NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.
i didnt change mine.

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.

Finally figured out there's more than one religion in this country?

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.


It doesn't take a particular amount of courage or strength to support the right for people to do something you personally believe in and support.

It takes considerably more strength to support the right for people to do things you do not personally believe in and support.

Welcome to the side of rationality.

wtg

now go forth and convince others

Careful now. First you're a libertarian, and next thing you know, you're a liberal. :p

Seriously, though, what Sumamba Buwhan said--convince others now.

Careful now. First you're a libertarian, and next thing you know, you're a liberal. :p

Seriously, though, what Sumamba Buwhan said--convince others now.

Yeah it's really weird to be getting positive comments form people I've debated against...

But mind... In my view, being a Libertarian is, in some ways, teh height of conservatism, since it promotes a minimal Government and maximum personal reliance... Not exactly stereotypical liberal attitudes.

But.. meh.

Yeah it's really weird to be getting positive comments form people I've debated against...

But mind... In my view, being a Libertarian is, in some ways, teh height of conservatism, since it promotes a minimal Government and maximum personal reliance... Not exactly stereotypical liberal attitudes.

But.. meh.
well debating is not necersarlly beeing against.

But mind... In my view, being a Libertarian is, in some ways, teh height of conservatism, since it promotes a minimal Government and maximum personal reliance... Not exactly stereotypical liberal attitudes.


I never cease to be amazed at the modern US definition of liberal. *shakes head*

Careful now. First you're a libertarian, and next thing you know, you're a liberal. :p

Seriously, though, what Sumamba Buwhan said--convince others now.

Usually, it's the other way around.

The "US Liberal" (like some control-freak Republicans) is all about more government, more taxes, more restrictions on your behavior, and less individualism.

I never cease to be amazed at the modern US definition of liberal. *shakes head*

Just out of curiosity, what does the term mean to those in Australia?

Usually, it's the other way around.

The "US Liberal" (like some control-freak Republicans) is all about more government, more taxes, more restrictions on your behavior, and less individualism.

So......fundamentalist Christians are more often than not liberal (often minus the "more taxes" bit)?

Republicans are generally liberal (just as, if not more so, than Democrats)?

Usually, it's the other way around.

The "US Liberal" (like some control-freak Republicans) is all about more government, more taxes, more restrictions on your behavior, and less individualism.

Okay the first 2 are nominally accurate, but the other 2 don't make sense. Liberals are about restricting business and keepin gthe government out of the bedroom, and the last one just is a biased random throwaway statement. I checked the liberal platform there's nothing in there about being the same as everyone else (Oh and please look at the constant conervative "talking points").

Oh and to New Bretonnia congrats on seeing the side of rationality. :D

So......fundamentalist Christians are more often than not liberal (often minus the "more taxes" bit)?

Republicans are generally liberal (just as, if not more so, than Democrats)?

In the early 1990s, yes. Fundamentalist Christians that I know are also more likely to be "classic liberals" in the non-US sense - that is, less government, more individual freedom.

Republicans and Democrats nowadays are nearly indistinguisable. Both want a winner-take-all scenario where the Federal government strips you of the rights they don't want you to have, and both want the government to take your money and spend it.

Democrats in the US have NEVER been "classic liberals". They've always been for more government, more government control of your life, a reduction in your basic rights (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights) - it just differs from current Republicans as far as what they want to spend the money on, and which rights they want to strip from you.

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.

oh no, hes converted to the dark side!
only kidding,good choice!

what rights do liberals want to strip from you?

what rights do liberals want to strip from you?

The right to keep and bear arms.

In the early 1990s, yes. Fundamentalist Christians that I know are also more likely to be "classic liberals" in the non-US sense - that is, less government, more individual freedom.

Most of the ones I know think the government should be restricting people's sexuality, what they do in their own bedrooms, doing their parenting for them, removing science from the schools and/or injecting religion into it, etc., etc. Doesn't sound much like "less government" or "more individual freedom" to me.

The right to keep and bear arms.
Are you afraid?

The right to keep and bear arms.

*raises hand* Not me.

Just out of curiosity, what does the term mean to those in Australia?

In pretty much everywhere else bar the US, liberals are your "minimal Government and maximum personal reliance" folks (although the social conservatives seem to be highjacking our liberal party), and in the early days of the US, liberals meant just that too. (see classic liberalism)

That's why the labelling of everyone from centrists to social democrats to far leftists as "liberals" still melts my brain....although I believe that the concept of liberty is nonetheless compatible with leftism (and I would say essential), liberalism began as the ideology of private enterprise and capitalism.

Usually, it's the other way around.

The "US Liberal" (like some control-freak Republicans) is all about more government, more taxes, more restrictions on your behavior, and less individualism.
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day you'll actually believe it. It's what passes for a conservative movement today that wants to control the everyday lives of individuals, from who and when you're allowed to fuck and marry and procreate with to what you can ingest in the privacy of your own home. Face it, DK--the liberals are the social libertarians of this day and age. We're all about autonomy in personal matters.

The right to keep and bear arms.

They certainly don't for me...

Most of the ones I know think the government should be restricting people's sexuality, what they do in their own bedrooms, doing their parenting for them, removing science from the schools and/or injecting religion into it, etc., etc. Doesn't sound much like "less government" or "more individual freedom" to me.

1. Republicans usually want to restrict other people's sex, marriage, and fun (music, TV, video games). They are also against abortion.
2. Democrats usually want to stifle religious expression, take your right to self-defense away, force you to attend public, not private, schools, and stuff your kids' heads with what they deem to be proper (something that should be left to a parent - if they want an idiot kid, that's their right).

Most fundamentalist Christians just want the government to leave them alone. That's why so many home school. They don't want to have to fight over a public school curriculum, and impose their ideas on other people's kids (Kansas being a notable exception).

And both parties want to waste your money. If not on some foolish war, then on midnight basketball.

The right to keep and bear arms.

Thirty years ago, maybe. Today? Not so much. The NRA won that fight, and rightly so.

Thirty years ago, maybe. Today? Not so much. The NRA won that fight, and rightly so.

Tell that to Senator Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy.

The right to keep and bear arms.

not me

can you think of any others?

Tell that to Senator Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy.

There's only four liberals?

not me

can you think of any others?

It's part and parcel of the standard Democratic Party to fight to eliminate guns.

Ask the organization Handgun Control, which party they think is pursuing their agenda.

Shutting down private schools and shutting down home schooling is another one.

1. Republicans usually want to restrict other people's sex, marriage, and fun (music, TV, video games). They are also against abortion.Accurate
2. Democrats usually want to stifle religious expression,Bullshit take your right to self-defense away,Bullshit force you to attend public, not private, schools,Bullshit and stuff your kids' heads with what they deem to be proper (something that should be left to a parent - if they want an idiot kid, that's their right).
Bullshit
Most fundamentalist Christians just want the government to leave them alone. That's why so many home school. They don't want to have to fight over a public school curriculum, and impose their ideas on other people's kids (Kansas being a notable exception).First of all, the recent Kansas school district primaries showed that the idiot fundies still haven't won their battle to make Kansas the most bass-ackward state in the union. The fundies lost their seats--again. Secondly, I'm a perfect example of how fundamentalist parents can raise kids to believe what they want them to believe even while sending them to public schools. It took me until my mid-20s to shake that shit out of my head. And since you mentioned Kansas, I can only assume you're talking about evolution vs. creationism--that's not a case of schools trying to impose "ideas" on people. That's a case of schools doing their job--to teach science as opposed to superstition.

