NationStates Jolt Archive

It is the Republicans' own fault that they lost this election, and not because of any virtue of the Democrats. They failed to do the slightest thing this term in Congress other than spend like drunken sailors, practically giving the Democrats a hand. Instead of actually trying to pass laws to fulfill their promises, they campaigned on what they'd done in their previous terms in Congress- as if it were an excuse for idleness. Instead of passing laws to cut and control spending, cut taxes, decrease regulation, and help bring America closer to free-market principles, they spoke about how we need a 100-foot tall concrete wall with electrified razor-wire and a moat filled with crocodiles all along the southern border, complete with machine gun nests and predator drones equipped with missiles to blow up any Mexican immigrants trying to cross over.

Oh yeah, and they tried to out-do the handful of Democrats pushing for gay marriage (which would limit freedom of association for religious groups), in that they (Republicans) tried to limit freedom of contract and association by banning gay marriage. Both parties are abysmal in this regard, for they have no respect for free individual action but only for government power to decide which civil unions are right and wrong.

As a libertarian, I am disappointed to see Democrats gaining power, but I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism. Hopefully putting their feet to the fire will encourage them to make up for their egregious errors.

It's amazing. I guess it's been so long since the Republicans have been on the losing end of a Congressional election that we'd forgotten what they're whine would be: "You didn't win, we lost!" :rolleyes: Get over it.

It is the Republicans' own fault that they lost this election...

In other news: fire is hot, ice is cold, and bears shit in the woods!

It's amazing. I guess it's been so long since the Republicans have been on the losing end of a Congressional election that we'd forgotten what they're whine would be: "You didn't win, we lost!" :rolleyes: Get over it.

Well, statistically speaking, those who voted Democrat were, by a significant margin, more likely to be voting against Republicans than for Democrats. So, no, it is moreso that the Republicans lost than the Democrats won. (Also, I'm not a Republican- both parties disappoint me, just one moreso than the other)

Well, statistically speaking, those who voted Democrat were, by a significant margin, more likely to be voting against Republicans than for Democrats. So, no, it is moreso that the Republicans lost than the Democrats won. (Also, I'm not a Republican- both parties disappoint me, just one moreso than the other)

?

As a libertarian, I am disappointed to see Democrats gaining power, but I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism.

point the first - republicans are as fiscally conservative as ever. you just have a mistaken idea as to what that actually means.

point the second - you would prefer that they were more active in enacting their proclaimed fascist policies?

?

According to Rasmussen and Zogby, 80% of people who voted for a Republican voted for that Republican as opposed to against a Democrat, making an 80/20 divide. That divide for people who voted for a Democrat is 45% for a Democrat as opposed to 55% against a Republican.

point the first - republicans are as fiscally conservative as ever. you just have a mistaken idea as to what that actually means.
Apparently, it means enlarging the scope of government and spending more than ever.

point the first - republicans are as fiscally conservative as ever. you just have a mistaken idea as to what that actually means.

They've been porking it up as though they were a slaughterhouse- that Goddamn highway bill, for one-, and they completely rejected the slew of anti-earmark bills that were proposed. This is hardly fiscally conservative, unless you have some weird definition of said term.

point the second - you would prefer that they were more active in enacting their proclaimed fascist policies?

I would prefer you don't make strawman questions, actually.

I agree with OP,it is the Republican's fault they lost this.But it's hardly much better that Democrats have gotten anywhere.
Vote Ralph Nader! :rolleyes:

Apparently, it means enlarging the scope of government and spending more than ever.

well, it is what conservatives typically do whenever they can get away with it

It is the Republicans' own fault that they lost this election, and not because of any virtue of the Democrats.

Well, considering the system is effectively two party...

R = not-D => D = not-R
R and D (member) {0, 1}
R = 0 => D = 1

[Sure, a third party could win overall -- and a flipped coin can land on its side.]

well, it is what conservatives typically do whenever they can get away with it

Sometimes, but it's still not the definition of fiscal conservativism.

They've been porking it up as though they were a slaughterhouse- that Goddamn highway bill, for one-, and they completely rejected the slew of anti-earmark bills that were proposed. This is hardly fiscally conservative, unless you have some weird definition of said term.

since that is consistent with what conservatives always do when in power, i've never understood why people would use the term 'fiscally conservative' to mean the opposite.

