Question for the record

Lemme start by saying I do agree with allowing same sex marriage.

I just wanna get a public record here from those others that do support it, yet fail to see the consequences.

What side will you be on when polygamy or incest or any other abnormal marriage proposals come up for litigation???

Just wanna see who crawfishes and who doesn't.

Think u know i stand where u do on this one. Hers a question for you though. Do you ever wonder if guys like us focus TOO much on the macro?

Big Pun wrote: Do you ever wonder if guys like us focus TOO much on the macro?

Do I have to answer;)

You maybe right. Or maybe others don't focus on it enough.

Marconius wrote:

Big Pun wrote: Do you ever wonder if guys like us focus TOO much on the macro?

Do I have to answer;)

You maybe right. Or maybe others don't focus on it enough.

kind of my internal dialogue on the matter too. Its just crazy nutters see connections between things that dont exist, and people more of our persuassion (which i hvae come very far in my thinking in the last 10 years or so), well, we see a lot of connections, a lot of dirty secret things, not so secret things, and the psychology of ppl, more importantly those in power. So sometimes, yeah it feels like we're close to the tinfoil hat brigade. But then i see all the blind, content, and distracted sheeple near completely oblivious too

You HAVE come a long way in the time that I have known you. I remember a time when we had a heated discussion on what is and what is not anarchy back in the myspace days.

Welcome to the dark side......I am not your father:lol: 

Well i was more of a neo-con at that age, just getting into politics for myself, and having the veil lifted from my younger years, of being on the other side. But i didnt know it of course at the time that i was being propagandized by pop culture (the media, entertainment, education, etc).

Think i started going more libertarian not only out of frustration with the machine, but also for consistency purposes. Instead of getting pulled down into every debate over HOW the government should run things, and ask IF the government NEEDS to run "it." Whatever "it" may be.

But anyway, idk, just totally get, i guess for lack of a better word, disenfranchised. Like seeing how every issue is manipulated by and won by the other side, and every way you look our liberties are being nibbled at, and it just continues with no end in sight, until....well the end. Until its too late.

Kind of like screaming in the middle of the woods. Like ive said before, it just sucks being conservative, because not only do you have to fight the ideology of the left, but also fight the establishment of the only other viable party.

Eh, I was what many mistakenly call uber-liberal when I was in my early to mid 20's. I guess it was rebellion against my neo-con parents. Thank goodness I learned my lesson prior to turning 30.

There is nothing liberal about "uber-liberals". In fact there is nothing liberal about many who think they are liberal. Base word for liberal is liberty. Cannot have liberty if you rely on guberment to handle things for you.

Well i believe its meant as in liberal use of government.

Yeah, I guess that is what they want us to think it means now. I personally think it is BS.

Words do in fact mean a lot. Many have been changed over time and have had their meaning either watered down or they now mean something entirely different.

In my eyes, I believe in the trational sense of conservative. Basically the term means the same everywhere you go, but is applied differently everywhere you go. A conservative in tUSA is not the same as a conservative in Canada. Basically all a conservative is, is someone who wants to conserve the original intent of the constitution whatever country you happen to live in. Since no constitution is the same, and some don't even have constitutions, then there are no conservatives that are alike if you compare country to country. I know it might seem funny to Miles, but he indeed is a conservative in the eyes of Ireland.

The US Constitution is a very liberal document, or at least was considered so back then. Today progressives, who labeled themselves liberal, wish to seperate themselves from the liberals of that time so they call it "classical liberalism". So in effect conservatives in tUSA believe in classical liberalism. Many equate that with libertarianism.

Progressives are those who wish to change the scope of government, or progress it. These people are both left and right wing when talking about politics in today's atmosphere. Since I like to use the original intent of words, I see them all as right wing because all progressives want to empower government to achieve personal goals for themselves. Giving power to government, for any reason, is right wing in the original sense of the word. Only giving power to the people is left wing. Progressives want to use government's power to get things done. Dennis would like to use government to ensure that his moral code is followed by all. That chick from myspace....forget her name, but she cried about her life all the time.....wanted to use the power of government to make everyone equal(or at least make her life better). That is not government's job, here in tUSA. Neither case is what our founder's wanted. Neither case is what I want. All I want is the liberty to live my personal life the way I see fit. If that means walking down a destructive road or walking down an uplifting road, that is my choice alone. As long as I do not hurt others, it makes no difference to anyone but me. To restrict my liberty on the assumption that I just may indeed hurt others is nothing more than presuming me guilty prior to a trial by my peers.....it is precrime and that is not Constitutional in this country.

At least that is my story and I am sticking to it.

So friggin frustrating trying to make ppl understand there can be no income equality. Its a foolhardy endeavor. Its just an impossibility. You cant have wealth without poverty. You cant have more without less. If everyone is a millionaire the. There is no significance to being a millionaire. I could go on, but as i said its frustrating.

It is also friggin frustrating trying to make people understand that I don't really wanna live like they do so quit trying to make me. If I wanna give to the poor, I will. If I wanna eat right, I will. If I wanna drink or do drugs, I will....'course I wouldn't have a job.

I absolutely will not give to the poor now. That is what my taxes go to. Since it is taken from me by force, I will not give voluntarily. I do give lots to charity though, but I research each and every charity before hand. Example is the Red Cross. less than $.05 of every dollar I give goes to the people who need it. I don't need or want that in my life.

I find it funny that I have asked many progs the question I asked here a few weeks ago:
https://whateversclever.forumotion.com/t1048-property-rights-part-ii

No progressive has ever answered that question. I guess they see the parallel I am drawing and recognize it as a trap. They also recognize it as wrong. I find it hilarious that they always point to things supplied on a local or state level (like police or fire depts) as justification for rising federal taxes. I find it hilarious that they use the phrase "promote general welfare" to justify a program created 150 years after and named in just a way so that it seems constitutional. General welfare is something that benefits the general populace as a whole, at any given time. Roads, bridges and such fall into that category. A government handout that only benefits those they pick and choose, therefore it is not general welfare.....it is specific welfare.

I think I am gonna start researching just how much money is given to the poor in this country....both private donations and federal aid. I really wanna know how much per year is wasted. We know it is wasted because poverty rates have stayed the same over the past few centuries.