And both parties want to waste your money. If not on some foolish war, then on midnight basketball.
You're not going to want to hear this, but midnight basketball has been, in terms of money spent, quite the success. It's not the cure for what ails much of the inner city, but in terms of return for money, it's been quite good. Both parties are certainly good at wasting money, but the midnight basketball thing wasn't a waste.

Tell that to Senator Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy.

Control--not banning. Big fucking difference there and you know it. And the Democratic party line is that gun control is not a federal issue. It's a local one. Howard Dean put the nail in that during the 2004 campaign and did it again as DNC chairman.

It's part and parcel of the standard Democratic Party to fight to eliminate guns.

Ask the organization Handgun Control, which party they think is pursuing their agenda.

Shutting down private schools and shutting down home schooling is another one.


Theres your problem right there - Democrats are not liberals.

I dont want to shut down private or home schools either - I think both are great for people who wish to go that route, and I dont know any other who have a problem with those things.

I really haven't seen a fight againsst them in the national scene either.

Accurate
Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit
Bullshit

Not bullshit at all.

You're going to say that Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Ted Kennedy embrace the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right guaranteed under the Constitution, and that I should always be allowed to keep my guns and walk with them whereever I want?

Really?

Now that's some bullshit you're peddling. Mind you don't get any on your shoes.

Senator Feinstein

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." (60 Minutes episode, CBS).

Not control - complete ban. There are similar quotes for Schumer, Pelosi, and Kennedy.

And what does registration mean? Aside from historical precedent that shows it means confiscation, let's ask the ACLU:

CHARLES MORGAN (Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, D.C. office): "I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of record keeping procedure (gun registration) is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another" (in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime)

And a genuine person from the Left?
FIDEL CASTRO: "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") (Response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.



Hurrah. I knew we'd turn someone to the libertarian side. Thats one down....next on the list: George W Bush:p

Senator Feinstein

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." (60 Minutes episode, CBS).

Not control - complete ban. There are similar quotes for Schumer, Pelosi, and Kennedy.

I'd like some context here--was she talking about all guns, or about all of a particular type of gun? I suspect the latter, just as I suspect that you won't provide a transcript of the appearance on 60 Minutes. In 2002, she authored an amendment which would make it so only federally licensed dealers could sell .50 caliber weapons, so my guess is that this quote is something along those lines.
And what does registration mean? Aside from historical precedent that shows it means confiscation, let's ask the ACLU:

CHARLES MORGAN (Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, D.C. office): "I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of record keeping procedure (gun registration) is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another" (in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime)
From 1975. Remember what I said about thirty years ago? Hmmmm? And it's hardly right for you to link the ACLU to the Democratic party. They are not one and the same, much as right-wingers like to pretend they are.

And the Fidel quote is laughable.

I'd like some context here--was she talking about all guns, or about all of a particular type of gun? I suspect the latter, just as I suspect that you won't provide a transcript of the appearance on 60 Minutes. In 2002, she authored an amendment which would make it so only federally licensed dealers could sell .50 caliber weapons, so my guess is that this quote is something along those lines.

From 1975. Remember what I said about thirty years ago? Hmmmm? And it's hardly right for you to link the ACLU to the Democratic party. They are not one and the same, much as right-wingers like to pretend they are.

And the Fidel quote is laughable.


Conveniently for you, the entire transcript is not on the Internet. But that hardly matters. She did, in fact, mean all guns.

So does Schumer, Pelosi, and Kennedy. Oh, except guns for their bodyguards, and the gun that Feinstein carries concealed.

Why is the Fidel quote laughable? There's a total ban on guns there, and he's definitely a Lefty.

When the Democratic Party puts a plank in their platform saying (as the current Administration has put on the Justice Department website) that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected by the Constitution, I'll vote for a Democrat.

Until then, they're just blowing smoke about confiscating every last weapon.

Hurrah. I knew we'd turn someone to the libertarian side. Thats one down....next on the list: George W Bush:p

Wow I'm ranked just under Bush? Sweet!

Conveniently for you, the entire transcript is not on the Internet. But that hardly matters. She did, in fact, mean all guns.



just curious, What would you do if all guns were outlawed, DK?

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.The only thing harder than changing your mind is admitting it in public. Good job :)

just curious, What would you do if all guns were outlawed, DK?

Molon labe. Look it up.

I think that gun control people in the US underestimated the third rail, and grabbed hold of it. It's why some Democrats have learned to shut their mouths and pretend to be duck hunters in the hopes that it will fool some voters.

We're not fooled.

Conveniently for you, the entire transcript is not on the Internet. But that hardly matters. She did, in fact, mean all guns.

So does Schumer, Pelosi, and Kennedy. Oh, except guns for their bodyguards, and the gun that Feinstein carries concealed.

Why is the Fidel quote laughable? There's a total ban on guns there, and he's definitely a Lefty.

When the Democratic Party puts a plank in their platform saying (as the current Administration has put on the Justice Department website) that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protected by the Constitution, I'll vote for a Democrat.

Until then, they're just blowing smoke about confiscating every last weapon.
Tell you what--if you can give me a date that the 60 Minutes aired, I'll run it through Lexis-Nexis and see if I can find it. And by the way, you're the one it's convenient for, since it allows you to make a charge and say "oh, but I can't give you the context, so you have to trust me." :rolleyes:

The Fidel quote is laughable because this ain't Cuba, and we're not talking about Cuba. It's an attempt to link a dictator from another country with a major political party in this one. That's rare territory even for a Limbaugh type.

Tell you what--if you can give me a date that the 60 Minutes aired, I'll run it through Lexis-Nexis and see if I can find it. And by the way, you're the one it's convenient for, since it allows you to make a charge and say "oh, but I can't give you the context, so you have to trust me." :rolleyes:

If you have Lexis-Nexis, you should have no trouble finding it without the date.

It's also all over the Internet - the quote.

Other Feinstein quotes, just so you know where she's coming from:

Assault weapons pose a grave threat to all Americans, but most especially to law enforcement officers on our city streets.
Dianne Feinstein (admittedly only about assault weapons)

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
Dianne Feinstein (all guns here)

And in her initial quote, she said every last one. What part of "every last one" is ambiguous to you?

And in her initial quote, she said every last one. What part of "every last one" is ambiguous to you?
Every last one of that particular type of weapon, perhaps? You're not that dense, DK.

Time to chime in

I do agree that US "liberals" do fight for some personal freedoms, but are against others. Namely, the gun issue, which is already being discussed, and the religios practice.

Nazz called that argument bullshit, but consider:

The ACLU (Often viewed as the legislative arm of the liberal (aka progressive) movement) has been involved in numerous cases that can only be described as religious persecution. By making a point of eliminating every possible vestige of religious symbolism from public places, they're effectively attempting to sterilize public areas from ANY religion.

How does that limit personal freedom?

Recall the recent case where a high school graduate mentioned her faith in Jesus Christ as a factor in her academic success. They pulled the plug on her. Liberals across the country cheered, Conservatives were outraged.

