peace agreements with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. In the wake of the March 1996 bombing spree that killed 62 Israelis, Peres and Clinton signed an anti-terrorism agreement at a ceremony – one of three separate meetings that Peres held with Clinton that week amid myriad photo-ops.
Despite Clinton’s attempts to shore-up Peres’s claim that he could offer Israelis security as well as peace, Netanyahu – who ran promising exactly that – narrowly defeated Peres. Still, Clinton’s first move after the elections was to reach out to Netanyahu and invite him to the White House.”
Read more: Actually, a US president did host an Israeli PM just before elections | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/actually-a-us-president-did-host-an-israeli-pm-just-before-elections/#ixzz3QF2lybFz
Tina: “Unfortunately our third grade level leader is happily paving the way for it to happen.
What “democracy?”
America is a republic!”
A republic is a type of democracy. Most students are taught this fact in 8th grade.
I continue to be baffled as to why you think revealing your own ignorance directly after accusing someone else of being ignorant is a winning strategy.
Nice try Chris.
The problem today is students, including you, are no longer taught that we live in a republic and no, they are not the same thing:
Got it? Now:
It might serve you well to learn to appreciate the difference!
Tina, none of that changes the fact that a republic is a type of democracy. That is a fact.
We live in a republic. We also live in a democracy. These two statements are not “antithetical,” as your source falsely claims.
Numerous presidents, including President George W. Bush, have referred to America as a democracy. You have done so on this very blog once or twice in the past.
You know all of this; I will never understand why you so often pretend to be more ignorant than you really are.
Well I might have known that you wouldn’t be able to absorb the very important difference and distinction…but then you’re so aligned with Marx who could expect it!
We still have a democracy, of sorts, but we are fast losing the republic and we can thank the love of Marx for that one.
I will never understand why you think that simply calling me ignorant somehow makes you appear clever and superior. So much for understanding.
Tina: “We still have a democracy, of sorts, but we are fast losing the republic”
You could have said this five comments ago and saved us this pointless argument. Instead you said “What democracy?” which is obviously a completely different argument from the one you’re making now. You move the goalposts all the time.
I do not simply call you ignorant. I demonstrate your ignorance by showing you your own words and how they fail to comport with reality.
You said “What democracy?” which clearly suggested that you did not know that a republic was a form of democracy. But you DID know this, you simply pretended not to. Yours is a willfull ignorance.
David Buckner weighs in on the state of the world economy and the future of Europe.
http://www.video.theblaze.com/video/topic/97322792/v37181577/david-buckner
Chris try responding to my comment at #10 without the same idiot cliff note type of objection and then dare to call me ignorant or pretentious again!
Refusing to recognize our republic and the importance in the distinction between a democracy and a republic, renders you ineligible to comment. I do recognize that it would be difficult to get it and still hold on to your socialist dogma. Progressive leftism depends on the bullying power of a majority!
Lord you are an arrogant! A nit picking, PC, progressive player:
From the same PJ Media article, “James Antle…‘Political correctness is to empathy, mutual respect and human decency as Marxism is to compassion. Both transform noble impulses into joyless acts of ideological coercion.’”
Chris you don’t communicate, as I’ve said, but perhaps one of the reasons is that your education has been limited and narrow. First learn the significant difference that made our founders create this nation as a republic and the VALUE in keeping it that way, then get back to me.
And the “source” is a book researched ans sourced from the Federalist Papers and various writings of our Founding Fathers.
I wrote that we “still have a democracy of sorts” because we have not yet fallen completely to the Marxist incursion waged by the progressive majority BUT we are, through their decades long steady efforts, losing the republic…just as Franklin predicted could happen.
Get it? Doubt it!
Peggy it’s enough to keep you up at night. We do live in interesting times.
Tina: “Refusing to recognize our republic”
But I DO recognize that we are a republic. That was clear in my first comment n the subject, when I said:
“A republic is a type of democracy.”
I never denied that we are a republic. I was saying that we are both a republic AND a democracy.
You did deny that we were a democracy, when you said:
“What ‘democracy?'”
You then continued this denial into comment #10.
You did not acknowledge that our republic is a type of democracy until comment #12, when you said “We still have a democracy, of sorts,” but you never acknowledged your initial error in saying “What ‘democracy?'” There is no rational interpretation of that two word sentence that is not a denial that our republic is a type of democracy.
