Traditionalism Rocks, Neo-liberalism Fails Again

The Left loves to hate Karl Rove. But like him, or not - he does know politics, almost as much as Barone knows election demographics. I pointed this out in  post or comment yesterday.

Republicans received a hard shot in Mississippi. Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election in a district President George W. Bush carried four years ago with 62% of the vote. Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right.

Putting aside the words conservative and liberal for a moment, what much of America supports is traditionalism. And that ain't Barack Obama or the current Democrat elite. While the GOP is imploding, the neo-liberals (who are really anything but liberal) that comprise the Left, better be careful about over-estimating their draw.

Americans reject the Left more than they do the far-Right. Recent election results may spell trouble for a currently misguided GOP. But they still speak volumes in support of a traditional America.

And that is much more akin to genuine conservative-thinking than that of the new libs we see in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much genuine conservatism from the GOP in a while either. And there-in lies their problem.

Comments

[jharp]

ET,

"The budget deficit is declining, not the national debt."

You might check your figures and sources for that as well.

Senate Budget Commitee Chairman Kent Conrad’s (D-ND) statement:

CBO’s new projections show that the deficit will worsen in 2008. This short-term deterioration is due, at least in part, to our slowing economy. And it is important to note that CBO’s baseline projections actually understate the likely short-term deficit levels, because they exclude expected costs such as a stimulus package and additional war funding requested by President Bush. Once these costs are added in, the deficit in 2008 is likely to exceed $350 billion, and the debt is likely to increase by over $600 billion.

"My overall point is simple. To blame bush for all that is bad."

I am not saying Bush single handedly did it. He is, however, the leader of our country and the Congress rubber stamped his policy. He has been and is by far the most responsible for the policy failures of the past 7 years.

"and predict miraculous solutions from the dems is moronic."

No one has predicted any miracles. That's the right wingers area of expertise. Again, please refer to how Congress works and be patient. After the next housecleaning (election) they will have the power to get things done.

"The dems campaigned on the promise to end the war in Iraq, then did no such thing. Quite the opposite. When confronted with this fact, you and harpie resort to "blame republicans, they have a majority." That doesn't nullify the point that dems made promises they new they could never keep -- never intended to keep. yet you keep falling for their hyperbole."

Again, please study up on how Congress works. I still don't think you get it.

"When will you learn."

No, when will you learn.

[SacTownMan]

In 2000 we did have an inititive (prop 22) vote here in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/measures.pdf

The vote was overwhelming with only the large sin centers of SF and other metro areas even keeping it from becoming higher.

Our Democratic controlled Assembly voted right down party lines 41 to 35 two years ago to allow same sex marriages against the will of the people (with no Republicans voting for it!).

This is now followed by 4 appointed judges joining the 41 Democratic Assemblymen defying the will of 4.5 million Californians to ignore the results of the initative. That sounds fair 45 vs 4.5 million (you do the math - that's a ratio of a million to one for the pipe smoking moonbats out there)

So now we are left with still another upcoming initative to now make it a constitutional amendment. This ruling will hurt Democrats nationally in this presidential election just as the Massachusetts decision did in the last contest.

So enjoy the moment, pick out the wedding dress, Lame-O can even invite his fudge packing boyfriend Burt, and get ready for the re-energised evangelical vote that's coming in November

Remember that history has a habit of repeating itself!

Admiral Yamamoto said just after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"I feel all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant"

Sweet!!

[SacTownMan]

Man that Karl Rove is a genius! Only he could have pulled this one off.

First he tricks us to all into going to war in Iraq and does all of the planning for the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers.

Now this,

The force is strong in this one!

All of the evangelicals that would have sat out because of McCain's moderate views will now be tripping over themselves to get to the polls in November.

Something tells me they won't be voting for the "Black Liberation Theology" trained candidate.

[jharp]

Once again, SacTown, you prove that you don't know your ass from first base.

"As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78, regarding the duties of the federal judiciary: "wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.""

Though the majority does elect our representatives, the majority does not legislate under our Constitution.

You want to amend the California Constitution? Go for it. But quit your bitching when republican appointed judges follow it.

"I feel all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant"

This tickled me. Do you honestly believe same sex marriage decided on by republican appointed judges in California is going to affect the election?