I would prefer you don't make strawman questions, actually.

it's no strawman. the sort of laws that the republicans pass are things that give bush the legal power to disappear people, to engage in torture, to wage imperialist wars of aggression, etc. and since you apparently think their lack of passing more bills is an "egregious error" for which their feet should be put to the fire, my question is perfectly legitimate.

How does gay civil marriage restrict the freedom of association of religious organizations?

No one's making the religious organizations recognize them.

How does gay civil marriage restrict the freedom of association of religious organizations?

No one's making the religious organizations recognize them.

That would be a civil union, not a marriage, then. (Which, as part of freedom of association and contract, I would support)

That would be a civil union, not a marriage, then. (Which, as part of freedom of association and contract, I would support)

No, that would be marriage.

The same way there is straight civil marriage for people who are not members of a religious organization.

Sometimes, but it's still not the definition of fiscal conservativism.

but only because political discourse in USialand is so debased and full of duckspeak

since that is consistent with what conservatives always do when in power, i've never understood why people would use the term 'fiscally conservative' to mean the opposite.

The LP also uses the term fiscal conservative, as well, but you would not call them conservative, and their meaning, as well, has to do with free-market principles.

it's no strawman. the sort of laws that the republicans pass are things that give bush the legal power to disappear people, to engage in torture, to wage imperialist wars of aggression, etc. and since you apparently think their lack of passing more bills is an "egregious error" for which their feet should be put to the fire, my question is perfectly legitimate.

Oh, God. Did you even read what I wrote, or just what you wanted me to say? My entire post was about holding their feet to the fire on economics, not anything else, and that economics was the reason they were punished. Please stay on topic and don't hijack this thread.

Well, considering the system is effectively two party...

R = not-D => D = not-R
R and D (member) {0, 1}
R = 0 => D = 1

[Sure, a third party could win overall -- and a flipped coin can land on its side.]

Greills point was; Alot of people weren't voting for a Democrat candidate so much as they were voting to remove a Republican one. So in that sense, and if what people here on NSG have been saying, The Democratic party didn't win so much as the GOP lost.

How many people, just on this website, have been saying that they wouldn't vote for someone specifically because that person is a Republican? It didn't even matter that they didn't always agree with the Dem candidates positions, it was enough that he/she WASN'T a GOP member.

Therefore, the GOP lost, but the Democrats didn't necessarily win.

I am wondering if Free Soviets is at all aware that alot of fiscal conservatives within th eSenate and the House have been complaining publicly for years that the GOP members controlling the purse strings have become even worse spenders than their Dem counterparts?

No, that would be marriage.

The same way there is straight civil marriage for people who are not members of a religious organization.

Well, I'm using 'marriage' and 'civil union' in order to differentiate them- marriage being a religious ceremony, and civil union being the secular contract.

Well, I'm using 'marriage' and 'civil union' in order to differentiate them- marriage being a religious ceremony, and civil union being the secular contract.

When supporters of gay rights say "gay marriage," they are talking about the secular contract - unless they are appealing to religious organizations to voluntarily change their policies.

The LP also uses the term fiscal conservative, as well, but you would not call them conservative, and their meaning, as well, has to do with free-market principles.

libertarian political discourse is possibly even more debased and full of duckspeak than the mainstream.

libertarian political discourse is possibly even more debased and full of duckspeak than the mainstream.

Because Libertarianism is so removed from the mainstream!
...?

When supporters of gay rights say "gay marriage," they are talking about the secular contract - unless they are appealing to religious organizations to voluntarily change their policies.

I'm not so sure about that. Freedom of association has not been well protected by the left (Affirmative action, etc.) While I trust that you would not want to force any religious group to allow for same sex religious ceremonies in their church, I am not so sure that other leftists would want to stop there. Nevertheless, I do wish to reiterate that same sex couples should be allowed to have marriage contracts, since to do otherwise would violate their freedom of contract and association.

Even though I'm hardly a fan of democrats, I think that, especially at this point, it's good to mix up and split up control of the government. That way, the two parties will be too busy bickering and trying to gain a foothold that doesn't exist to get anything done, thus doing less damage.

In short: both parties suck and are out to rip off the American people. Therefore, it is best to keep them at eachother's throats with no one side able to trump the other all the time.