I did not object to your false suggestion that our republic is not a type of democracy because it is “politically incorrect.” I objected because it was factually incorrect.
The determination of conservatives to conflate “political correctness” with factual corrections has served to dilute the former term in such a way as to render it utterly meaningless, and worse, to diminish the importance of facts and draw a false equivalence between opinions and objective reality. Ironically, “political correctness” has now come to mean simply any statement made that conservatives don’t agree with.
I’m no fan of Ayn Rand or objectivism, but this writer talks a lot of sense about the overuse of the term “political correctness” on the right:
“I have become suspicious of the concept of “political correctness” for the very reason that, as a term, it too seems to lump together disparate phenomena. PC is often a catch-all smear that includes both real silliness as well as defensible secular humanism. Too often we hear quite rational and legitimate objections to things such as the use of the word God in the US Pledge of Allegiance or calls to remove representations of religious imagery such as bibles and crosses from government buildings derided as “PC”. Why then would a libertarian want to use a term that groups together a commitment to secularism with such things as state enforcement of cultural sensitivity? One is legitimate, the other illegitimate. Yet both, in common parlance, are considered examples of “PC”.
We could just say, I suppose, that it’s not PC to advocate the separation of church and state, or to disapprove of (note I did not say ban) racist, sexist or homophobic language that, in the spirit of collectivism, sees individuals as stereotypical members of a group. We could, but I think the term “politically correct” has been used too much now to malign such reasonable, liberal-minded (in the classical sense) viewpoints.
There may be other valid concepts that we can use to criticise the obviously stupid and downright dangerous elements of much of today’s political discourse. We might complain that people get too hung-up on “cultural sensitivity”, for example, that they refuse to make a distinction between the West’s treatment of women and, say, the treatment women receive in Saudi Arabia. We might say, more precisely, that we are opposed to cultural relativism.
But should people who oppose–voluntarily, I might add–racist language and refuse to laugh at a racist joke or a joke about wife beating be dismissed out of turn as simply being “politically correct”? Might they not be onto something? For, after all, aren’t such things as racism, sexism and homophobia examples of irrationalism and collectivism par excellence?
Better we address the issues at hand than smear people with an anti-concept like “political correctness”.”
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Pritchard/Is_Political_Correctness_an_Anti-Concept.shtml
Reason? The problem with the PC crowd is that reason escapes them.
Anti-concept? The entire PC agenda is built on anti-concepts and policing every word and deed.
The very act of calling someone “phobic” requires some brand of prejudice or phobia.
The PC crowd thinks they are different and special.
Geez, just live your lives and shut the he77 up!
I like how you responded to an article pointing out the problems of overusing the term “PC” by just repeating the term “PC” over and over again like a robot glitching out of control. Absolutely nothing of substance in your last comment.
Again: there was nothing “PC” about my objection to your feigned ignorant statement of “What democracy?” I objected because what you said was factually incorrect, not politically incorrect.
If anything, the actual political correctness at work here was your attempt to hide and deny the fact that America is both a republic and a democracy over the course of multiple comments. The effort by the right wing to deny this is of course politically motivated and based on the desire to draw more positive associations to the Republican party. Using words to twist the truth to serve you politically is the definition of political correctness. So if anyone has been “PC” in this conversation, it’s you.
Chris: “I objected because what you said was factually incorrect, not politically incorrect.”
I didn’t mention “PC” until I wrote:
Which was a change of subject! I had completed my thought on the republic v democracy
So, I object because your objection is factually incorrect.
Bottom line, America was formed as a republic. And it’s the republic we are in the process of losing. In fact part of that process has been moving toward democracy or mob rule. Marxist bullies, the radical left, love democracy! it works hand in hand with revolution on the march toward tyranny!
The point isn’t that the terms haven’t been used interchangeably.
The point is that the distinction between the two, as forms of government, is extremely significant and not known or understood by too many of our citizens.
Diddle away, Chris.
Tina: “fact part of that process has been moving toward democracy or mob rule.”
Except that you also complain about the courts “overturning the will of the people” whenever they do their duty of striking down unconstitutional laws, such as Prop 8. You are more than willing to use and defend “mob rule” as long as it gets you the results you want.