Whose personal freedom is threatened? The young woman was effectively silenced for simply mentioning her religion. She wasn't proseletyzing(sp?), she wasn't pushing her views, she mentioned it in context. For that she was silenced.

I know, she was told not to do it in the first place.

So what? Should she not have a right to say it? Of course she should.

Molon labe. Look it up.

I think that gun control people in the US underestimated the third rail, and grabbed hold of it. It's why some Democrats have learned to shut their mouths and pretend to be duck hunters in the hopes that it will fool some voters.

We're not fooled.

I can see why assault weapons should be banned, you don't need a PKM or a ma-deuce to kill a deer...

I don't care about weapon size, you can have a feckin' 20mm armcannon if you want, as long as its single shot...

I can see why assault weapons should be banned, you don't need a PKM or a ma-deuce to kill a deer...

I don't care about weapon size, you can have a feckin' 20mm armcannon if you want as long as it isn't fully automatic o_o

What an ignoramous you are.

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal to possess in the US since 1934.

Some collectors own them, under the NFA tax program - and only a handful of those have ever been used in the commission of a crime in all those years.

The "assault weapons" ban was about the "look" of a weapon - not its basic functionality - which is why it was so stupid. And the percentage of criminals who use guns like that in crime is extremely small.

Yes, fully automatic weapons are used in crime on rare occasions here. But not legally purchased. And semi-automatics on the market are not easily modified to shoot fully automatic.

And a genuine person from the Left?
FIDEL CASTRO: "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") (Response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

Castro is not a liberal, he's a Marxist, slight difference there. Go learn some political theory.

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.
I'm certainly not one to offer you a cookie for embracing this particular stance on this particular issue, any more than I'm gonna offer cookies to somebody who finally agrees that maybe blacks and whites should be allowed to intermarry.

However, I do think you deserve a cookie for being willing to listen to arguments and adjust your stance based on new information. I think you deserve a cookie for being willing to openly and honestly admit that your mind has been changed by the arguments you have encountered. It is depressingly rare to see somebody willing to do this.

It's also nice because of the kill-joys who like to bitch about how nobody around here ever changes anybody's mind, and how none of these discussions matter anyway. I love to rag on the kill-joys and you've just given me ammo. You deserve a cookie for that, if for nothing else. :D

And a genuine person from the Left?
FIDEL CASTRO: "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") (Response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

point 1: This is Cuba you are talking abou. They don't have our constitution enabling guns.

point 2: You are using an extremist as a quote to define all liberals! Heres an example of why this is bad:

"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

-- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)


So basically by your logic, all conservatives believe that you must elect Christians to office, right?

Castro is not a liberal, he's a Marxist, slight difference there. Go learn some political theory.

I said he was from the Left. Learn how to read.

Also, more Democrats wanting to ban all guns:

MAJOR OWENS (U.S. Congressman): "My bill...establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns." (Congressional Record 10 Nov 93).

Owens, again: "The second article of amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of the United States is repealed." (U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY)

MEL REYNOLDS (U.S. Congressman) "If it were up to me we’d ban them all [firearms]." (CNN Crossfire 9 Dec 93)

I'm certainly not one to offer you a cookie for embracing this particular stance on this particular issue, any more than I'm gonna offer cookies to somebody who finally agrees that maybe blacks and whites should be allowed to intermarry.

However, I do think you deserve a cookie for being willing to listen to arguments and adjust your stance based on new information. I think you deserve a cookie for being willing to openly and honestly admit that your mind has been changed by the arguments you have encountered. It is depressingly rare to see somebody willing to do this.

It's also nice because of the kill-joys who like to bitch about how nobody around here ever changes anybody's mind, and how none of these discussions matter anyway. I love to rag on the kill-joys and you've just given me ammo. You deserve a cookie for that, if for nothing else. :D

Sweet! My favorite is soft chocolate chip... warm, if possible. mmmmmmm

Hey how funny is it that Bottle and I are on the same side of an issue? I think I read about it somewhere... oh hey, here it is:

The Book of Revelation 24:5-13

5. And I looked, and behold I saw the forum boards
6. and there were monsters of all kinds, with multiple keys and fast moving fingers
7. And I looked, and an angel said unto me
8. "Behold, for this one is called New Bretonnia"
9. And I looked, and saw a beast eating vast amounts of cookies
10. And the angel spake again unto me and said "behold, this is Bottle"
11. And I looked, and saw a beast that was feeding cookies to New Bretonnia.
12. And so it came to pass that the two were in agreement, and it was then that I knew
13. That Hell had frozen over, and that the world was at an end.

But seriously, thanks.

And both parties want to waste your money. If not on some foolish war, then on midnight basketball.
*gasp*

DK admits that the US fights foolish wars???

You talk as if you consider both parties to be equally bad, so why do you usually favour one so much over the other?

Why is the Fidel quote laughable? There's a total ban on guns there, and he's definitely a Lefty.
Come, Castro is certainly a leftist, but hardly a "liberal" and certainly not a Democrat.

*gasp*

DK admits that the US fights foolish wars???


It's a grand international tradition, especially a European one. And where do you think we got all of the original ideas for this country? I warrant that you would think less of us if we weren't trying to be traditional.

You talk as if you consider both parties to be equally bad, so why do you usually favour one so much over the other?
If I was a woman, it would hinge on abortion rights. Since I'm male, and have nothing to say about abortion (since I don't have a functioning womb), I find that my tipping point is the right to bear arms.


Come, Castro is certainly a leftist, but hardly a "liberal" and certainly not a Democrat.
I already agree with that. People just want to put that in my mouth.

Usually, it's the other way around.

The "US Liberal" (like some control-freak Republicans) is all about more government, more taxes, more restrictions on your behavior, and less individualism.

At least, that's how Liberals allow themselves to be defined by people like you who take great pleasure in defining things in their own terms. Orwell would be proud.

The ACLU (Often viewed as the legislative arm of the liberal (aka progressive) movement) has been involved in numerous cases that can only be described as religious persecution.
How trite to describe the ACLU's activities as persecution. Look up the Chinese government if you want to read about real persecution.

If they're out to silence free speech for Christians then why do they defend their speech too?

I think that gun control people in the US underestimated the third rail, and grabbed hold of it. It's why some Democrats have learned to shut their mouths and pretend to be duck hunters in the hopes that it will fool some voters.

We're not fooled.
You named four Democrats who are gun controllers. Does that mean that they all are?

Hey how funny is it that Bottle and I are on the same side of an issue? I think I read about it somewhere... oh hey, here it is:

The Book of Revelation 24:5-13

5. And I looked, and behold I saw the forum boards
6. and there were monsters of all kinds, with multiple keys and fast moving fingers
7. And I looked, and an angel said unto me
8. "Behold, for this one is called New Bretonnia"
9. And I looked, and saw a beast eating vast amounts of cookies
10. And the angel spake again unto me and said "behold, this is Bottle"
11. And I looked, and saw a beast that was feeding cookies to New Bretonnia.
12. And so it came to pass that the two were in agreement, and it was then that I knew
13. That Hell had frozen over, and that the world was at an end.

But seriously, thanks.
Ahhh, the soothing sensation of soda jetting through my sinuses...