Put the bong away.

[scarshapedstar]

"Could be voters just want to kick out all incumbents. Sure hope so."

ROFL. The audacity of hope. Sadly, there is no hope for you 18-percenters. Hey, I've got an idea: blame a vast nationwide Mexican conspiracy when all of your child-fucking, war-mongering, torture-enabling, treasury-looting congressional freaks get a historic, once-in-a-lifetime middle finger at the ballot box. Haha.

[scarshapedstar]

Shorter seekeronos: Gay people can live together but if they're allowed to make medical decisions for their incapacitated partners then human civilization will end. Glad to know you guys are tackling the important issues facing our country.

I so cannot wait to see the what becomes of the GOP when you can't filibuster anymore and the ONLY thing you have left to do is whine while the grown-ups mop up 8 years of shit and pay off the credit card bills they ran up. Oh, how John Boner's tears will flow.

It's going to be very inspiring.

[syn]

"It's Bush's War. He's the president - the buck stops with him"

Now how can this be true when Bush received overwhelming Congressional approval?

I swear, the Left actually thinks the role of the president it as 'dictator'; I suppose the problem they have with Bush is that he is not 'their dictator' you know one who would round up Conservatives and throw them in gulags for not joining the Collective and such; just like the Left iconic dictators, Hitler, Hussein, Ahmadineajad, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim jun Il, Hugo Chavez etc ad nauseum.

[Fred Beloit]

This is the Left's new hero having a Bosnia moment (from the LA Times blog):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/obamaclap.html

[Fred Beloit]

An interesting question by Double-post Harpo, but not for the reason he thinks:
"You saying same sex marriage is more wicked than slavery?" Personally, I have no problem with gay relationships. But this ruling is way off base into legislature land.

What if California judges do for the word "slavery" what they have done for the word "marriage". We all know what marriage is. Caesar was married, so was Socrates. The Greeks and Romans both had slaves. We all know what the word "slavery" means.

What this case is about is radically changing the meaning of words. It is that and nothing more. It has nothing to do with equality or any other Constitutional issue.

Suppose the judges had redefined the word "slavery" to mean services done after the sale of a slave without just compensation for these services being given to the original slave owners. Therefore, any reparations to be paid for slavery henceforth must go to the descendants of those who originally captured and sold the slaves. How would our good friends the trolls like that kind of activist court decision?

[Fred Beloit]

An interesting question by Double-post Harpo, but not for the reason he thinks:
"You saying same sex marriage is more wicked than slavery?" Personally, I have no problem with gay relationships. But this ruling is way off base into legislature land.

What if California judges do for the word "slavery" what they have done for the word "marriage". We all know what marriage is. Caesar was married, so was Socrates. The Greeks and Romans both had slaves. We all know what the word "slavery" means.

What this case is about is radically changing the meaning of words. It is that and nothing more. It has nothing to do with equality or any other Constitutional issue.

Suppose the judges had redefined the word "slavery" to mean services done after the sale of a slave without just compensation for these services being given to the original slave owners. Therefore, any reparations to be paid for slavery henceforth must go to the descendants of those who originally captured and sold the slaves. How would our good friends the trolls like that kind of activist court decision?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Any time from about 1612 to around 1962. --"

Wait, wasn't the rise of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia occurring in that time frame?

Oh shits! Seeker is a Commie-Nazio-Fascist!

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the 1600s marked the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. If I'm to understand correctly, Seeker is suggesting that the most godly time in world history corresponded with the height of Catholic Power in the old and new worlds.

Hmph. Who knew?

[Fred Beloit]

Worst Ever says :"
"Here are the REAL debt numbers:
US National Debt on 1/20/2001: 5,728,195,796,181.57
US National Debt on 5/14/2008: 9,364,554,673,553.01"

But this muttonhead has forgotten something, as usual:

"The US Inflation Rate - 2001 to 2007
What year do you want to start the report?
What year do you want to end the report?
2001 2.83 2.83 Bush, G.W.
2002 1.59 1.59
2003 2.27 2.27
2004 2.68 2.68
2005 3.39 3.39
2006 3.24 3.24
2007 2.85 2.85"

And, to get the real automatic inflationary increases in the cost of things, you must compound these rates, not simply add to them.