So yours is not a sincere objection; you’re just throwing arguments against the wall to see what sticks.
I recall saying that your side had won that battle. I’m not required to change my opinion.
The process for establishing law in America is legislative. Prop eight was passed by the people …twice!
The bullies in the gay community in California refused to accept the will of the people. They refused to use the legislative process.
Gay marriage has “won the day” through courts using activist judges…that’s the very definition of mob rule.
You don’t understand the importance in understanding the distinction about our republican form of government. It does not surprise me at all that you cannot discern the mob rule tactics used by the left to force their agenda on the American public.
Two decades ago the alternate lifestyle HAD TO BE ACCEPTED! Now suddenly they think they found a “right” to marry in the Constitution. Leftist judges no longer support the Constitution so they get away with these ridiculous findings of rights (abortion).
Like our current leader they believe the Constitution is a living document and much too limiting. They are destroying the foundation with emotional appeals to fairness that can change on a whim. It won’t be long till our God given rights will be meaningless.
I doubt you understand the significance and importance of those any more than you understand the importance of our republic.
My argument is consistent with our republican form of government.
Yours is entirely emotional.
Tina: “Gay marriage has “won the day” through courts using activist judges…that’s the very definition of mob rule.”
Bahahahaha no. That’s ridiculous and totally contradictory to your earlier quote, which said this about a Republic:
“Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.”
In other words, the “will of the people” is irrelevant if it violates the rights of individuals.
The “activist judges” who “found” a right to marriage did so all the way back in the ’60s in Loving v. Virginia. If you want to take it up with them, go ahead, but I don’t think you want to be on the wrong side the integration issue.
Even if you don’t accept the long-standing precedence of the right to marry, which is the basis for overturning bans on interracial marriage, you have to at least know that there is a general right to equal protection as of the 14th Amendment, right?
Bans on same-sex marriage clearly violate that right, because they unlawfully discriminate based on both gender and sexual orientation for no compelling government purpose. Bans on same-sex marriage treat people unequally for no legitimate reason. Why can a woman marry a man, but a man can’t? That is clear-cut gender discrimination. What is the significant difference between a same-sex married couple and an opposite-sex married couple that can’t produce children? There is none, so allowing one to marry and not the other is unjust discrimination based on orientation.
I can see logical reasons for disagreeing with me on most issues. Abortion, Obamacare, immigration–heck, even climate change denialism makes some logical sense, it’s just based on false information. But there are no logical reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. I mean that in the most formal sense–there is no argument against it wherein the conclusions actually follow from the premises.
Your attempts to work backwards to invent a rationalization for your opposition, even if you have to contradict your other deeply held beliefs in order to do that, very clearly show your thinking and argumentative style. You don’t analyze the facts and then make a conclusion. Your conclusion is already made based on prejudice, and then you work backwards to justify why you believe the things you do.
That’s why you can say–presumably with a straight face–that a court excercising its constitutional duty to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority is an example of “mob rule.” That makes no sense, and any objective person can see that it makes no sense. But it makes you feel better about your cognitive dissonance, so you say it anyway.
There’s nothing more “emotional” than that.
To sum up:
According to Tina, a majority of Californians banding together to decide to forcibly annul the marriages of thousands of complete strangers who just so happen to be part of a minority group = NOT mob rule.
But the court deciding to protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority = OMGTotesMobRule!!!SaveOurRepublic!!!!11!!
This is not a rational or convincing argument.
Hum, interesting the fact conservatism also appeals to the LGBY community.
From Wikipedia.
LGBT conservatism:
“LGBT conservatism refers to a socio-political movement which embraces and promotes the ideology of conservatism within an LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) context. Gay conservatives may also refer to lesbian or gay persons with conservative political views.