:D

How trite to describe the ACLU's activities as persecution. Look up the Chinese government if you want to read about real persecution.

If they're out to silence free speech for Christians then why do they defend their speech too?


Ah gotcha. The Chinese are worse so we shouldn't worry about that stuff here. Right?

It's persecution when one can be punished simply for stating openly their faith in Jesus Christ.... in ANY context.

It's persecution when my kids can't read a Bible silently during free time in school because it's a religious text.

Is anybody getting executed or tortued for it? No, but does that make it a non-issue? Hardly.

It's persecution when one can be punished simply for stating openly their faith in Jesus Christ.... in ANY context.

It's persecution when my kids can't read a Bible silently during free time in school because it's a religious text.

Is anybody getting executed or tortued for it? No, but does that make it a non-issue? Hardly.
Correct, if true these are attacks on freedom of speech and religion, but I have a hard time believing that the ACLU do that when I've heard plenty of cases of them defending teens for quoting the Bible in their school journals, and such.

And believe me, I'm not a person who enjoys seeing Christians getting persecuted.

It's a grand international tradition -snip-
So you admit to supporting foolish policies?

If I was a woman, it would hinge on abortion rights. Since I'm male, and have nothing to say about abortion (since I don't have a functioning womb), I find that my tipping point is the right to bear arms.
So why aren't the many pro-gun libertarians on this forum similarly tied to the Republican party?

I already agree with that. People just want to put that in my mouth.
You brought up Castro. Comparing him to liberals would be like saying that Republicans are like Islamic fundamentalists because both groups don't look fondly on homosexuals.

Ahhh, the soothing sensation of soda jetting through my sinuses...

:D

SUCCESS! :p

Correct, if true these are attacks on freedom of speech and religion, but I have a hard time believing that the ACLU do that when I've heard plenty of cases of them defending teens for quoting the Bible in their school journals, and such.

If that's so, then media coverage of those events is woefully inadequate, and I find that a hopeful sign.

If that's so, then media coverage of those events is woefully inadequate, and I find that a hopeful sign.
It is indeed true that the ACLU frequently and loudly defends individual religious freedoms. I know it's obviously a biased source, but the ACLU website can give you a listing of some recent cases in which they supported religious liberties. (And yes, they do this for Christians as well as for "other" religions.)

It bums me out when I see some Christians talk about how the ACLU is anti-Christian. The ACLU is an ally for anybody who wants to have their freedom of religion defended and protected.

It is indeed true that the ACLU frequently and loudly defends individual religious freedoms. I know it's obviously a biased source, but the ACLU website can give you a listing of some recent cases in which they supported religious liberties. (And yes, they do this for Christians as well as for "other" religions.)

It bums me out when I see some Christians talk about how the ACLU is anti-Christian. The ACLU is an ally for anybody who wants to have their freedom of religion defended and protected.

I think a lot of that stigma comes from the times when the ACLU seems to be at the center of cases where public religious icons are to be removed. Yes, they'r eon Government sites, but it always struck me as a dubious argument that somehow individual religious freedom is threatened just because of a statue of the Ten Commandments is displayed in a courthouse.

I'm familiar with the arguments on both sides, but the inevitable result is that the ACLU emerges looking like the anti-religious force, rather than the advocates for it.

If they do support individual religious liberties in cases like the ones I described earlier, then I stand correctyed and am heartened. I guess the goal would be to clearly define exactly what constitutes a genuine threat to personal religious liberty.

If that's so, then media coverage of those events is woefully inadequate, and I find that a hopeful sign.

I think it's time for you to change your mind again:

very good thread on NSG showing that the ACLU is not anti-conservative or anti-christian (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446752)

EDIT to say: I miss The Cat-Tribe

I think a lot of that stigma comes from the times when the ACLU seems to be at the center of cases where public religious icons are to be removed. Yes, they'r eon Government sites, but it always struck me as a dubious argument that somehow individual religious freedom is threatened just because of a statue of the Ten Commandments is displayed in a courthouse.
Personally, I am not against religious displays on public land (that goes for all religions), but from what I know of the US Constitution it would be consistent with it to oppose religion on public land.

I think it's time for you to change your mind again:

very good thread on NSG showing that the ACLU is not anti-conservative or anti-christian (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446752)

EDIT to say: I miss The Cat-Tribe

As I indicated... media coverage of these events has been woefully inadequate, and I find it a hopeful sign that this is true.

Personally, I am not against religious displays on public land (that goes for all religions), but from what I know of the US Constitution it would be consistent with it to oppose religion on public land.

Actually, the Constitution protects religion from Government, not vice versa. The idea of the separation of church and state was to prevent undue influence by any particular religion by somehow having it affiliated with Government, as had been the case in the past.

There's nothing either implicit or explicit in the Bill of Rights that disallows religious artwork being displayed in any public buildings.

I think a lot of that stigma comes from the times when the ACLU seems to be at the center of cases where public religious icons are to be removed. Yes, they'r eon Government sites, but it always struck me as a dubious argument that somehow individual religious freedom is threatened just because of a statue of the Ten Commandments is displayed in a courthouse.

I'm familiar with the arguments on both sides, but the inevitable result is that the ACLU emerges looking like the anti-religious force, rather than the advocates for it.

Yeah, I agree that the ACLU does end up being cast as the anti-religion villain in a lot of cases. I don't think it's really avoidable, since I happen to think most of the cases they take are important enough to justify the cost.

But, then, I'm one of the people who feels that my religious freedom is tremendously violated by things like the above mentioned Ten Commandments statue. :)


If they do support individual religious liberties in cases like the ones I described earlier, then I stand correctyed and am heartened. I guess the goal would be to clearly define exactly what constitutes a genuine threat to personal religious liberty.I don't know that you can "clearly define" that kind of threat, because it's really all a matter of opinion and perspective.

A typical American Christian probably isn't going to feel very threatened if the icons of their religion are prominently displayed in government offices. A typical non-Christian is a lot more likely to feel threatened by the exact same stuff. Because, of course, the Christian's individual religious freedom isn't in as much danger in that situation! Objectively speaking, the two different people are experiencing different amounts of "threat" from the exact same thing.

Yeah, I agree that the ACLU does end up being cast as the anti-religion villain in a lot of cases. I don't think it's really avoidable, since I happen to think most of the cases they take are important enough to justify the cost.

But, then, I'm one of the people who feels that my religious freedom is tremendously violated by things like the above mentioned Ten Commandments statue. :)

I don't know that you can "clearly define" that kind of threat, because it's really all a matter of opinion and perspective.

A typical American Christian probably isn't going to feel very threatened if the icons of their religion are prominently displayed in government offices. A typical non-Christian is a lot more likely to feel threatened by the exact same stuff. Because, of course, the Christian's individual religious freedom isn't in as much danger in that situation! Objectively speaking, the two different people are experiencing different amounts of "threat" from the exact same thing.

True, but personally, I wouldn't have a problem if that statue was accompanied by incsriptions, say, along the walls of the room that were taken from the Koran.

To me, the Government should represent the people, and the vast majority of the people in the US are followers of some kind of religion. I think the design and decor of Government buildings ought to reflect that.

