Buttars to announce retirement at end of legislative session
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
I hope so after seeing some of these comments.
Whose valvues? His? I do not want a legislature passing laws based on their own personal moral code.
I don't think playing the "victim" card really helps.
My own experience in life would suggest that it's just not "progress" for anyone, individual or group, to waste time feeling sorry for themselves. Whoever has wronged you, the courts and legislatures and government is not the best place to go to make things better. What I am saying is that regardless of all the past, where ever you are in this world, the best way to make things better personally or as any group is to just do what needs doing. Sometimes that means plain talk, sometimes that means working somehow, the best way you can. You change your direct contact zone, and that most relevant place gets better. People around you get better, too.
Personal power comes from direct action, direct words. Of course, some rudimentary "right" thinking, not what others demand but what is true.
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
You mean you don't want gays passing laws based on their moral values?
In our way of government, we're not supposed to have "elites" dictating their values to us. It's "our" values that we get to put into "our" laws, speaking of "we, the people".
The genius of our Constitution is just that. We get to change things.
If we understand the principle of having a limited government with more emphasis on human rights, we determine that government does not deny any minority those rights. In my opinion, the "tradition is right" and "progress is right" sort of ideological camps, the Buttars and the politicizers of the "LGBT agenda" are both making a fundamental error in not understanding that. It is not necessary to polarize the issue of human rights to protect human rights. We are all equal, we all have the same rights. It's no one's privilege to dictate what we as individuals will think or do. What the law should do is set some practical boundaries on actions that affect others in ways that deny basic rights to them.
I was being very bad. I'm sure the media will paint a more positive picture of the Dem campaign. Right now, I'm grateful for Elizabeth Warren speaking up on the implications of international banking getting deregulated. I'm also noticing that in some media quarters there is actual difference of opinion, and some major media players are going to give Elizabeth Warren a good press. Hillary, on the other hand, presumes she owns the media and doesn't give a ratzazz about keeping the banks regulated appropriately. So far as she's concerned, they can raffle off the Bank Bailout funds and come back to the US Treasure for more, because they're her campaign donors.
I don't want any group telling any other group they have to conform to their definition of a moral code. Gays, straights, muslims, athiests, christians, tree huggers, vegans, PETA...
Equal rights and opportunities for all. (obvious exceptions of course, like murder and robbery)
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
murder denies someone the right to life, robbery denies the right to be secure in your possessions. Criminal actions because of laws enacted to protect basic rights.
People have a tendency towards biases and prejudices and a whole lot of other "comfortable" context issues, and are emotional as well. History is replete with instances of how we can be ignorant to others, and even pass laws that have either the intent or unintended consequence of denying others their basic rights. Slavery, and the whole history of Indian Removal and reservation gulags, and the innumerable crafty little ways we have "legally" edged others out of our way.
The problem with Marxism as an ideology is that sets up a false context for everything, a sort of false memory and false history painted in terms of a false "inevitable" process in broad societal terms, rather than recognizing the basic conditions of human existence in personal terms, and addressing "change" in terms of human choice and intelligence, allowing us to just be what we are, or want to be.
It was just not in the thinking of the times, on either side of the native American question, to approach the problems in that way. The Indians were accustomed to their way of life, and the European settlers to theirs, and the land hung in the balance. We could hardly expect native Americans to go file their claim to their square mile, or know how to farm, but we did not even honor the treaties we made, nor include them in the equation as citizens with protected rights.
Still, a native American born today has a better start in life because of status as part of a collective "reservation", often with income from royalties. The problem is the kind of socialism that sorta kills the idea of taking personal action, initiative, and responsibility that could lead to an actual secure "personal independence". Today, the native American is included in our equations for the same rights any other person has. That much is progress.
gays face some different challenges, mainly coming from corporate policies in regard to benefit packages, and legal conventions that are set up to define marital rights and family law. There is no reason corporates and governments cannot set up policies that don't assume or require gender definitions.
The Supreme Court is apparently aware of some difficulties of re-defining "marriage" or setting up new conventions which still impose special benefits on artificially-defined relationships between human. Hard to erase the gender definitions without endangering numerical definitions as well.
The lead counsel for the LGBT cause, in front of the Supreme Court, declared that a relationship of two males and two females would be offensive to her ideas of "marriage". The law is going to have to embrace "marriage" as people want to define it someday, not as others think it should be. Even the stipulation of living arrangements is going to fall, people who don't live together or even in the same state, will get to call themselves a legal entity with equal rights to a "family".
It might be a while before we get to the point where we can just let people run their own lives and define their relationships legally as they believe is best in pursuit of their own happiness.
The Supreme Court is apparently aware of some difficulties of re-defining "marriage" or setting up new conventions which still impose special benefits on artificially-defined relationships between human. Hard to erase the gender definitions without endangering numerical definitions as well.
The lead counsel for the LGBT cause, in front of the Supreme Court, declared that a relationship of two males and two females would be offensive to her ideas of "marriage". The law is going to have to embrace "marriage" as people want to define it someday, not as others think it should be. Even the stipulation of living arrangements is going to fall, people who don't live together or even in the same state, will get to call themselves a legal entity with equal rights to a "family".
It might be a while before we get to the point where we can just let people run their own lives and define their relationships legally as they believe is best in pursuit of their own happiness.
I hope I am around to see it.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Only a little bit?
I'm embarrassed for painting that picture already. Hillary has important support from the whole flotilla of UN/NWO, corporates including banks like Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs. But she's got a lot of baggage, and her skirts are too short to pull many democrats in on her ticket.
I like Elizabeth Warren for having the guts to speak up right now, the good sense to at least insist on regulating the banks. She has probably decided the money is already in the bank for Hillary, and might not care to run for Pres. But it's clear there is still an element in the Democratic Party that is not just rollover for big money, can still pull for the ordinary American on some issues. . . .
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
<retch>
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
I had a light breakfast.