Worst Ever, Champion of the Stuuuuupppppiiiiidddd.

[Miklo]

For YEARS, the Left portrayed Karl Rove as this "Albert Spiers" evil-genius villain.

Now they tune in and hang on every word of this cherubic little "Ben Franklin" and prolly even listen in for advice to garner their own strategies!

So funny...

[seekeronos]

jharp, you miss my point entirely with your silly diatribe.

From 1612 (actually way before that, I just picked it as an arbitrary starting point as this is approximately the beginning of northern European colonization of what later became the USA) to 1962 --- that's about 350 years for you mathletes out there - there NEVER was ANY QUESTION about who should marry whom.

For the longer part of that time, neither the Crown nor the Colonial governments nor the states governments which succeeded them exercised any oversight; the issuance of marriage certificates and licenses was conducted by the churches and synagogues as a means of determining that there was no moral or legal impediment to a man and his bride getting married.

The state(s) got involved after 1920 when they introduced various racial and nationalist bars to marriage (anti-miscegenation laws) and took over the issuance of licenses.

The 1960's brought change in striking down the wicked and unjust laws forbidding interracial marriage, but also lead to the introduction of wide-spread no-fault divorces and the "liberation" of immorality, which has reaped a terrible harvest today.

So with this in mind, let's review:

"--- I always suspected it but now am 100% convinced. You are not for real. ---"
Thanks, but I'm here taking my valuable time to reply to you.

"--- You saying same sex marriage is more wicked than slavery? ---"
About the same, really. Sin is sin in God's eyes. Although slavery itself was widely practiced in Biblical times, the Bible does say that if a slave can be made free, it is better that he be free.

"--- Executing those accused of being witches? ---"
Executing unrepentant, convicted witches/warlocks is a power that righteous governments _could_ in theory, but if we follow the scriptures literally, the injunction against witches is:

"Suffer not a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18, KJV)

It was directed once again, to the "children of Israel", that national/tribal group of Hebrews whom God lead as the world's first (and only) true Theocracy. And while the word "witchcraft" conjures up (no pun intended) images of black cats, bubbling cauldrons and demonic incantations, there is a wider view of what witchcraft really is - stubborn rebellion against God's Word.

Consider this case from 1 Samuel 15 where God had commanded King Saul to smite the Amalekite utterly from the face of the earth, sparing none. Saul decided that he would "play god" and change the rules of engagement which God had set down: he spared the best sheep and rams and other fat, edible critters that he would use to sacrifice to God.

"-----
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

(1 Samuel 15:22-23, KJV)
-----"

Therefore, we see that God judges those who are rebellious and stubbornly resistant to God's Word, and especially so to those who do so while in positions of authority.

As for the application of government/church sanctioned execution of convicted witches, well, I don't believe that we have done such a thing much past the 1680s. I do not think that the constitution would allow it now, although by the late 18th century, witchcraft as we understand it was exceptionally rare and preserving the freedom of worship for witches was very likely not in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they created the Constitution.

Moreover, from a Biblical standpoint, Ex. 22:18 is not truly applicable to us in its most literal sense, since we are not the covenant nation of Israel but rather, a Gentile nation which has a significant population of souls who have received grace through Christ.

In keeping with that, we should seek to preach repentance and forgiveness of sin, point out rebellion and stubbornness and sin amongst ourselves, our children, and our leaders and neither approve nor validate their sin, nor give way to wicked men who seek to replace righteousness and liberty with wickedness and licentiousness.

"--- Germ warfare against native Americans? ---"

Ah, the smallpox soaked blankets. This was evil.

"--- Lynchings? ---"

As done outside a properly convened court, wrong.

"--- The list is too long to go on. ---"

As is one's capacity to resist God's Word because it convicts them of their sins, leaving a way to make as many excuses as possible to not believe and trust in God, and repent.

"--- If your Bible teaches what you are touting here I want nothing to do with it.
---"

Q.E.D.

God's Word must be understood in its context and taken as a whole; you cannot have all the "sounds good" stuff like "God is Love" (and He is) without the "not so pleasant stuff" like God punishing the wicked and the certainly that without Jesus, we have only eternal punishment in a dark, fiery Hell.