I'd like to share an anecdote that I think most people on here would agree is fairly extreme. It was a debate I had once with a friend who believed that church and state should be separated to such a drastic degree that public funded firefighters would not even respond to a fire in a church, since it would be a Government office mingling with a religious structure.

My fear is of us heading in that direction. Would it ever get that extreme, nah I doubt it... but that is a good illustration of the level of possible irrationality that can come of this.

True, but personally, I wouldn't have a problem if that statue was accompanied by incsriptions, say, along the walls of the room that were taken from the Koran.

To me, the Government should represent the people, and the vast majority of the people in the US are followers of some kind of religion. I think the design and decor of Government buildings ought to reflect that.

I think government buildings and monuments should reflect the shared beliefs and values of the people. As citizens, we are all subject to the same rule of (secular) law. That is what unites us. Our shared participation in our (secular) government unites us. Whatever our individual faiths or philosophies may be, we share in this much together.

If government buildings are to have displays that reflect the beliefs and values of our people, then those displays should celebrate that which we share, rather than divisive and exclusionary religious iconography.


I'd like to share an anecdote that I think most people on here would agree is fairly extreme. It was a debate I had once with a friend who believed that church and state should be separated to such a drastic degree that public funded firefighters would not even respond to a fire in a church, since it would be a Government office mingling with a religious structure.

My fear is of us heading in that direction. Would it ever get that extreme, nah I doubt it... but that is a good illustration of the level of possible irrationality that can come of this.
I agree that what you describe is totally irrational. If you worry about that, you should worry equally about fire-fighters not responding to a fire in a Jewish temple because we've decided ours is a Christian nation and our Christian government shouldn't mingle with heathen religious buildings. Both are equally implausible.

I think government buildings and monuments should reflect the shared beliefs of the people. As citizens, we are all subject to the same rule of (secular) law. That is what unites us. Our shared participation in our (secular) government unites us. If government buildings wish to have displays that reflect the beliefs and values of our people, then those displays should celebrate that which we share, not divisive and exclusionary religious iconography.

I'm gonna have to think about that one...


I agree that what you describe is totally irrational. If you worry about that, you should worry equally about fire-fighters not responding to a fire in a Jewish temple because we've decided ours is a Christian nation and our Christian government shouldn't mingle with heathen religious buildings. Both are equally implausible.

Definitely. My point of view is that the firefighters ought to put out the fire at that temple not only as a matter of safety, but because I would hope that as a community we would want to protect the religious building used by the Jewish members of our community. The firefighters represent us as a community, and that's why they act to save the building. We would want the same commitment for our own church, or mosque, sacred grove or whatever else.

To me, this mentality should extend all the way up, where on some level religion and religious expression in general are encouraged. Tax free status for religions is a good step in that direction. Atheism as a belief should not be excluded, by the way. No system of belief should take precedence over any other.

But then, I know that's probably a bit idealistic at this point.

Time to chime in

I do agree that US "liberals" do fight for some personal freedoms, but are against others. Namely, the gun issue, which is already being discussed, and the religios practice.

Nazz called that argument bullshit, but consider:

The ACLU (Often viewed as the legislative arm of the liberal (aka progressive) movement) has been involved in numerous cases that can only be described as religious persecution. By making a point of eliminating every possible vestige of religious symbolism from public places, they're effectively attempting to sterilize public areas from ANY religion.

How does that limit personal freedom?

Recall the recent case where a high school graduate mentioned her faith in Jesus Christ as a factor in her academic success. They pulled the plug on her. Liberals across the country cheered, Conservatives were outraged.

Whose personal freedom is threatened? The young woman was effectively silenced for simply mentioning her religion. She wasn't proseletyzing(sp?), she wasn't pushing her views, she mentioned it in context. For that she was silenced.

I know, she was told not to do it in the first place.

So what? Should she not have a right to say it? Of course she should.
Two points. The first is that the ACLU is not an arm of the progressive movement, much as the right wing likes to portray it as such. Some of their clientele in the past has included Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh and the KKK, for instance--and that's recent history, too. What they are is an advocacy group for civil liberties. That that is considered left wing by some is telling, I think.

As for the religion thing, however, they're actually advocating for free exercise of religion. They're saying that religion and government ought not mix, because that favors one group over the others. That means that if you're of a minority religious group, that the government cannot, even at the direction or behest of larger religious groups, force you to change your beliefs or worship. Keeping religion out of the public sphere is a protection to religious people, not an oppression of them.

Definitely. My point of view is that the firefighters ought to put out the fire at that temple not only as a matter of safety, but because I would hope that as a community we would want to protect the religious building used by the Jewish members of our community. The firefighters represent us as a community, and that's why they act to save the building. We would want the same commitment for our own church, or mosque, sacred grove or whatever else.

I would hope that schools, museums, libraries, and other such buildings would be valued at least as highly as religious structures.


To me, this mentality should extend all the way up, where on some level religion and religious expression in general are encouraged. Tax free status for religions is a good step in that direction. Atheism as a belief should not be excluded, by the way. No system of belief should take precedence over any other.

So there should be tax breaks for atheist and agnostic organizations as well, then?


But then, I know that's probably a bit idealistic at this point.
Hey, gotta start somewhere!

Every last one of that particular type of weapon, perhaps? You're not that dense, DK.
And I was right. This is the closest I've been able to find of a transcript of the 60 Minutes appearance, from July 9, 1995, which was discussing the assault weapons ban. Via Lexis Nexis:
7:02 Commercial Break

Lesley Stahl reports the assault weapons business is booming and gun dealers say it is because President Clinton moved to outlaw them, making them more desirable to people that want guns. The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION wanted a repeal of the ban but it was postponed by the Republicans in Congress after the Oklahoma Bombing. It may come up again in the Fall. (SB) Bil Perkins, gun dealer, says the ban is silly. It does not and will not work. (C) Gun show scenes. (SB) Perkins says Clinton has been one the best salespeople of guns around. He says that act put more guns in the hands of people. He says this has driven sales up. He says it was the best advertising campaign. (C) Miami gun show with AR-15, TEC-9, UZI. (SB) Clinton, in file footage, says we will get the weapons off the street. (V) Newspaper ad for MINI-TEC gun. (SB) Bob Smith, gun show promoter, says the prices are falling from the glut of assault weapons on the market. He says there are at least hundreds of thousands of guns out there. (C) GUNS UNLIMITED INCORPORATED poster at Miami gun show. (SB) Perkins says it is like playing the stock market and the makers upped production before the ban went in. (SB) Senator Diane Feinstein says if she could have gotten the US SENATE to ban every gun and pick them up she would have done it but did not have the votes. She says there is a potent part of the ban, that clips with more than ten bullets cannot be made or sell. (C) Clips exhibit. (SB) Clip dealer says there are hundreds of thousands of clips out there. You can buy any clips you want. He says there is an endless supply. (C) Police officers with guns. (V) Flier to police chiefs to sell clips from INTERSTATE ARMS CORPORATION with GLOCK FIREARMS. (SB) Doug Hamilton, LOUISVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT chief, says the offer sounded too good to be true. KEISLER POLICE SUPPLY could sell the police guns and magazines legally. (C) Firing range. (SB) Hamilton says the dealers want the magazines. (C) KEISLER POLICE SUPPLY. (V) Sign for GLOCK guns that are police trade ins. (SB) Hamilton says he thought it would be illegal for him to trade in the police guns. They are exploiting a loophole. He says the buyer could use them to shoot police. (SB) Feinstein says the trade in is wrong. She says there is craven interest in profiteering. She wants to stop it. (C) Guns. (SB) Feinstein says the physical features test is designed to keep the AK-47 from just getting the name changed to a MITCHELL this or a NORINKO that. (C) NORINKO gun. (C) TEC-22, SPORT 22 photos. (C) AK-47, MAK-90 guns. (SB) Gun dealer says there is a some differences between the AK-47 and MAK 90. (SB) Perkins says the bayonet ban was silly. (C) COLT factory interior. (SB) Ron Whitacre, COLT president, says the ban has nothing to do with defining an assault weapon. (C) COLT gun. (V) Ad for COLT MATCH TARGET. (SB) Feinstein says there is a very craven set of people that want to traffic in weapons. (SB) Whitacre says they blame him, he cannot understand it. (C) TEC-9 gun. (SB) Perkins says the TEC-9 is the item everyone wants because of the ban. (C) INTRATEC FIREARMS display at gun show with AB-10. (SB) Feinstein says if INTRATEC wants to thumb their nose, the Congress will do something. It is unlikely this Congress will pass anymore gun control bills.
The bolded part is the Feinstein quote in question, and from the surrounding context, it is clear that she is describing assault weapons that were included in the 1995 ban, not all weapons, as DK would have us believe.

