BBO Discussion Forums: When all is said and done... - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 10 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

When all is said and done...

#61 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2008-November-07, 12:13

jonottawa, on Nov 7 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

America will get this issue right eventually.  We almost always tend to lurch in the right direction over time.

Perhaps that only happens because of exactly what you are railing against. What are you suggesting, not dealing with it until it's the most pressing issue? I think you are mixing up importance with urgency. Of course gay rights willl never be the most urgent issue in the same sense as something like nuclear bombs, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with it.

Quote

If they want to call them 'civil unions' for a couple of decades, it hardly matters.

To you. Of course the exact words don't matter, but the inherent prejudice behind them does (even if not to you). And if it takes courts or politicians or both to change that, then in my opinion that is part of what they are there for.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#62 User is online   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,306
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2008-November-07, 20:36

There is something a little messed up going on with the Proposition 8 campaign in California.

If I gave $2000 to the Obama campaign, that doesn't count as a charitable donation. I can't write it off on my taxes.

Similarly if I gave $2000 to "No on 8" (or for that matter "Yes on 8") I can't write that off on my taxes either.

But suppose I gave $2000 to the Mormon Church. This is considered a charitable donation, and in fact millions of Mormons do this every year (tithing is part of the requirements of the church). Then the Mormon Church can turn around and use that money to fund the "Yes on 8" campaign (which they more or less paid for), and like any other church they are tax exempt. Isn't something a bit wrong with this picture?
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#63 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,516
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-November-07, 22:07

I thought the millions of contributions from Mormons were individual contributions, not money obtained directly from the church?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#64 User is offline   akhare 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Joined: 2005-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-November-08, 00:42

cherdano, on Nov 7 2008, 11:07 PM, said:

I thought the millions of contributions from Mormons were
individual contributions, not money obtained directly from the church?


Andrew Sullivan had an series of interesting articles about prop 8 (among other things):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ns-vs-gays.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.sha...07/tt081107.jpg


Massively funded by the Mormon church, a religious majority finally managed to put gay people in the back of the bus in the biggest state of the union.
foobar on BBO
0

#65 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2008-November-08, 05:37

Like most tax deductions, the deduction for charity donations should be abolished IMHO. I have nothing against genuine charities, but when the Mormon church is considered a charity it is obvious that the concept of "charity" is too subjective.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#66 User is offline   jonottawa 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,025
  • Joined: 2003-March-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 2008-November-08, 11:06

I think the Mormon church's motivation is pretty understandable. 120 years ago they were forced to renounce polygamy, a practice considered mainstream for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Now instead of giving serious consideration to decriminalizing polygamy you've got a judge legislating from the bench and creating new rights that were certainly never intended by the founding fathers. A backlash was inevitable.

Again, I'm all for gay marriage but even in terms of a civil rights issue, it's not at the top of the list. At the top of that list would be the millions of Americans currently incarcerated for 'pretend crimes'. I'd put the right to affordable health care way ahead of it as well. People need to focus on what matters and not let the 'Governor Palin was in a TOWEL!' crap distract them.
"Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country." ~ barmar
0

#67 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2008-November-08, 11:34

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

Like most tax deductions, the deduction for charity donations should be abolished IMHO. I have nothing against genuine charities, but when the Mormon church is considered a charity it is obvious that the concept of "charity" is too subjective.

No they should remain tax-deductible. But when 501-C3's start using their proceeds to fund candidates and voting initiatives, their tax-exempt status should be revoked.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#68 User is offline   DrTodd13 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,156
  • Joined: 2003-July-03
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 2008-November-08, 11:52

To a great degree, I think that health care is a triangle. One side is cost. One side is time. The last side is amount. You can force any two sides to any value that you desire but then you're helpless to accept the natural value of the third side. You can't legislate away market forces even under communism. Try to force the third side to the value you desire and like whack-a-mole one of the other sides will change regardless of laws to the contrary. You obviously can't hide the time and amount aspect from the consumers but you can try to hide the cost. People are gullible and will believe that health care is cheap but won't connect the increase in taxation or the devaluation of the currency to the government providing that for them. For all you liberal uber-rationalists who think people need to be controlled like cattle, check out the following video and see if you want to rethink the wisdom in universal health care.

YouTube video on the exponential function.
0

#69 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2008-November-08, 12:06

Tempting, but I don't listen to people with string neck ties held in place by a buckle.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#70 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2008-November-08, 12:13

DrTodd13, on Nov 8 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

For all you liberal uber-rationalists who think people need to be controlled like cattle

Hmmm .... I consider myself a liberal, by which I mean that I would like to see the government's control of citizens reduced. I am aware that the word "liberal" has a different meaning in the US than elsewhere, but even in the US, a "liberal" would typically be in favor of less government control on issues like abortion, anti-terror laws, and what people do in their own bedrooms.