And if I absolutely had to pick my favourite time for America, I'd say anywhere from the late Victorian to Edwardian periods (1880s to the 1920s).

[templar knight]

Nice post, seek, and proof positive that liberals are going to try to throw a smokescreen over anything that might be said to disprove their positions. I knew exactly what you were referring to(marriage between a man and a woman), and I'm sure jharp and is-lame-o understood as well, but were trying to change the subject(gay marriage), which is going to be unpopular with the majority of Americans.

[Fred Beloit]

Now here is what three large martinis followed by two Budweisers can do. (This is my offer to you, scar, of an excuse for your insane blathering. If you're smart you will take it.)

"ROFL. The audacity of hope. Sadly, there is no hope for you 18-percenters. Hey, I've got an idea: blame a vast nationwide Mexican conspiracy when all of your child-fucking, war-mongering, torture-enabling, treasury-looting congressional freaks get a historic, once-in-a-lifetime middle finger at the ballot box. Haha."
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Friday, May 16, 2008 at 03:59 AM

[templar knight]

"Is it still cash only?"

Yep, same as always, hasn't changed since the last time I was there. But I prefer the creamed spinach and potatoes. And the porterhouse steak-magnificent!

[seekeronos]

Islamo may be a stellar tax attorney or accountant or bean counter, but it seems history is not his strong suit.

"--- Wait, wasn't the rise of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia occurring in that time frame? Oh s***s! Seeker is a Commie-Nazio-Fascist! ---"

Only if you forget that I was talking about America in particular during this time.

"--- Also, if I'm not mistaken, the 1600s marked the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. If I'm to understand correctly, Seeker is suggesting that the most godly time in world history corresponded with the height of Catholic Power in the old and new worlds. ---"

Perhaps all that rodgering from your pal "Burt" has wounded your brain?

The HRE was in a period of decline from 1648 following the conclusion of the Thirty Years War, where the Peace of Westphalia saw the HRE lose many of its outlying territories. The ascendant powers during this time were England and Holland, while the Continental Powers were still licking their wounds from war and dealing with massive debts.

The other side of the Hapsburgs in Spain were a stagnant power, gradually becoming a retrenching power as Bolivarian revolutions began to ripple throughout South America, and Spain lost Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines as well as other possessions.

The height of Roman Catholic _temporal_ power would be in the 1492-1640s time frame, with the treaty of Utrecht finally making Spain a second-rate power by 1713, unable to secure the fealty of its extraterritorial possessions.

[jharp]

"Sin is sin in God's eyes."

If this is your point I get it but don't agree.

To me, murder is worse than fantasizing about banging your neighbors wife.

And in this world we live in our lawmakers have seen it my way.

[seekeronos]

I missed this one from "scar""

"--- Shorter seekeronos: Gay people can live together but if they're allowed to make medical decisions for their incapacitated partners then human civilization will end. ---"

Actually, gays can make medical decision for their partners. It is called a "durable power of attorney", or more specifically, a "Advance Health Care Directive" and can be easily set up by either gay lover for the other.

No marriage required.

For jharp:

"--- To me, murder is worse than fantasizing about banging your neighbors wife.

And in this world we live in our lawmakers have seen it my way. ---"

Perhaps so, but it does establish that we are all sinners in need of salvation.

Man's moral relativism does not supersede God's Perfect Law.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- But this muttonhead has forgotten something, as usual:

"The US Inflation Rate - 2001 to 2007
What year do you want to start the report?
What year do you want to end the report?
2001 2.83 2.83 Bush, G.W.
2002 1.59 1.59
2003 2.27 2.27
2004 2.68 2.68
2005 3.39 3.39
2006 3.24 3.24
2007 2.85 2.85"

And, to get the real automatic inflationary increases in the cost of things, you must compound these rates, not simply add to them.

Worst Ever, Champion of the Stuuuuupppppiiiiidddd. --"

Um... what's your point?
In 2001 the price of gas was roughly a dollar. I fail to see how your inflation metrics should make me care about the price of flat screen TVs when my gas bill has gone up 300% since McChimpy took office.