Greills point was; Alot of people weren't voting for a Democrat candidate so much as they were voting to remove a Republican one. So in that sense, and if what people here on NSG have been saying, The Democratic party didn't win so much as the GOP lost.

How many people, just on this website, have been saying that they wouldn't vote for someone specifically because that person is a Republican? It didn't even matter that they didn't always agree with the Dem candidates positions, it was enough that he/she WASN'T a GOP member.

Therefore, the GOP lost, but the Democrats didn't necessarily win.

I am wondering if Free Soviets is at all aware that alot of fiscal conservatives within th eSenate and the House have been complaining publicly for years that the GOP members controlling the purse strings have become even worse spenders than their Dem counterparts?

Oh, I got what Greill was saying. I'm just trying to make the point that creating a semantic difference for two aspects of one event, equal in fact, doesn't make them less equal in fact.

I agree with the point that this is NOT a mandate for the Democrats, as Nancy Pelosi tried to make it seem, so much as a repudiation of the Republicans. But it amounts to the same thing in practice. ;)

libertarian political discourse is possibly even more debased and full of duckspeak than the mainstream.

You are gonna have to clarify that. Debased? In what way? Duckspeak? So we are quacks for wanting to remove government interference in peoples lives?

The mainstream parties are about control. Controlling what people are allowed to say, what we do what we can or cannot own and who we can and cannot freely associate with. Not a good thing in my opinion.

Or is that what you prefer?

Oh, I got what Greill was saying. I'm just trying to make the point that creating a semantic difference for two aspects of one event, equal in fact, doesn't make them less equal in fact.

Okay, I think I see where you are coming from...... ;)

It is the Republicans' own fault that they lost this election, and not because of any virtue of the Democrats. They failed to do the slightest thing this term in Congress other than spend like drunken sailors, practically giving the Democrats a hand. Instead of actually trying to pass laws to fulfill their promises, they campaigned on what they'd done in their previous terms in Congress- as if it were an excuse for idleness. Instead of passing laws to cut and control spending, cut taxes, decrease regulation, and help bring America closer to free-market principles, they spoke about how we need a 100-foot tall concrete wall with electrified razor-wire and a moat filled with crocodiles all along the southern border, complete with machine gun nests and predator drones equipped with missiles to blow up any Mexican immigrants trying to cross over.

Oh yeah, and they tried to out-do the handful of Democrats pushing for gay marriage (which would limit freedom of association for religious groups), in that they (Republicans) tried to limit freedom of contract and association by banning gay marriage. Both parties are abysmal in this regard, for they have no respect for free individual action but only for government power to decide which civil unions are right and wrong.

As a libertarian, I am disappointed to see Democrats gaining power, but I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism. Hopefully putting their feet to the fire will encourage them to make up for their egregious errors.

Blah blah blah... of course you right, but still full for blah blah blah..

You go Dems..!

Make the big fools of selves as best you can. We know you great good at it!

Yes,.. dumb-govno repub's make big dumb-heads of selves, but they have good chance for do that for bunch of years now, so expect them make good job of it.

But dem's very big experts to make selves look much bigger dumb-heads, and will make happen MUCH faster than most spectacular sellers of govno nuggets that repub's were before now time.

This is clever ploy of repub's to give dem's much rope for make squeeze-neck dangly party in two years.

Now,.. we can start for make big fun of Bush the funny talker man, now..?

"the Dems didn't win, the Reps lost"...

* Thinks back to last election.*

"The Dems didn't lose, the Reps cheated."

bah, the system works.

hope everyone is happy with their State's outcome... I know I am. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
libertarian political discourse is possibly even more debased and full of duckspeak than the mainstream.

You are gonna have to clarify that. Debased? In what way?

"Libertarian" just another word for,.. nothin' left to lose...

(Who sang this song?)


Duckspeak? So we are quacks for wanting to remove government interference in peoples lives?

And nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's "Libertarianism"...


The mainstream parties are about control. Controlling what people are allowed to say, what we do what we can or cannot own and who we can and cannot freely associate with. Not a good thing in my opinion.

Or is that what you prefer?

So whatcha gonna do about it,.. eh punk,.. you feelin',.. lucky?

The Republican equivalent of the Democratic "They cheated!"

"They didn't win; we lost!"