The number of openly LGBT advocates for conservative policies has only become increasingly apparent since the advent of the modern LGBT civil rights movement in the 1970s, while many more LGBT conservatives remain closeted in countries where other socially conservative politicians have led the most organized opposition to LGBT civil rights efforts. The situation and ideology for LGBT conservatives varies by each country’s social and political LGBT rights climate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism
Log Cabin Republicans:
“History[edit]
Log Cabin Republicans was founded in 1977 in California as a rallying point for Republicans opposed to the Briggs Initiative, which attempted to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools. In addition to sanctioning the termination of openly gay and lesbian teachers, the proposed legislation authorized the firing of those teachers that supported homosexuality.[5]
While mounting his imminent presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan publically expressed his opposition to the discriminatory policy. Reagan’s contention of the bill—epitomized in an op-ed piece in a California newspaper—played an influential role in the eventual defeat of the Briggs Initiative.[6]
In the midst of this victory, gay conservatives in California created the Log Cabin Republicans. The group initially proposed to name themselves Lincoln Club, but found that name was already in use by another California Republican organization. Thus, the name Log Cabin Republicans was chosen as an alternative title. This designation calls attention to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. The Log Cabin Republicans suggest that Lincoln founded the Republican Party on the philosophies of liberty and equality. These principles, Log Cabin argue, are consistent with their platform of an inclusive Republican Party.[7]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans
GayPatriot:
“The internet home for the American gay conservative.”
(List of topics looks interesting.)
http://www.gaypatriot.net/category/gay-conservatives/
Looks like contrary to some Democrat’s belief that they “own” the gay right’s issue some of those gays have rejected the Dem’s platform and opted to join the Republican party.
You really don’t understand how our system is supposed to work, nor do you appreciate it.
The court chose to side with the so-called minority, a group that previously had championed their “right” to an “alternate lifestyle,” and placed a stamp of approval on changing the definition of a word, marriage.
We have abortion because the left convinced people that a human being growing in it’s mothers womb isn’t really a person and eliminating it isn’t really murder. We’ve evolved beyond that now so that the belief is that the new life is an unwelcome invader, even though the actions of the mother in most cases put it there. We have gay marriage because the left convinced people that words can be changed at whim to mean whatever we want them to mean. The evolution of this activist change could be equally ugly.
There is nothing rational about left activism. Left activism is emotionally based, manipulative, divisive, and built on newly imagined rights and definitions. That our courts have succumbed to this nonsense is a sad outcome of leftist thinking and a growing centralized federal government wielding too much power and control of our lives.
Peggy the views expressed at the Gay Patriot mirror my own. (Scroll down to “On long discussions and gay-related policy news”).
I’m not at all surprised.
It boils down to people living their lives as they see fit while minding their own business under a limited federal government and embrace of a set of manners that ensure respect if not agreement.
From Daniel Pipes, emphasis mine:
It’s no surprise that the video would incite outrage. That does not make it the sole purpose behind a planned attack on the anniversary of 911.
The administrations decision to alter the talking points and push the video explanation to the exclusion of other evidence is manipulative. Later excuses like, “the investigation is still ongoing,” demonstrate that the administration had no business pushing this video and insinuates political manipulation of an event prior to the election.
You don’t have to agree, it’s obvious you’re unwilling to even consider the strangeness that is evident to so many people, much less the testimony and evidence that suggests manipulation of the message.
I’ll sign off as you would:
Your position is based in blind belief rather than rational thought, you know that don’t you?
Peggy, I don’t think the left should “own” the gay rights issue; I hope LGBT conservative groups continue to grow. That would mean that they are becoming more accepted on the right wing. That is far more important to me than using the issue as a wedge to divide conservatives and liberals or for the left to score points with a minority group.
I think those groups will only continue to grow if the Republican party starts to shed its homophobic policies. The current Republican platform still opposes constitutional bans prohibiting same-sex marriage and does not even endorse civil unions as an alternative.
“The court chose to side with the so-called minority,”
What’s with the phrase “so-called?” Are you implying that gays are not an actual minority?
And yes, of course they sided with them; it was their constitutional rights that were being violated, a fact that you did not provide any refutation of.
“a group that previously had championed their “right” to an “alternate lifestyle,” and placed a stamp of approval on changing the definition of a word, marriage.”
Your emotional attachment to a particular definition of a word does not in any way overrule the constitutional rights of others.
The definition of marriage has gone through many changes throughout history. The Biblical definition includes polygamy. Up until about a century ago, the definition of marriage in this country meant that a wife’s identity and property were almost completely subsumed by her husband’s. Heck, opponents of women’s suffrage argued that women voting changed the definition of marriage, since votes were considered to represent the opinions of both a man and his wife. Some argued that interracial marriage changed the definition because it opened the institution to
“miscegenation,” which opponents believed was not the proper purpose of marriage.