And inflation has absolutely jack squat to do with the national debt. Are you suggesting that the dollar has devalued by 50%, thus offsetting the $5 trillion extra dollars we've tacked on to the national budget? If so, exactly how has a 40% drop against the Euro benefited anybody?

But... um... yes. You were saying something about WPE being stupid.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Actually, gays can make medical decision for their partners. It is called a "durable power of attorney", or more specifically, a "Advance Health Care Directive" and can be easily set up by either gay lover for the other.

No marriage required. --"

They've just got to shell out several hundred dollars in lawyers' fees rather than the nominal cost of a marriage license. See, separate but equal!

You can set up a host of contracts and legal maneuvers that will patchwork together something resembling marriage. Of course, all these little legal tricks can be challenged in court, while a simple marriage license has long lists of precedent. But hey, separate but equal!

I just don't know why we should stop at marriage licenses. Let's face it, there are lots of legal contracts that would benefit if they could only be entered into between a man and a woman. Wills, partnerships, class action lawsuits, shared property agreements, stocks, bonds, bankruptcy fillings... why should two men or two women be able to undertake any of these endeavors?

[Worst President Ever]

Seek, you're welcome to your views on the Bible. I just don't share them. The Bible has too many contradictions and too many pronouncements that simply make no sense to me. It's interesting reading, but largely, in my view, fiction. But I respect your beliefs.

[jharp]

seek,

I too respect your beliefs just as I respect ALL religious beliefs. And yes, that includes Muslims. Just as you should respect someones lack of belief.

LONDON - A letter in which Albert Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.
ADVERTISEMENT

"This extraordinary letter seemed to strike a chord, and it gave a deep personal insight one of the greatest minds of the 20th century," Powell said.

In it, the Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Einstein experts say the letter supports the argument that the physicist held complex, agnostic views on religion.

The theory changed the face of physics, allowing scientists to make predictions about space and paving the way for nuclear power and the atomic bomb

[IslamoLlama]

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are tying the knot! Oh shits! Everything Seek has prophesied shall soon be imminent. Stock up on canned goods and dry foods. Storms a' comin'. Hurricane off the port!

Home foreclosures! Rising food prices! Dogs and cats, living together!
Ends times! END! TIMES!

*dives under sofa*

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Einstein experts say the letter supports the argument that the physicist held complex, agnostic views on religion. --"

And no one fucking cares. I don't know when Einstein became the lynch pin of atheism, but its gotten ridiculous. He also said "God does not play dice with the universe" which may or may not imply a belief in God but - according to quantum theory - is totally wrong about dice.

Einstein hasn't been the be-all end-all voice on cutting edge physics in thirty years, but people still hold him up as this poster child for whatever religious or secular cause du jour happens to be on the public mind. He's not a prophet, he's not a Pharisee, and he's not the Pope. When it comes to religion, he's just another guy with an opinion.

Proving that Einstein was a Seventh Day Adventist doesn't doom atheism to irrelevancy. A letter in which Einstein expresses disbelief in God doesn't make God disappear in a puff of logic today any more than it did when he originally penned it.

Please - everybody - just give the whole Einstein thing a rest.

[seekeronos]

Too bad for Einstein, if indeed he did not repent. Although I remember reading somewhere that he may have repented and confessed Christ as his Saviour near the end of his life.

I acknowledge that many - if not most - will not agree with the Word of God. And I see no need to persecute or kill those who believe differently from the Bible, or disbelieve entirely.

My point (and my hope) is to preserve American heritage, which has its foundation on Judaeo-Christian beliefs, and to uphold sound laws based upon that heritage.

This includes keeping the lid to Pandora's Box of Licentiousness closed, and working against the militants and agitators who seek to overturn tradition in favour of radical and destructive ideas.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe, showing a-- while drooling (yes Moe can do two things at one time) says:

"And inflation has absolutely jack squat to do with the national debt. Are you suggesting that the dollar has devalued by 50%, thus offsetting the $5 trillion extra dollars we've tacked on to the national budget? If so, exactly how has a 40% drop against the Euro benefited anybody?"