It's a statement that at once is incredibly egotistical and at the same time displays blazing incompetance.

The Republican equivalent of the Democratic "They cheated!"

"They didn't win; we lost!"

It's a statement that at once is incredibly egotistical and at the same time displays blazing incompetance.

And yet it's been posted at least four times I've seen.

hope everyone is happy with their State's outcome... I know I am. :)

I personally liked Cynthia Thielen better than Dan Akaka, but I'm happy with either one winning. I'm really happy that Randy Iwase lost. Given the choice of Hirono/Hogue, I would have picked Hirono, but I don't care for either one.

Of course, I say "would have" because I'm a California voter, even if I live here. :D

As far as my home-of-record precinct, I'm mostly pleased. Jerry Lewis needs to go away, like a nice prison cell someplace, and I wish Cruz Bustamante had won, but I'm otherwise happy.

Oh, God. Did you even read what I wrote, or just what you wanted me to say? My entire post was about holding their feet to the fire on economics, not anything else, and that economics was the reason they were punished.

no it wasn't. did you read what you wrote?

You are gonna have to clarify that. Debased? In what way? Duckspeak? So we are quacks for wanting to remove government interference in peoples lives?

libertarians have a fundamentally confused conception of liberty. and beyond that, a good portion of them don't even understand their already confused concept in the first place. thus we have 'libertarians' for making bush dictator, 'libertarians' for rounding up the immigrants and kicking them out, 'libertarians' for imperialist wars of aggression, etc. 'libertarians' that would ever even consider voting republican are clearly insane, and yet they appear to be the dominant force within the movement.

as for duckspeak, look it up.

I personally liked Cynthia Thielen better than Dan Akaka, but I'm happy with either one winning. I'm really happy that Randy Iwase lost. Given the choice of Hirono/Hogue, I would have picked Hirono, but I don't care for either one.

Of course, I say "would have" because I'm a California voter, even if I live here. :D

As far as my home-of-record precinct, I'm mostly pleased. Jerry Lewis needs to go away, like a nice prison cell someplace, and I wish Cruz Bustamante had won, but I'm otherwise happy.yeah... Cynthia Thielen lost... but Akaka has a track record that makes the lost a "Meh... next time..." feeling.

libertarian political discourse is possibly even more debased and full of duckspeak than the mainstream.
Mmmmhhhmmmm. How long have you had this condition whereby you cannot be honest?

yeah... Cynthia Thielen lost... but Akaka has a track record that makes the lost a "Meh... next time..." feeling.

Yeah, I think Akaka used his clout to steamroll Thielen, which is unfortunate but not unexpected, but I also think that it was good gamble to keep him (and his seniority) in office should Democrats in fact take the Senate.

On the other hand, it is HIGH time both Akaka and Inouye make a plan for succession... one that doesn't involve the also aged Neil Abercrombie.

[/off topic]

Yeah, I think Akaka used his clout to steamroll Thielen, which is unfortunate but not unexpected, but I also think that it was good gamble to keep him (and his seniority) in office should Democrats in fact take the Senate.

On the other hand, it is HIGH time both Akaka and Inouye make a plan for succession... one that doesn't involve the also aged Neil Abercrombie.

[/off topic]*nods*

well that and Thielen did have a late start in the season...

:p

*nods*

well that and Thielen did have a late start in the season...

:p

and almost no money. :p

In other news: fire is hot, ice is cold, and bears shit in the woods!

And our #1 threat... is BEARS. :p

and almost no money. :p

still I liked her angle. a Republican Environmentalist. :p

In other news: fire is hot, ice is cold, and bears shit in the woods!
And our #1 threat... is BEARS. :p

See, I was going to say Bears shit in Miami, but it was a home game. :D

no it wasn't. did you read what you wrote?

... You're not even being clever; in fact, you're being amazingly idiotic and arrogant in saying that you know better than myself what I wrote. My entire OP was saying that the Republicans lost because they didn't do anything for reining in government on the fiscal level. For example;

They failed to do the slightest thing this term in Congress other than spend like drunken sailors[b]...

Instead of passing laws to [B]cut and control spending, cut taxes, decrease regulation, and help bring America closer to free-market principles...

but I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism.

If you don't see what's blatantly obvious in my post, then you obviously either didn't read it at all or are twisting it to fit your bizarre fantasy world. Please don't post anything more unless you have something to contribute.