I disagree that including same-sex couples along with opposite-sex couples is a change to the definition, but even if it is…so what? Legal concepts change definition all the time. When the definition is changed in a way that expands liberty, we should support such changes.
“Change is bad” is not an argument. The fact that a definition of a legal concept was changed should not, in itself, evoke sympathy or outrage, nor should it be considered a rational argument.
Words do not have rights. Only people do. If in honoring the rights of people to equal treatment, the definition of a legal concept must change, then that is what must be done.
“There is nothing rational about left activism.”
When you can provide one rational argument for your opposition to same-sex marriage, then you can make overly broad statements like this. As of now, you’re being a hypocrite, because your arguments against SSM have been entirely emotional in nature.
Tina: “It boils down to people living their lives as they see fit while minding their own business”
Only in Bizarro World does voting to annul the marriages of total strangers equate as “minding their own business,” while demanding the right equal treatment under the law is big government oppression.
“It’s no surprise that the video would incite outrage.”
So I take this as a complete walk-back of your original position that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi?
“That does not make it the sole purpose behind a planned attack on the anniversary of 911.”
No one ever said it was the sole purpose.
“You don’t have to agree, it’s obvious you’re unwilling to even consider the strangeness that is evident to so many people,”
When you live in a bubble you may think that more people agree with you than actually do. Despite the right wing’s attempts to make Benghazi a thing, no one outside the bubble really cares about this nontroversy. It was not an election issue in 2012 despite your best efforts to make it one. It’s nowhere near at the top of anyone’s list of concerns outside the conservative ragesphere.
Apparently it’s a really big bubble with these poll numbers.
Poll: 72% want the truth about Benghazi:
May 5, 2014
“Just over half the nation wants further investigation into the September 2012 terrorist killings of American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, in part because an even larger percentage of the country does not believe that President Obama’s team has told the full story about the simmering scandal.
Rasmussen Reports revealed in a new poll that 51 percent want the investigation to go forward. The House last week ordered up a special panel to investigate the killings of the U.S. ambassador and several others and how the administration handled the crisis.
Worse for Obama, Rasmussen found that 59 percent feel it is unlikely the administration has revealed all of the details of the episode. And 50 percent are not satisfied with the administration’s story they’ve heard.
While the polling firm’s results displayed a partisan split, the fact that a majority want investigations into the pre-presidential election affair to go on isn’t good news for the White House or Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time.
“Seventy-two percent continue to believe that it is important to find out exactly what happened in the Benghazi matter, with 46 percent who say it is Very Important.’ Twenty-five percent consider more information about the Benghazi case unimportant, up from 19 percent in January, but that includes just 7 percent who say it is Not At All Important,’ ” said Rasmussen.”
Continued..
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/article/2548064
From Rasmussen.
46% Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016:
January 20, 2014
“Most voters now believe the Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 died in terrorist attacks, and a growing number think Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations are likely to suffer because of the Benghazi affair.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That’s up from 43% in late October. Just four percent (4%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact, compared to 41% three months ago. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.”
Continued..
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2014/46_think_benghazi_will_hurt_hillary_clinton_in_2016
Hey Tina, I’m sure loving knowing there are so many out there who believe like we do. It’s kind of nice here in this bubble with them all.
Trey Gowdy is my elected rep. hero.
Trey Gowdy Is Coming After Hillary Clinton:
“Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) released a letter on Friday that said both Republicans and Democrats on his House Select Committee on Benghazi want her to testify about the 2012 attack that left four Americans dead in Libya.
“[B]oth the majority and minority would like to schedule the appearance of Secretary Hillary Clinton as soon as possible,” he wrote.
But as Gowdy has said in the past, his committee still wants to receive emails, documents and other materials from her days at State before asking her questions. According to his letter, State has said it is gathering those materials.
“We also set a deadline for the production of emails, documents or other materials in the possession of the State Department, which would be needed to constructively ask questions of Secretary Clinton and serve as a reference for the secretary before and during the hearing,” he wrote.
“Should the State Department not meet the deadline set, I will schedule another public hearing asking about the state of compliance,” he added.
It’s not clear exactly when Clinton will testify, but her appearance is likely to be a major event for the young committee, which was formed less than a year ago. Many Republicans blame Clinton for being indifferent to the circumstances surrounding the attack.