I think everyone thinks of him/herself as pro freedom and the bad guys as against freedom. This is because by "freedom" we think of those particular freedoms we personally think are important.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#71 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2008-November-08, 12:32

jdonn, on Nov 8 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

Tempting, but I don't listen to people with string neck ties held in place by a buckle.

Only if you are bidding on cattle Josh.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#72 User is offline   Lobowolf 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,030
  • Joined: 2008-August-08
  • Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.

Posted 2008-November-08, 13:14

[quote name='akhare' date='Nov 8 2008, 01:42 AM'] [quote name='cherdano' date='Nov 7 2008, 11:07 PM']Massively funded by the Mormon church, a religious majority finally managed to put gay people in the back of the bus in the biggest state of the union. [/quote]
While I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage (to the point where I don't think states should be permitted to ban it), they were hardly "finally" put in the back of the bus, even in good ol' progressive California. The history of gay marriage in California, in a nutshell, is that was illegal forever, then it appeared on the ballot, and was OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by more than a 60-40 margin. It briefly became legal on the basis of a 1-vote majority at the Supreme Court level, before reappearing on the ballot (in a different legal form) and losing again, very narrowly. It's not like Californians in general were big fans of gay marriage before the Mormons came along and ruined it all.
1. LSAT tutor for rent.

Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light

C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.

IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk

e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
0

#73 User is offline   Lobowolf 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,030
  • Joined: 2008-August-08
  • Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.

Posted 2008-November-08, 13:22

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Nov 8 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

For all you liberal uber-rationalists who think people need to be controlled like cattle

Hmmm .... I consider myself a liberal, by which I mean that I would like to see the government's control of citizens reduced. I am aware that the word "liberal" has a different meaning in the US than elsewhere, but even in the US, a "liberal" would typically be in favor of less government control on issues like abortion, anti-terror laws, and what people do in their own bedrooms.

The word "liberal," at least in the United States, has morphed quite a bit from having a connotation akin to "libertarian" ("classical liberal," e.g. John Locke and others) to what we now think of as "progressive." With respect to certain issues, both sides emphasize a core value of liberty, and with respect to other issues, that emphasis is revealed, essentially to be a bunch of hypocritical crap. Both sides want a lot of government intervention on some issues, and both sides want minimal government intervention on other issues; it just depends what the issue is.
1. LSAT tutor for rent.

Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light

C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.

IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk

e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
0

#74 User is offline   Lobowolf 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,030
  • Joined: 2008-August-08
  • Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.

Posted 2008-November-08, 13:28

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Nov 8 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

For all you liberal uber-rationalists who think people need to be controlled like cattle

Hmmm .... I consider myself a liberal, by which I mean that I would like to see the government's control of citizens reduced. I am aware that the word "liberal" has a different meaning in the US than elsewhere, but even in the US, a "liberal" would typically be in favor of less government control on issues like abortion, anti-terror laws, and what people do in their own bedrooms.

Here's a private message I received from someone following the homosexuality/choice subthread that came up a few weeks back:


"In Europe, if you say that being gay is a choice, you are correcly sued for being extremely discriminatory. It makes me sick that important politicians can speak out this opinion. "




I can't vouch for the accuracy or lack thereof regarding European law in general, but certainly the notion that offering a general opinion that doesn't defame anyone or cause monetary damages could leave you open to civil liability, or that exercising free speech in way that hardly seems abusive, even if it's wrong, would make someone "sick," doesn't seem to comport with your notion of liberalism.
1. LSAT tutor for rent.

Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light

C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.

IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk

e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
0

#75 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2008-November-08, 14:38

This private message is bullshit, Lobowolf. You can even publicly encourage people to kill homosexuals without being guilty of anything. The only people you cant legally insult are moslems and members of the royal house.

As for the semantics, it is very confusing to me that in the US, being "liberal" means that one is actually anti-liberal on lots of issues (pollution, trade, gun ownership). I am used to using the word "liberal" on specific issues. True, we have "liberal" parties over here, also, but they are quite marginal in most countries. Left-wingers are sometimes called socialists and right-wingers are sometimes called conservatives or christian democrats but those terms are rarely used except when one has a specific party in mind. "Liberal" parties, to the extent that they exist, tend to vote with the right more often than with the left.

I tend to vote for "liberal" parties which I consider to be liberal (i.e. anti-regulation) on most issues, but maybe that's just my biased perception.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#76 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-November-08, 17:11

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

As for the semantics, it is very confusing to me that in the US, being "liberal" means that one is actually anti-liberal on lots of issues (pollution, trade, gun ownership). I am used to using the word "liberal" on specific issues. True, we have "liberal" parties over here, also, but they are quite marginal in most countries. Left-wingers are sometimes called socialists and right-wingers are sometimes called conservatives or christian democrats but those terms are rarely used except when one has a specific party in mind. "Liberal" parties, to the extent that they exist, tend to vote with the right more often than with the left.