... You're not even being clever; in fact, you're being amazingly idiotic and arrogant in saying that you know better than myself what I wrote. My entire OP was saying that the Republicans lost because they didn't do anything for reining in government on the fiscal level.

actually, you said things like

They failed to do the slightest thing this term in Congress other than spend like drunken sailors
...
I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism.

which looks exactly as if you were saying they could have been better by doing more while still also enacting their drunken spending spree (which you find to be bad in addition to the doing nothing). i mean clearly the spending came about through the doing of something. add in the fact that the only policies one could reasonably expect them to actually enact had fuck-all to do with your precious free market, and it's clear that doing nothing would be just about the only benefit of this congress. thus my question.

but fine, you were complaining about the fact that they didn't actually enact 'fiscal conservativism'. why would anyone ever have thought that they would?

Mmmmhhhmmmm. How long have you had this condition whereby you cannot be honest?

Since you started living in bizzaro world. :p

It is the Republicans' own fault that they lost this election, and not because of any virtue of the Democrats. They failed to do the slightest thing this term in Congress other than spend like drunken sailors, practically giving the Democrats a hand. Instead of actually trying to pass laws to fulfill their promises, they campaigned on what they'd done in their previous terms in Congress- as if it were an excuse for idleness. Instead of passing laws to cut and control spending, cut taxes, decrease regulation, and help bring America closer to free-market principles, they spoke about how we need a 100-foot tall concrete wall with electrified razor-wire and a moat filled with crocodiles all along the southern border, complete with machine gun nests and predator drones equipped with missiles to blow up any Mexican immigrants trying to cross over.

Oh yeah, and they tried to out-do the handful of Democrats pushing for gay marriage (which would limit freedom of association for religious groups), in that they (Republicans) tried to limit freedom of contract and association by banning gay marriage. Both parties are abysmal in this regard, for they have no respect for free individual action but only for government power to decide which civil unions are right and wrong.

As a libertarian, I am disappointed to see Democrats gaining power, but I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism. Hopefully putting their feet to the fire will encourage them to make up for their egregious errors.

That border fence idea you have there seems pretty good.

It's amazing. I guess it's been so long since the Republicans have been on the losing end of a Congressional election that we'd forgotten what they're whine would be: "You didn't win, we lost!" :rolleyes: Get over it.

Well the really priceless bit was Hastert's call for "bipartisanship."

The Repubs have shown time and again for the last 6 years that they literally don't know the meaning of the word. Remember Delay's resignation speech? Hastert must think it means "be nice to losers."

Assholes.

Well the really priceless bit was Hastert's call for "bipartisanship."

The Repubs have shown time and again for the last 6 years that they literally don't know the meaning of the word. Remember Delay's resignation speech? Hastert must think it means "be nice to losers."

Assholes.

I know, I know. After bullying the Democrats for 12 years (which we let them do, sucks be to us), they just folded. They should have gotten up there and sid, "Yeah, well, we'll be back! You just wait, we're sweeping everything in 2008! Party of Lincoln, woohoo!" and then do the Arsenio dog-bark thing, too. (As a side note, I'd like to see a winning sports team say, "Yeah, those guys sucked, they were way worse than we expected them to be. Glad we won.")

As a libertarian, I am disappointed to see Democrats gaining power, but I see it as a natural outcome of the do-nothing attitude of the Republicans and their abandonment of their fiscal conservativism. Hopefully putting their feet to the fire will encourage them to make up for their egregious errors.
If you're Austrian, why do you care?

If you're Austrian, why do you care?

A compassionate Austrian?

I'm not so sure about that. Freedom of association has not been well protected by the left (Affirmative action, etc.) While I trust that you would not want to force any religious group to allow for same sex religious ceremonies in their church, I am not so sure that other leftists would want to stop there. Nevertheless, I do wish to reiterate that same sex couples should be allowed to have marriage contracts, since to do otherwise would violate their freedom of contract and association.
Soheran is about as left-wing as they come. I've also never come across a leftist who wants to use government to run churches' marriage policies.

libertarians have a fundamentally confused conception of liberty. and beyond that, a good portion of them don't even understand their already confused concept in the first place. thus we have 'libertarians' for making bush dictator, 'libertarians' for rounding up the immigrants and kicking them out, 'libertarians' for imperialist wars of aggression, etc. 'libertarians' that would ever even consider voting republican are clearly insane, and yet they appear to be the dominant force within the movement.

as for duckspeak, look it up.