Ready to back down from that claim on Feinstein, DK?

The ACLU (Often viewed as the legislative arm of the liberal (aka progressive) movement) has been involved in numerous cases that can only be described as religious persecution. By making a point of eliminating every possible vestige of religious symbolism from public places, they're effectively attempting to sterilize public areas from ANY religion.

No, they are trying to remove government establishment of religion. If the government chooses to display a crucifix, it is clearly favoring Christianity over other forms of religion. And since "public" places refers to those controlled by the government.....

Meanwhile, in the arena of personal displays of religion (rather than public ones), the ACLU has overwhelmingly defended the religious.

Recall the recent case where a high school graduate mentioned her faith in Jesus Christ as a factor in her academic success. They pulled the plug on her. Liberals across the country cheered, Conservatives were outraged.

"They" who? The ACLU? I doubt it, considering that they have intervened in numerous like cases on behalf of the students. Consider, for instance, the case of a girl whose Bible quote was removed as her senior quote. The ACLU took her case and forced the school to go back and alter the yearbooks they had access to, to apologize to the girl, and refrain from religious censorship in the future.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1263338.html

I think a lot of that stigma comes from the times when the ACLU seems to be at the center of cases where public religious icons are to be removed. Yes, they'r eon Government sites, but it always struck me as a dubious argument that somehow individual religious freedom is threatened just because of a statue of the Ten Commandments is displayed in a courthouse.

The devil is in the details my friend. Most people don't know the details in the rather famous 10 Commandments case. The judge in question clearly stated that his reason for including them was to support his belief that the US is a Christian nation and that our law does and should come from the Bible - certainly a problem for a court that is supposed to treat all citizens equally, regardless of religion. He also snuck it in during the night, with no approval whatsoever from the city, any legislature, or any other people. It was one particular judge who did all of this. When asked to remove it, he refused, and now he wants to act like he was all persecuted or something.

Note that the courts have held that displays in government buildings including religious imagery are allowable, under certain conditions. A clear case, like the one everyone brings up, in which religious imagery is included specifically to give the impression that one religion is favored is certainly a problem. On the other hand, the courts have ruled that monuments to the law and the various places it has come from can include the 10 Commandments with no problem at all. Even the Supreme Court has an image of Moses holding tablets with the numbers 1 through 10 (although the artist stated that the numbers represent the bill of rights, rather than the 10 commandments).

Note that the courts have held that displays in government buildings including religious imagery are allowable, under certain conditions. A clear case, like the one everyone brings up, in which religious imagery is included specifically to give the impression that one religion is favored is certainly a problem. On the other hand, the courts have ruled that monuments to the law and the various places it has come from can include the 10 Commandments with no problem at all. Even the Supreme Court has an image of Moses holding tablets with the numbers 1 through 10 (although the artist stated that the numbers represent the bill of rights, rather than the 10 commandments).

The other thing to realize about the Supreme Court mural is that the Ten Commandments are there next to the signing of the Magna Carta and Hammurabi, among other images. They're all symbols of law as opposed to religion.

There's nothing either implicit or explicit in the Bill of Rights that disallows religious artwork being displayed in any public buildings.
Isn't it considered to be a government endorsement of a particular religion though?

The other thing to realize about the Supreme Court mural is that the Ten Commandments are there next to the signing of the Magna Carta and Hammurabi, among other images. They're all symbols of law as opposed to religion.

Yup!

On the other hand, the courts have ruled that monuments to the law and the various places it has come from can include the 10 Commandments with no problem at all.

Teehee.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

You mean, you actually changed your views after debating/reading posts in NSG:eek:

Seriously, good for you.

On a personal note, I don't have anything against same-sex marriage. I have more things to worry about. Like arranged marriage.:eek: :( ;)

The other thing to realize about the Supreme Court mural is that the Ten Commandments are there next to the signing of the Magna Carta and Hammurabi, among other images. They're all symbols of law as opposed to religion.

So long as Hammurabi is clearly displayed alongside (as the clear inspiration of 'Levitical' law) I have no qualms about the 'Ten Commandments' being displayed.

And I'm ... a Libertarian.

Now, time to convert you to Socialist Libertarianism... :)

And I'm ... a Libertarian.

Now, time to convert you to Socialist Libertarianism... :)

Now, time to convert you to Socialist Libertarianism... :)

Libertarian Socialism.

Libertarian Socialism.
You can't be free if you're required to help others.

Two points. The first is that the ACLU is not an arm of the progressive movement, much as the right wing likes to portray it as such. Some of their clientele in the past has included Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh and the KKK, for instance--and that's recent history, too. What they are is an advocacy group for civil liberties. That that is considered left wing by some is telling, I think.
By defending civil liberties, they should be an organisation Libertarians widely support.

However, I recall the ACLU routinely supports affirmative action, and opposes holocaust deniers, and both positions run contrary to libertarianism.

Good For You!:d

You can't be free if you're required to help others.

If people would help others without being required to then there wouldnt be a problem. but they wont so we have to have higher taxes for the rich, and higher taxes than they would like for everyone. otherwise the poorest people could not survive, even if they didnt have to pay taxes. the base of society would crumble. your freedom is not worth that many lives.

on the initial gay marriage post, Im glad that someone has come over to the good side. Its also gratifying to see anyone on general change their mind about anything.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.

Welcome to the party.

Congratulations on your epiphany and your egress from the two-party system! It is far easier, and more satisfying, to live and let live.

By defending civil liberties, they should be an organisation Libertarians widely support.

However, I recall the ACLU routinely supports affirmative action, and opposes holocaust deniers, and both positions run contrary to libertarianism.Just out of curiosity, how does opposition to holocaust deniers--although I can't think of a case when the ACLU has backed one--run contrary to libertarianism?