I tend to vote for "liberal" parties which I consider to be liberal (i.e. anti-regulation) on most issues, but maybe that's just my biased perception.

in that case helene, it sounds opposite of here... here, liberals are associated with governmental control, especially central gov't control... they've usually never met a regulation they don't like and prefer to leave choices in the hands of gov't rather than the people (who they don't think are smart enough to choose for themselves)

take this prop 8 vote in california... liberals would tend to want to take the choice out of the state's voters' hands totally (same for abortion or any number of things)... they'd want the control of such things to be national... now it's true that some conservatives want the same thing on some subjects (pornography, etc), but insofar as either wants the fed gov't to control the issues, that would be a liberal position

in general, in this country republicans want (or used to want - there aren't many republicans left that i can see) more local control while democrats want more centralized control
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#77 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2008-November-08, 17:14

Well, the proposition 8 was about taking the decision of whether to marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex out of the hands of individuals, and move it to the state (in this case: to the state constitution), wasn't it? I believe there are many republicans who want gay marriage banned at the federal level.

You make it sound as if the democrats want the tyranny of a central government and the republicans want tyranny of state governments. Nobody wants freedom to individuals?
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#78 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,372
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2008-November-08, 17:17

luke warm, on Nov 9 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

As for the semantics, it is very confusing to me that in the US, being "liberal" means that one is actually anti-liberal on lots of issues (pollution, trade, gun ownership). I am used to using the word "liberal" on specific issues. True, we have "liberal" parties over here, also, but they are quite marginal in most countries. Left-wingers are sometimes called socialists and right-wingers are sometimes called conservatives or christian democrats but those terms are rarely used except when one has a specific party in mind. "Liberal" parties, to the extent that they exist, tend to vote with the right more often than with the left.

I tend to vote for "liberal" parties which I consider to be liberal (i.e. anti-regulation) on most issues, but maybe that's just my biased perception.

in that case helene, it sounds opposite of here... here, liberals are associated with governmental control, especially central gov't control... they've usually never met a regulation they don't like and prefer to leave choices in the hands of gov't rather than the people (who they don't think are smart enough to choose for themselves)

take this prop 8 vote in california... liberals would tend to want to take the choice out of the state's voters' hands totally (same for abortion or any number of things)... they'd want the control of such things to be national... now it's true that some conservatives want the same thing on some subjects (pornography, etc), but insofar as either wants the fed gov't to control the issues, that would be a liberal position

in general, in this country republicans want (or used to want - there aren't many republicans left that i can see) more local control while democrats want more centralized control

I will simply note the following:

1. Folks in the US have been fighting over what the epxression "liberal" means since Franklin Roosevelt, if not before.

2. There's enormous differences in the way the word "Liberal" is used in the US, as opposed to England, as opposed to to the Continent.

3. The meaning of the word "Liberal" has also evolved over time...

I would be very skeptical about anyone who tries to claim that "Liberals" all believe X, Y, or Z.

Your teacher sounds like and idiot with an ax to grind. (and Jimmy is over simplifying as usual)
Alderaan delenda est
0

#79 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-November-08, 17:17

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

You make it sound as if the democrats want the tyranny of a central government and the republicans want tyranny of state governments. Nobody wants freedom to individuals?

right... and a conservative would think centralized state gov't a better solution than letting the central gov't decide, while a liberal wouldn't... the more "liberal" the conservative, the more centralized the control... "conservative" liberals and "liberal" conservatives are close in their desire for stronger state/weaker federal gov't, they differ on other issues
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#80 User is offline   matmat 

  • ded
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,459
  • Joined: 2005-August-11
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2008-November-08, 17:22

luke warm, on Nov 8 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

in that case helene, it sounds opposite of here... here, liberals are associated with governmental control, especially central gov't control... they've usually never met a regulation they don't like and prefer to leave choices in the hands of gov't rather than the people (who they don't think are smart enough to choose for themselves)

i think in the case of abortion and marriage, liberals would want the choice to be PERSONAL, not a choice made by any sort of random government, religious or social organization.

it really is none of your business if a woman chooses to have an abortion or if two people of the same gender want to live together and be entitled to the same legal protections as people of the same gender.

what gives YOU the right to dictate how others are to lead their lives?

I find it absolutely amazing that the religious right imposes its own morals and ideals on everyone. When will you realize, that if you are right about the existence of your particular deity (whichever one it is that you might believe in) then you don't NEED to do anything about other people on Earth as your own belief (usually) spells out that the deity will punish the non-believers. why can't you just let others live happy and fulfilling lives?
0

  • 10 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users