I think you need to actually talk to some libertarians, not conservatives who pretend to be. There is a big difference.

How is our definition confused? We believe that people are best served when they are left to live their lives as they see fit. And that we have no right to initiate force against another. Tell me where you see the confusion in that? Is that not a basic concept of freedom? Live your life as you see fit? It's your life afterall, how could you see that as a confused perception of freedom or liberty?

The libs I know, have no interest in the existence of the borders nor the concept of ILLEGAL immigration. If you are here, your a citizen, simple as that. We have a strong dislike of identification documents or proof of citizenship. The fact we live and work in a particular area should be enough for anybody.

Don't agree with the government have the ability to send troops off to war, that violates our belief in not initiating violence.

We tend to think Bush is a fascist with plans to turn the US into his own private theocratic kingdom. Hardly something people who advocate seperation of religion and government as well as seperation of individuals and goverment would agree with.

Libertarians tend to vote for the person/s who they best feel can do the job. I suspect you'd find quite a few of us voted in a Democrat or 2 simply cause that person was more suited to the job than the other candidates. Though at the same time, we are more than likely to vote for a Lib candidate if there is one, or simply either abstain or write in a name we prefer.

ORWELL EXPLAINS DUCKSPEAK

This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak,
meaning "to quack like a duck".

The use of them encouraged a gabbling style of speech, at once staccato and monotonous. And this was exactly what was aimed at. The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness. For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain wilful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of Ingsoc, assisted the process still further.

So basically, I was right the first time. That sounds more like how many conservatives and liberals talk to me.

The Republican equivalent of the Democratic "They cheated!"

"They didn't win; we lost!"

It's a statement that at once is incredibly egotistical and at the same time displays blazing incompetance.
Not only that, but also a blatant arrogant disregard for the voters and their message they're sending.

Not only that, but also a blatant arrogant disregard for the voters and their message they're sending.

Just means we can use their favorite line on them:

"YOU LOST, GET OVER IT!!!"

:D

They've been porking it up as though they were a slaughterhouse- that Goddamn highway bill, for one-, and they completely rejected the slew of anti-earmark bills that were proposed. This is hardly fiscally conservative, unless you have some weird definition of said term.



I would prefer you don't make strawman questions, actually.

While I agree with some of your basic broad strokes, I disagree with you on two principles.

1. This was about the war. Plain and simple. Sure there were other issues involved, but most voters went to teh polls with the images of 3,000 dead American soldiers and an increasingly chaotic Iraq and they blamed the incompetence of the Bush administration. This wasn't about spending. We're winning in Iraq, we have a Republican Congress today.

2. I'm generally in favor of the market driving the economy, I'm against farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc... but you mentioned highways. Infrastructure is one of the few places I think the government should be spending it's money on. Get them out of paying farmers not to grow crops and use that money to build railroads. Then open up those railroads to private industry for transporting people and goods.

In other news: fire is hot, ice is cold, and bears shit in the woods!

WHAT?

I thought it was Popes that shat in the woods? :confused:

How does gay civil marriage restrict the freedom of association of religious organizations?

No one's making the religious organizations recognize them.

No, that's not entirely correct. If the religious organization has employee benefits, the effect of a civil union or gay marriage law is to require the religious orgnization to offer benefits to the gay partner to the same degree they offer them to spouses.

Apart from the problem of requiring religious organizations to provide a benefit to something they might believe is sinful, that coverage is EXPENSIVE. When my company looked at offering it voluntarily, we discovered that adding it would cost every person receiving benefits (all employees -- not just the gay partners) a health insurance premium hike of 3-6%. I think it is because the health insurers would have to cover the additional expense of AIDS patients. Given the number of employees in questions, that amounted to about $10,000 per gay partner added to our coverage -- in addition to the premium to cover that individual.

Take it for what it is worth.

No, that's not entirely correct. If the religious organization has employee benefits, the effect of a civil union or gay marriage law is to require the religious orgnization to offer benefits to the gay partner to the same degree they offer them to spouses.