The national debt is measured in dollars. Dollars measure the national debt. If I had to pay a debt to Moe of $100 in 2001 I would be happy to pay Moe in 2008 dollars because they would be worth less. In addition the national debt is the result of our borrowing to buy things. We don't borrow to put dollars in a warehouse in New Mexico. And each year since 2001 the price of things tended to go up with inflation (Duh). So to get the same things would have cost more, so we would have had to borrow more but less expensive dollars.

Worst's nums 9,365(nine zeros) - 5,728(nine zeros) = 3,637(nine zeros) = 63.5% increase over 7 1/3 yrs.

Worst's time frame: "US National Debt on 1/20/2001: 5,728,195,796,181.57
US National Debt on 5/14/2008: 9,364,554,673,553.01"
Just adding the inflation numbers gives us about 19% less value over 7 1/3 yrs. This is WITHOUT NEGATIVE COMPOUNDING (ask Warren Buffet about compounding, Moe) and not considering the growth in population or any other growth factors.

This is good because we now have Two Champions of the Sstttuuuuuuppiiiiidd.

[Fred Beloit]

Mind you, Moe, I am not defending spendthrift Congress led by those two award-winning thieves of our money Byrd and Murtha. The Repubs, many of them, have been as bad.

[SacTownMan]

Harpo,

Again rather than use a valid argument to make your point you resort to to your childish response of:

"Once again, SacTown, you prove that you don't know your ass from first base."

Dude, you're a troll. not to mention a total loser!

You entire life seems to revolve around Dan's website.

You attempt to dominate the conversation by either double posting or taking up 25% of the posts. Besides constantly ignoring the topic and trying to push your brain dead rants on others you constantly lash out at people like a little whinny baby.

LaLa has it right, you really don't deserve to even get a response from other posters.

You are an incredibly sad man.

[Fred Beloit]

A little more cold water for our two sweating and straining champions:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/28/165539.php

[Fred Beloit]

Mas agua fria:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1820.cfm

[jharp]

"When it comes to religion, he's just another guy with an opinion."

As is seeker, myself, and you. I did not intend the post to mean that he was an authority on religion.

Just another opinion.

[jharp]

Harpo,

"Again rather than use a valid argument to make your point."

Sac, my argument was right below my jab at you. Don't see how you could have missed it.

"As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78, regarding the duties of the federal judiciary: "wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.""

Though the majority does elect our representatives, the majority does not legislate under our Constitution.

You want to amend the California Constitution? Go for it. But quit your bitching when republican appointed judges follow it.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The obsessive focus on budget deficits is mis­guided. The debt ratio, a superior measure of gov­ernment’s debt burden, is as dependent on economic growth as federal borrowing. The past decade has shown that a growing economy can absorb modestly increasing debt levels.

The danger of debt is that it represents a claim on future taxes. Streamlining wasteful spending while pursuing a pro-growth tax policy can simul­taneously reduce debt levels and make debt more affordable. On the flip side, attempts to reduce the debt burden by raising taxes backfire because the declining debt would be accompanied by declin­ing economic growth, likely canceling out any improvement in the debt ratio. --"

Shorter Heritage Foundation: $5 trillion dollars in debt over 7 years? Psh! We'll grow ourselves out.

Yeah, that's the sort of sound financial advice you can take to the bank. "Don't worry about maxing out the credit cards, honey. I'm sure I'll be getting promotions and end of year bonuses for the next seven years right on schedule. Nothing can go wrong!"

Shorter Shorter Heritage Foundation: What? Me worry?

Can we finally pronounce the fiscal conservative dead?

[jharp]

"I acknowledge that many - if not most - will not agree with the Word of God. And I see no need to persecute or kill those who believe differently from the Bible, or disbelieve entirely."

That's good seeker.

So I guess you agree that two people of the same sex have a constitution right to marry.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Just adding the inflation numbers gives us about 19% less value over 7 1/3 yrs. This is WITHOUT NEGATIVE COMPOUNDING (ask Warren Buffet about compounding, Moe) and not considering the growth in population or any other growth factors.

This is good because we now have Two Champions of the Sstttuuuuuuppiiiiidd. --"

Wow. Good thing we aren't paying interest on the national debt, or that would totally make sense. Of course, as it stands, I can buy a US Treasury bond that pays a 3-4% yield. Better still, US I-Bonds track inflation. So I can loan government money and guarantee I'll get my money back plus interest.