While Clinton’s testimony must wait, Gowdy also announced a new slate of interviews with current and former officials with knowledge of the attack. Those interviews will take place over the next several months.
Gowdy’s announcement came just days after he threatened to subpoena several officials — that threat was quickly dropped after the Obama administration agreed to provide the committee with access to several of these people.
One witness to be questioned is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff while at the State Department. Others are Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, former Defense Secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta, former deputy secretary of State Bill Burns, and former White House spokesman Jay Carney.
Gowdy’s committee is trying to learn more about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack that killed four Americans. But it’s also seeking information about how the Obama administration responded to possible threats before the attack, and how it handled the situation during and after the attack.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/06/trey-gowdy-is-coming-after-hillary-clinton/
Peggy thanks for the bubble report. Our arrogant friend has a lot to learn.
I’m also very impressed with Trey Gowdy. He’s the perfect choice to look into this matter of national importance.
Tina, looking forward to many more like Gowdy replacing the Boehner types each and every election.
I think you’re going to enjoy this as much as I did. Here are the results of a poll where 28 potential GOP candidates were given a letter grade. Who the people want to run to win is not who the media and established GOP think should.
Bubbling under the Top 25, in dead last place:
28th. Lindsey Graham (avg score) 60.33 (avg letter grade) D-
27th. Jeb Bush 61.94 D-
26th. Governor Chris Christie 62.96 D-
25th Jon Huntsman 67.47 D
24th. Mike Huckabee 68.26 D+
23rd. Donald Trump 68.33 D+
22nd Haley Barbour 68.42 D+
21st. Senator Rob Portman 71.10 C-
20th. Senator Kelly Ayotte 71.71 C-
19th. John Thune 71.86 C-
18th. Mitt Romney 71.97 C-
17th. Susana Martinez 73.77 C
16th. Carly Fiorina 74.09 C
15th. Mike Pence 74.69 C
14th. John R. Kasich 75.13 C
13th. John Bolton 77.50 C+
12th. Rick Santorum 77.55 C+
11th. Paul Ryan 78.06 C+
10th. Nikki Haley 78.19 C+
9th. Sarah Palin 80.13 B-
8th. Marco Rubio 81.61 B-
7th. Rick Perry 82.25 B-
6th. Bobby Jindal 85.12 B
5th. Rand Paul 85.73 B
4th. Allen West 87.55 B+
3rd. Dr. Ben Carson 88.99 B+
2nd. Scott Walker 92.02 A-
and…
1st Ted Cruz 92.47 A-
Peggy, any comment on the documented proof provided by Daniel Pipes that the video was a large part of the motivation for the attack?
Tina: “I recall saying that your side had won that battle. I’m not required to change my opinion.”
Well of course you are not legally required to change your opinion. But you do have a moral obligation to do so.
When you voted to forcibly annul the marriages of thousands of strangers, you did real harm to real people. Google the images of reactions after it passed. The contrast between the crying gay couples and the cheering Prop 8 supporters, whose lives were not affected at all by the law, is striking. When your great grandchildren see these pictures in history books, they will have the same reaction as my generation did to seeing images of segregationists jeering at blacks on their way to school.
(Yes, this in an emotional argument. Most moral arguments contain at least some emotional component, as they are based on the idea that other people’s feelings matter. I have given you plenty of logical arguments for SSM so you cannot say I am relying completely on emotion.)
On a basic moral level, you owe these people an apology. You took from them something you had no right to take, for no good reason. On a more selfish note, you don’t want your great grandchildren to be ashamed knowing that you were on the wrong side of equality. You should make amends before it is too late.
Chris: ” But you do have a moral obligation to do so.”
Excuse me? Since when does the state or you dictate private morality?
How do you envision this country? China under Mao, perhaps?
I was pretty sure you were a screwed up kid, lacking in basic understanding of your heritage as an American, but this? This demonstrates brainwashing, soviet style!
I don’t owe you or anyone else an apology for exercising the basic right to vote or for standing behind my personal moral opinions. I’m not in the least concerned about being on the “wrong side of equality” since this “special rights” issue has nothing to do with equality but equality of outcomes.
The gay community already shared the same ability to marry as anyone else. They chose to live a different life. Those who had children with the opposite sex and then turned their backs on that union to pursue an alternate lifestyle may have more to answer for, morally speaking, than I do and the perversion of marriage may, in the end, be the greater moral failing, morally speaking.