Apart from the problem of requiring religious organizations to provide a benefit to something they might believe is sinful, that coverage is EXPENSIVE. When my company looked at offering it voluntarily, we discovered that adding it would cost every person receiving benefits (all employees -- not just the gay partners) a health insurance premium hike of 3-6%. I think it is because the health insurers would have to cover the additional expense of AIDS patients. Given the number of employees in questions, that amounted to about $10,000 per gay partner added to our coverage -- in addition to the premium to cover that individual.

Take it for what it is worth.
So you are proposing that the increased cost of health insurance for gay couples is because they are more likely to be infected with AIDS (therefore cost a lot more to the insurance company)?

Just means we can use their favorite line on them:

"YOU LOST, GET OVER IT!!!"

:D
careful... they can use the other line that was brandied about...

"the machines are faulty, the [insert party] cheated!" :p

careful... they can use the other line that was brandied about...

"the machines are faulty, the [insert party] cheated!" :p

Does seem to be rather cookie cutter replies usually

Oh yeah, and they tried to out-do the handful of Democrats pushing for gay marriage (which would limit freedom of association for religious groups),


I don't think anyone's proposed forcing religions to give marriage ceremonies to gays. They can always find a civil authority to declare them man and... man, or wife and wife.

Otherwise, yeah, they did bring it upon themselves.

Does seem to be rather cookie cutter replies usually

and like a broken record or tape... it gets worn out pretty fast.

and like a broken record or tape... it gets worn out pretty fast.
A broken record or tape [b]can't[b] wear out because they are, by definition, already damaged in some way as to make wear irrelevant to function.

God I am so bored right now.

which looks exactly as if you were saying they could have been better by doing more while still also enacting their drunken spending spree (which you find to be bad in addition to the doing nothing). i mean clearly the spending came about through the doing of something. add in the fact that the only policies one could reasonably expect them to actually enact had fuck-all to do with your precious free market, and it's clear that doing nothing would be just about the only benefit of this congress. thus my question.

But this all has to do with your own interpretation, ultimately, and not what I said. I don't quite understand how you came to all these conclusions of what I was saying.

but fine, you were complaining about the fact that they didn't actually enact 'fiscal conservativism'. why would anyone ever have thought that they would?

Because sometimes they do, actually. (Tax cuts, for instance, and Reagan's deregulating)

That border fence idea you have there seems pretty good.

I swear I didn't make it all up by myself...

If you're Austrian, why do you care?

My school of economics is the Austrian school of economics. I'm not actually from Austria, rather, from the US.

1. This was about the war. Plain and simple. Sure there were other issues involved, but most voters went to teh polls with the images of 3,000 dead American soldiers and an increasingly chaotic Iraq and they blamed the incompetence of the Bush administration. This wasn't about spending. We're winning in Iraq, we have a Republican Congress today.

I'm not so sure about this. I find it a bit hard to believe that this would be the only issue at all- if the Republicans had done something other than waste time spending other people's money, they could have used that to soften the blow quite a bit.

2. I'm generally in favor of the market driving the economy, I'm against farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc... but you mentioned highways. Infrastructure is one of the few places I think the government should be spending it's money on. Get them out of paying farmers not to grow crops and use that money to build railroads. Then open up those railroads to private industry for transporting people and goods.

I'm not going to go into my arguments about the market providing public goods. The reason I attacked the highway bill was because it was full of pork-barrel spending so that congressmen could whore themselves out. This I find absolute appalling.

No, that's not entirely correct. If the religious organization has employee benefits, the effect of a civil union or gay marriage law is to require the religious orgnization to offer benefits to the gay partner to the same degree they offer them to spouses.

This is partly what I mean, since it doesn't allow for any freedom of association but rather state requirements on what organizations have to give their employees. Also, I find it very doubtful that if the handful (note that I say handful) of Democrats passed all this gay marriage hoopla, that I find it unlikely that they would not further use state power to further weaken the freedom of association. I think it's a fairly logical conclusion judging from previous government interventions, seeing as how this approach to gay marriage is founded upon state intervention such as the one listed above.

Just means we can use their favorite line on them:

"YOU LOST, GET OVER IT!!!"

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "my" favorite line, seeing as how I'm not actually a Republican. (Both parties disappoint me too much to want to associate with either of them.)