I would hope that schools, museums, libraries, and other such buildings would be valued at least as highly as religious structures.

Agreed


So there should be tax breaks for atheist and agnostic organizations as well, then?
Aren't there? I mean, I presume that there are non-profit organizations out there that are tax exempt, and if not, I see no reason why there couldn't be.

Now, time to convert you to Socialist Libertarianism... :)

Isn't that, like, a contradiction in terms?

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.

Welcome to the world!

Isn't that, like, a contradiction in terms?

Its basically having a socialist economy, ownership of the means of production by the workers, without a state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The right to keep and bear arms.

What well regulated militia are you a member of?

Agreed

Groovy.


Aren't there? I mean, I presume that there are non-profit organizations out there that are tax exempt, and if not, I see no reason why there couldn't be.
The difference, as I understand it, is that religious organizations receive tax-exempt status even if they are "for profit." The Catholic Church is a glowing example; there is no doubt that the Church has pulled in tremendous profits through its activities (though these are decreasing in recent years), yet Catholic Churches still hold tax-exempt status.

Interestingly, the tax-exemptness tends to revolve around "religious activities" in particular. If a church were to open a store and sell items to the public, those commercial activities would be taxed differently than if they were to open a chappel where people came to make "donations" in exchange for religious services. The land on which a church is built will usually be tax-exempt, but the land for the church store would not be. That basically means that "religious activities" are the key...and that kind of fucks over secular organizations by definition.

In other words, secular organizations get tax breaks only when they are involved in charitable work, while religious organizations can get tax breaks both for charitable work AND for advancing their ideology.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.Welcome, glad to see another Libertarian here!

Welcome, glad to see another Libertarian here!

Depends what you mean by 'libertarian'. If you mean the received American version of it, it is basically little more than government handing responsibility for everything to the biggest corporations and monopolies and hoping that those who make a living grinding the last penny out of the proles are going to mysteriously develop a social conscience.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.
It's good to know that all our arguing over issues like this does occasionally change someone's mind.

The difference, as I understand it, is that religious organizations receive tax-exempt status even if they are "for profit." The Catholic Church is a glowing example; there is no doubt that the Church has pulled in tremendous profits through its activities (though these are decreasing in recent years), yet Catholic Churches still hold tax-exempt status.

Interestingly, the tax-exemptness tends to revolve around "religious activities" in particular. If a church were to open a store and sell items to the public, those commercial activities would be taxed differently than if they were to open a chappel where people came to make "donations" in exchange for religious services. The land on which a church is built will usually be tax-exempt, but the land for the church store would not be. That basically means that "religious activities" are the key...and that kind of fucks over secular organizations by definition.

In other words, secular organizations get tax breaks only when they are involved in charitable work, while religious organizations can get tax breaks both for charitable work AND for advancing their ideology.

That being the case, I wouldn't have a problem with a group that incorporated around the belief of Atheism, whether it was for profit or not.

IMHO, Atheism is often as much a full-fledged belief system as any religion, as vehemently as people sometimes argue it.

Can I give you a cookie anyway? I'm so happy!

http://img.buzznet.com/assets/users9/southeaststar/default/gallery-msg-1132820220-2.jpg


...or many cookies, as it may be.

That being the case, I wouldn't have a problem with a group that incorporated around the belief of Atheism, whether it was for profit or not.

Oddly enough, I tend to go the other way on this issue.

I don't think there should be tax-exemptions for advancing an ideology. I have no problem with tax-exemptions for charity work, but I don't think there's any reason to subsidize particular belief systems.

For me, tax-exemptions for organizations should be a recognition of a service they do for their community. I don't believe that spreading your ideology is a service to your community; it's kind of neutral, really. I don't think a community is necessarily going to be better or worse off if some group brings in the Jesus, but I think the community will be better off if there is a charitable free clinic open to all who need its services, or a food shelf open to the hungry, or a homeless shelter, or whathaveyou.

Religious organizations can provide concrete services (and they do!), and I don't have a problem with THOSE actions being tax-exempt, as long as secular organizations receive the exact same breaks when they do that kind of work.


IMHO, Atheism is often as much a full-fledged belief system as any religion, as vehemently as people sometimes argue it.
Heh. If strength of belief is the only criterion, then I'd say atheists more than hold their own.

Of course, all Christians are "atheists" when it comes to everybody else's gods. ;)

If people would help others without being required to then there wouldnt be a problem.
Most people do. Esepcially if they had more disposable income left over from not paying so many taxes.

otherwise the poorest people could not survive, even if they didnt have to pay taxes.
Perhaps not. But with a freer economy they'd have more opportunity to stop being poor. Sure, some people would fail and collapse, but I have no reason to believe it would be more than do now.

the base of society would crumble. your freedom is not worth that many lives.
And I'm asserting that you don't know how many lives this would actually cost.

Just out of curiosity, how does opposition to holocaust deniers--although I can't think of a case when the ACLU has backed one--run contrary to libertarianism?
Holocaust deniers are the one group consistently denied free speech. Libertarians are a big fan of free speech.

Most people do. Esepcially if they had more disposable income left over from not paying so many taxes.

Then why did they not in the era before taxes, public services and welfare existed?

Of course, all Christians are "atheists" when it comes to everybody else's gods. ;)
A theist cannot be an atheist. Atheism is believing in zero Gods. Not one God.

Holocaust deniers are the one group consistently denied free speech. Libertarians are a big fan of free speech.

They're not denied free speech in the US. They're mocked and ridiculed just like creationists, and rightly so, but they're not denied the right to speak. Germany denies them that right, but last I checked, the ACLU wasn't active there.

Holocaust deniers are the one group consistently denied free speech. Libertarians are a big fan of free speech.
Didn't the ACLU defend the Nazis' right to march through a Jewish town?

Then why did they not in the era before taxes, public services and welfare existed?
Do you have data?

People voluntarily fund churches (which sometimes do good works). People voluntarily give money to panhandlers. And again, in a freer economy, they wouldn't necessarily have to be panhandlers.

They're not denied free speech in the US. They're mocked and ridiculed just like creationists, and rightly so, but they're not denied the right to speak. Germany denies them that right, but last I checked, the ACLU wasn't active there.
Oh, well, good for the US.

Canada won't let holocaust deniers speak.

Didn't the ACLU defend the Nazis' right to march through a Jewish town?
Yep. It's the famous Skokie case, and like I mentioned earlier in the thread, they've defended such rabid liberals as the KKK, Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay, and boast Bob Barr on their governing board.

New Bretonnia, I commend you for deciding to stop advocating denying civil rights to a specific social group. It's a good beginning.

Deep Kimchi, give me a break, will you?

1) Castro is neither a liberal nor an American, so your mention of him was clearly little more than a gratuitous attempt to insult American liberals by association. Why do you insist on trying to turn New Bretonnia's personal statement into a soapbox for your personal agenda?

2) There are more than 5 liberal Americans. The politicians you named to do not speak for all of them -- and neither do you, apparently, as it has been pointed out that you misrepresented Diane Feinstein's statements.