We’ll have to wait to find out the answer to that one when the one with the power to judge weighs in. Its not your job or mine, so in the mean time you can stuff your intolerant, judgmental, tyrannical bullying and preaching.
I agree with the following excerpts from Gay Patriot, linked above in comment #26:
Our government imposes all kinds of special rights and favors to some individuals at the expense of others. Marriage isn’t unique in this regard. A much smaller federal government would eliminate that concern for a lot of people not just gay couples.
I’ve seen you operate as a bully Chris, now I can add tyrant to the list of ugly attributes you possess.
Peggy I like the list and mostly agree with the order!
It’s amazing how long it is too.
#36 Chris, couldn’t find your comment with Daniel Pipes in it so I looked him up myself. There is nothing in there referring to “documented” proof. Pipes does write “unidentified persons”…” allegedly on the scene on the night of the attack.” “he does not identify the page in question. The claim thus remains unverifiable.”
On the other hand there is Mark “Oz” Geist, who is one of the CIA contractors there that night, saying he was out for dinner in town with friends and it was a normal night. That would include the drive to and from the annex plus the whole time they were all at dinner.
So, you still have nothing Chris, but some guy says he heard or read on some FaceBook page, but he can’t find it. Right!
Mark “Oz” Geist was there before the attack and he said nothing was going on until all hell broke lose.
No one knows what was going on in those terrorist minds. They could have been just some guys out for a walk one night who wanted to kill some Americans and decided to do it on the anniversary of 9/11. Could some of them have seen or heard about the video? Sure. But, every CIA person in both Benghazi and Tripoli said the video was not an issue in Libya. Which the Pipes article even verifies.
I’ll put four known individuals who were there against an “unknown” individual as the ones with the most validity.
“consists exclusively of hearsay reports from unidentified persons who were allegedly on the scene on the night of the attack. Kirkpatrick does say that by Sept. 9 “a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film.” But, regrettably, he does not identify the page in question. The claim thus remains unverifiable.
Referencing his own work from (quoted above), Rosenthal notes that
there is in fact hard evidence that the local Islamist scene in Benghazi was in uproar about the “anti-Islam video” in the run-up to the attack, and that this outrage figured prominently among the motivations of the assailants. This evidence is drawn precisely from social media.”
Daniel Pipes:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/07/did-the-innocence-of-muslims-video-play-a-role-in
Mark “Oz” Geist: (6:10 & 7:00)
http://news.yahoo.com/video/fox-news-reporting-13-hours-023959819.html
#39 Tina: The list is long because it was made up of those whose names had been mentioned as a possible candidate. The resulting grade was based on the grade assigned by each poll responder.
I thought it most interesting is those being pushed by the media and democrats for us are at the bottom while those they say don’t have a chance to win are at the very top.
Tina: “Excuse me? Since when does the state or you dictate private morality?”
Of course, I never said that. I will once again request that you only address arguments I have actually made, not arguments you have imagined.
I don’t believe that the state or myself has the power to “dictate” morality. I believe that morality is an objective matter that applies to everyone equally. Conservatives say they believe that too; in fact, it is fairly popular to accuse liberals in favor of gay marriage of being “moral relativists.” Perhaps conservatives really did used to believe in objective morality, but you certainly don’t anymore; now everything is a matter of “opinion” and “personal beliefs” and “the other side is worse, so why should we behave?” Moral relativism is now exercised freely, though not exclusively, by the right.
As morality is objective, I believe it can be determined using logic and reason. We have an obligation to use our god-given critical faculties to figure out the difference between right and wrong.
I have never heard a logical reason why homosexuality or gay marriage or morally wrong. I think the evidence is pretty compelling that there is no intrinsic harm to homosexuality. In order for something to be morally wrong, it needs to be shown to do some harm; that is the only objective basis on which to base morality.
On the other side of the coin, we can use logic to show us that treating people unequally for no good reason causes harm.
I feel that I demonstrated that your vote in Prop 8 to annul the marriages of strangers caused real people real harm for no discernible purpose. It served no corresponding benefit to you or to society to prohibit these people from getting married. Thus, your decision was morally wrong.