Fred, your knowledge of investments and economics rank right up there with your knowledge of basic math. Simply adding more letters to the word "stupid" does not, in fact, make you any more correct than you were originally.

You fail, yet again. And your party fails with you.

[Worst President Ever]

I don't care how you spin the numbers, when you spend $4,000,000,000,000 more than you have, you're not a fiscal conservative.

Tax and Spend Liberal Bill Clinton balanced the budget. Fiscal Conservative - we gotta run government like a business - George Bush blew the budget out of the water.

[syn]

jharp

Your overwhelming brilliance begs me to ask you tell me what does 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' mean?

If you can provide a reasonable explanation I'll give you a tasty cookie.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- ... what does 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' mean?"

That's a very good question, Syn. As you are the first person in the thread to use the phrase, I think its funny you should be asking jharp, despite his overwhelming brilliance.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread and adjust your statement, or at least better reference what you are quoting. As it stands, there's only one person who comes out looking like a 'Champions of the Sstttuuuuuuppiiiiidd' here. It ain't jharp.

[seekeronos]

"--- So I guess you agree that two people of the same sex have a constitution right to marry. ---"

My concern is that they do not have a _God-given_ right, they do not have a _natural_ right to be married nor receive community sanction for their abominable perversion of God's plan for marriage and family.

Yet where the question is a matter of civil law, for the time being, they do in certain states:

Under the US Constitution, this "right" is not defined. And for now, we may do better to leave it that way, unless and until a more liberal SCOTUS decides to pander to the 4% (but growing) of the population that enjoys perversion and militating its agenda far out of proportion to their numbers.

Under the MA and CA constitutions, the LGBTs have "a right" as directed by renegade judges.

Most other states are either silent or have amendments banning gay marriage. Therefore, should the SCoCA ruling remain unchallenged by the passage of a specific amendment, we can expect many tests of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in various attempts to overturn existing state (constitutional or legislative) bans, and possibly cases gaining the notice of the SCOTUS, for which the SCoCA case _may_ set a dangerous precedent.

This in turn could touch off a serious contention over states rights of the likes unseen since 1860, even though the supremacy clause has effective gutted anything the Constitution has had to say about the enumerated powers of federal government and the unenumerated powers belonging to the states.

Ultimately, this case _should_ be ended in CA, even if it does end unfavorable at the ballot in November. However, given the general trend this nation has toward godlessness and impiety, it may only be a matter of time before the will of the elite minority is forced upon the majority, and the floodgates opened for groups like NAMBLA and FLDS can demand their "equal rights" to pedophilia, polygamy/polyandry and worse.

Hopefully, with prayer and fasting, God will give us a victory by seeing the voters in CA affirm the constitutional amendment which will remove the basis of their SCoCA's ruling, rendering it moot.

[jharp]

"My concern is that they do not have a _God-given_ right, they do not have a _natural_ right to be married"

Please keep in mind many of us believe we have no God given rights. We only have the rights guaranteed by the U.S Constitution.

natural rights? Not sure what you mean here.

[syn]

Okay Islamollama

The subject is gay marriage ruling in California, since you're smarter than jharp perhaps you can tell me what this 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' means?

It isn't a crime to ask for a resonable explanation, is it?

[syn]

'We only have the rights guaranteed by the U.S Constitution.'

Jharp, perhaps you can direct us towards the part about marriage being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution?

[seekeronos]

"--- natural rights? Not sure what you mean here. ---"

natural rights = God given rights.

I put that in there for y'all "latter day Deists" and non-theists.

It is from the Declaration of Independence, where Th. Jefferson wrote of "to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them".

These rights are those which are self-evident through nature, of which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Everlasting and Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, and Most High Sovereign God, has created.

And currently, the US constitution, having been derived as a social contract to guarantee those rights to the fledging states to unite them against those strong foreign powers which then might have challenged and sought to suppress their newly attained liberty, does neither speak of nor guarantee the right for same sex couples to marry.

For that matter, nor does the US constitution afford the "right" for straight couples to marry. The Constitution is quite silent on the subject of marriage, as well it should be, for marriage ideally, should be a private social contract between a man and woman, shared only with the church or municipal authority that _gives_ its certification or attestation to that man and woman who have exchanged vows of trust and love with all due competence and diligence.