3) If the American liberal demographic is burdened with extremist statements by a few nutters, then that is just another bit of common ground between the left and the right, as the conservative demographic is so sadly burdened by your extremist rantings. Kindly quit trying to make yourself the center of attention all the time. It's unattractive.

and neither do you, apparently, as it has been pointed out that you misrepresented Diane Feinstein's statements.
I'm going to give DK the benefit of the doubt here--shocking, I know--and assume that since he didn't know when the 60 Minutes episode to which he was referring aired, that he didn't know the original context, and was relying on whatever advocacy group supplied the quote for the context. That doesn't excuse his failure to note the context now, but it explains why he was misusing it in the first place.

In other words, were he to use that quote in the same manner again, he'd be guilty of misrepresenting her words. As of now, that's not so clear.

Oddly enough, I tend to go the other way on this issue.

I don't think there should be tax-exemptions for advancing an ideology. I have no problem with tax-exemptions for charity work, but I don't think there's any reason to subsidize particular belief systems.

For me, tax-exemptions for organizations should be a recognition of a service they do for their community. I don't believe that spreading your ideology is a service to your community; it's kind of neutral, really. I don't think a community is necessarily going to be better or worse off if some group brings in the Jesus, but I think the community will be better off if there is a charitable free clinic open to all who need its services, or a food shelf open to the hungry, or a homeless shelter, or whathaveyou.

Religious organizations can provide concrete services (and they do!), and I don't have a problem with THOSE actions being tax-exempt, as long as secular organizations receive the exact same breaks when they do that kind of work.


Heh. If strength of belief is the only criterion, then I'd say atheists more than hold their own.

Of course, all Christians are "atheists" when it comes to everybody else's gods. ;)

I was thinking... maybe it wouldn't be such a terrible idea for religious organizations to pay taxes if they're not involved in charity work. That wouldn't impact the majority of Christian churches... Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, etc.. and while I have no personal knowledge I have the impression that Jewish groups also do charity work.

If a religious group doesn't do anything to contribute to the community, then maybe they ought to p ay taxes like everyone else... would certainly put a damper on people incorprating "churches" just to escape a tax bill...

But then again... I don't favor income taxes for anybody. It used to be the US generated funds through tarrifs and such, and there was no income tax until the early part of this century. (The exact date escapes me)

Oddly enough, I tend to go the other way on this issue.

I don't think there should be tax-exemptions for advancing an ideology. I have no problem with tax-exemptions for charity work, but I don't think there's any reason to subsidize particular belief systems.

For me, tax-exemptions for organizations should be a recognition of a service they do for their community. I don't believe that spreading your ideology is a service to your community; it's kind of neutral, really. I don't think a community is necessarily going to be better or worse off if some group brings in the Jesus, but I think the community will be better off if there is a charitable free clinic open to all who need its services, or a food shelf open to the hungry, or a homeless shelter, or whathaveyou.

Religious organizations can provide concrete services (and they do!), and I don't have a problem with THOSE actions being tax-exempt, as long as secular organizations receive the exact same breaks when they do that kind of work.

I would add that charity work and such is not the only way to stay tax-exempt. There are all sorts of rules for how much is being brough in/how it is used/etc. that can keep an organization that isn't necessarily doing charity work tax exempt. Most churches probably don't turn a profit (certain denominations excluded). They take in money, most of which is either paid to the religious leaders as salary, used for church activities, or used for charities. As such, there is no real "income" to tax. Now, if a church is actually keeping a huge bank account and making a profit, I absolutely think it should be subject to taxation, the same as any income of any other similar group.

Of course, all Christians are "atheists" when it comes to everybody else's gods. ;)

That all depends on whether you think God or gods are defined by believers or by their own existence. If you think that deit(ies) are defined by their own existence, then you don't disbelieve in "others' gods," you simply think they are wrong about some (or many) aspects of said deit(ies).

But then again... I don't favor income taxes for anybody. It used to be the US generated funds through tarrifs and such, and there was no income tax until the early part of this century. (The exact date escapes me)
Tarriffs are anachronism. Free trade and all that.

A modern government requires much more money than a government of olde.

Even if you only want to include military and legislative expenditures.

Do you have data?

You're asking me to prove that the majority of people were somewhat poorer 100 years ago?

I'm going to give DK the benefit of the doubt here--shocking, I know--and assume that since he didn't know when the 60 Minutes episode to which he was referring aired, that he didn't know the original context, and was relying on whatever advocacy group supplied the quote for the context. That doesn't excuse his failure to note the context now, but it explains why he was misusing it in the first place.

In other words, were he to use that quote in the same manner again, he'd be guilty of misrepresenting her words. As of now, that's not so clear.

All right, fine, with the proviso that I'm getting a bit tired of people -- not just DK -- just tossing out some bit of rant from their fave agit-prop site and claiming that it proves anything to anyone but them.

All right, fine, with the proviso that I'm getting a bit tired of people -- not just DK -- just tossing out some bit of rant from their fave agit-prop site and claiming that it proves anything to anyone but them.

Hey, that's why I asked him for context, and found it when he couldn't provide it.

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.
*applauds*

It's nice to see at least one person on that side realizing that it's not their right to force their morals upon others. Now convince as many others of this as you can, please.

No, I don't want a cookie or anything... It's just that in the past, I have strenuously debated the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the USA. I have always been against it, citing reasons of society damage and so on.

But recently, as my political views have solidified into a more consistent view, as well as a few very thought-provoking arguments from some of you folks, I just wanted to throw out there that despite my very conservative religious views, I no longer believe it apropriate for the Government to hinder or help in this matter.

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.


Yay! *applauds*

Tarriffs are anachronism. Free trade and all that.

A modern government requires much more money than a government of olde.

Even if you only want to include military and legislative expenditures.

I dunno about that. I think we've gone so long with this Juggernaught of a Government that we don't know anymore what's possible. Tarrifs aren't the only solution, no... But then we don't need most of the extras we have now.

Yay! *applauds*

I LOVE your sig. Can I borrow it?

I NEVER want to get in the middle of a gay marriage :eek:







unless of course its two hot Lesbians....:D


* currently ducking for cover *

I dunno about that. I think we've gone so long with this Juggernaught of a Government that we don't know anymore what's possible. Tarrifs aren't the only solution, no... But then we don't need most of the extras we have now.

There's certainly a lot we don't need. But keep in mind that the vast majority of the government budget goes into the military. We spend more on the defense budget than every other discretionary budgeting in the entire government combined. (Of course, we also spend more on defense than every other major world country combined). An argument can certainly be made that we spend too much on this, but many of those out there calling for a "smaller government" wouldn't dream of cutting the majority of spending - the military - and doing so is pretty much political suicide.

*applauds*

It's nice to see at least one person on that side realizing that it's not their right to force their morals upon others. Now convince as many others of this as you can, please.

but if the government doesnt outline morals who will?

Whether I agree or not with the morality behind homosexual marriage, I do acknowledge that it is not the role of Government to legislate it. No one should need "permission" from the Government to live their private life.

And I'm coming out of the closet as a Libertarian.

Congratulations, you've come to your senses. ;)

but if the government doesnt outline morals who will?

The government is outlining the morals on this based on the Bible (insert other religious books here if you like). People who say otherwise are essentially lying to you. There is no other moral reason to deny ppl marriage rights besides religious beliefs. I am a Christian, however I know and accept that this is not a Christian nation and that I should not be able to legislate my religon into the political arena.