Now, you could have offered your own moral argument to show why you believe your decision was morally right. Instead you went with “Don’t tell me what to do you dirty Communist,” which…well, while not surprising, is certainly disappointing, especially to anyone who would be interested in having a rational or interesting discussion.
“I was pretty sure you were a screwed up kid, lacking in basic understanding of your heritage as an American, but this? This demonstrates brainwashing, soviet style!”
Because I believe in objective morality, and that when you hurt someone you should apologize, I am brainwashed? That’s pretty messed up and backwards, Tina.
“I don’t owe you or anyone else an apology for exercising the basic right to vote”
Yes, you do. Whether or not you had the right to vote is completely immaterial. You have the right to say and do all sorts of things that are hurtful to people. That doesn’t make it morally right.
“or for standing behind my personal moral opinions.”
Your personal moral opinions are objectively wrong in this case. There is no harm caused by homosexuality or gay marriage. There is great harm caused by legally enshrining inequality. The moral calculus is very clear. You are behaving immorally, not gays who wish to marry one another.
“I’m not in the least concerned about being on the “wrong side of equality””
Well, good to know.
” since this “special rights” issue has nothing to do with equality but equality of outcomes.”
That makes no sense. Gays are not asking for “special rights.” They are asking for equal rights.
“The gay community already shared the same ability to marry as anyone else. They chose to live a different life.”
As I have explained before, this is logically no different from the arguments of opponents of interracial marriage. They too argued that interracial couples already had a right to get married–just not, of course, to each other. They argued that whites and blacks were treated equally under anti-miscegenation laws, as neither a black person nor a white person could marry outside their race. You are arguing that neither straights nor gays can marry a person of the same gender.
Of course, that notion of “rights” is meaningless; the right to marry someone of the same race is meaningless to a person in love with someone of a different race, just as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is meaningless to someone in love with someone of the same sex. (In fact, your argument is almost MORE ridiculous; presumably, most people in love with someone of another race could eventually be happy with someone of the same race. On the other hand, someone in love with a person of the same sex unless they are bisexual, is unlikely to find happiness in a marriage to someone of the opposite sex.)
Furthermore, you have provided no logical reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry each other.
The court found the arguments of the anti-miscegenation crowd unpersuasive and without any legitimate purpose. Your own arguments will be found the same, because they have exactly the same deficiencies.
“Those who had children with the opposite sex and then turned their backs on that union to pursue an alternate lifestyle may have more to answer for, morally speaking, than I do”
Absurd. Most of those who did what you have just described did so precisely because of the burden of secrecy that was placed on their true orientations by social conservatives such as yourself. It was anti-gay bigotry that caused people like this to hide their true feelings and made them feel they had no choice but to settle for a marriage with someone they were not attracted to. You just got done saying that gays have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, and now you are condemning them for doing that very thing and later realizing that they could never be happy that way?
That is cruel, Tina. Cruelty is immoral.
“and the perversion of marriage”
There were people at one time who believed that your ability to run a business was a “perversion” of marriage. They had no more logical backing for their bigoted position than you do for yours.
Gays get married for the EXACT same reasons straights do. To commit to the person they love, to form a new family, and to have that family recognized on a legal and social level. To call that a perversion is offensive, insulting and–yes, I’m sorry, there is no other word for it–bigoted.
The “get the government out of the marriage business” argument is disingenuous. There are 1138 federal benefits of marriage–you are never going to convince straight people to give all of them up. These benefits were passed by elected representatives.
Furthermore, if you truly believed that the government should not be involved in marriage, you would not be in a government marriage yourself. Why did you need to sign a legal marriage contract when you married your husband, Tina? Wasn’t it enough to commit to the person you loved? Why did you have to have the government’s approval? Why did you choose to take part in a system of benefits which you yourself say is unequal? Are you willing to dissolve your own legal marriage and give up those benefits in order to show that you don’t need license from the government in order to have a strong partnership with your husband?
These questions are completely relevant and fair, because this is exactly what you ask of gay couples. You tell them they don’t need a license from the government or any of the thousand plus federal benefits for their partnership to matter. So put your money where your mouth is. Set the example. Encourage the straight couples you know to forgo a government marriage in favor of their own private arrangement.
Or admit that you don’t actually believe that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, and that you’re just using this as an excuse to oppose gay marriage.
Otherwise? You’re simply a hypocrite.