Wherefore in times past, churches and (for those lacking a belief in God) municipal authorities may certify marriages between men and women or refuse to certify them based upon whatever moral or legal impediments that exist.

Prudent society until 10 or 20 years ago would have never dreamed of giving its assent or approval to gay marriages, knowing full well that such an abominable thing was against the ordinances of God.

Sadly, since we have cravenly given up our "right" to marry as a privilege to be doled out at the whim of state bureaucrats (thus rendering the former "certificates of marriage" issued by churches and synagogues of none effect, in order that these state-sanctioned marriages be recognized for taxation purposes and benefits distribution, we must now expend vast amounts of energy and money and time defending what was an institution of God from the perverse claws of sodomites seeking to wreak havoc on it via the engines of government.

[jharp]

Jharp, perhaps you can direct us towards the part about marriage being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution?

No problem. I always welcome the opportunity to educate those who aren't.

Thanks for asking.

14th Amendment.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[jharp]

"For that matter, nor does the US constitution afford the "right" for straight couples to marry."

But it does prohibit affording privileges under the law to some and not others.

Your point that the state should have no say whatsoever in marriage could be valid. But what we are dealing with is that the state does have a say in marriage. And I'd have no problem with the state staying out of recognizing any marriage.

The wrongness is giving rights to heterosexual couples that are denied gay couples.

Though not in California any more.

[syn]

Jharp

The State created marriage?

Do tell

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The subject is gay marriage ruling in California, since you're smarter than jharp perhaps you can tell me what this 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' means?

It isn't a crime to ask for a resonable explanation, is it? --"

You're the only one spouting this gibberish, syn. No one else is talking about same-sex unions between men and women but you.

There are talks of same-sex unions. There is talk of gay marriage. But you are the only one prattling on about this. I can't even call this stupid anymore. You're just... not reading. It's like your keyboard works but your monitor is dead.

"-- Jharp, perhaps you can direct us towards the part about marriage being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution? --"

Wait, are you now suggesting that no one has the right to get married? This is extra confusing. Either marriage exists as a legal contract or it doesn't. There is nothing in the Constitution about last wills and testaments being a right guaranteed explicitly by the constitution. Nor anything about corporate partnerships. Again, should a state be allowed to declare that an interracial pair cannot open a business together? Or that a man can't leave his possessions to another man, only to another woman? Such a law would be struck down for the same reason that interracial marriage laws and property rights limitations laws were struck down years ago. The state has no compelling reason to prohibit two consenting adults entering into any one of these contracts.

Now, according to the Ninth Amendment:
"-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --"

You can't recognize rights or privileges granted to one class of people and deny it to another. You may not like that two men can enter into a legally binding marriage contract, but society has no compelling interest in preventing it. There are no laws still standing that prevent two men from cohabitating, from jointly owning property, from bequeathing each other assets, or from granting one another guardianship of children. The only thing the fundies even truly object to is the butt-sex anyway, and the right to butt-sex was upheld in Laurence v Texas some five or ten years back.

Restriction of marriage rights doesn't serve any other purpose than to punish gay people for being gay. The laws were doomed from the start, because they were useless and vindictive regulations that inevitably amassed more opposition from the offended than they gathered support from the bigoted.

The real question at hand isn't what laws allow gay marriage, but what governmental powers are allowed to stand against it. The legal answer, in the California case at least, is that there are none. A contract is a contract, whether it be between same-sex couples or differently sexed couples, whether they can bear children or not, indiscriminate of age (excepting minors) or skin color or religious affiliation. You can't deny one group of people the right to form said contracts just because you don't like them. That's just the way a free nation works.

[syn]

IslamoLlama

I take your response to me meand that my question is way over your head.

Both you and Jharp are spouting about something you have no idea what it means.

Let me put it to you this way; you say 'gay marriage' and those words can easily be understood as 'carefree union between a man and a woman'.

Now I ask again in reference to homosexual (defined as same-sex) and marriage (DoM act, as in the State, has defined this as 'union between a man and a woman') what does this 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' mean?