Liar. Take a look at this bill he sponsored.

Ron Paul's 'We The People Act'

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court– (1) shall not adjudicate– (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway.

This world was originally without any death, or suffering. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered the world with it, and that is the reason it is fallen. They made that choice out of free will. God could have forced their obedience, or could have simply never given them a choice, but you can't have a loving relationship with robots who can't choose not to love you.

You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.

Satan is a created being. He isn't omni-anything. He tempted Adam and Eve to sin, but it isn't his fault persay. He didn't force them to sin.

If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.

Or He created them as free moral agents who are capable of defying His will, and they freely chose to defy His will and wreck His creation, even over His direct warnings. He sent Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin, which He did on the cross 2000 years ago. God has adjudicated the entire matter through His Son, and anyone who wishes to obtain forgiveness for sin and avoid punishment, as well as receieve eternal life, can do so through Him. Whoever wants to reject their pardon and ignore Gods warnings and take their chances will face Gods judgement at the end of the world.

>> ^messenger:
God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway. You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.
If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.>> ^shinyblurry:
We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence.
I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally.

All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated.

What Dan Savage does isn't sex. It's consensual sodomy. Thats part of what evil does is redefine the meanings of things. The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive. God does not approve of their union, and they should never be married. What they love is sin, and sin is not beautiful. It is an abomination before the Lord.

fornication is just plainly a sin, and for the reason that sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. You are spiritually joined to whomever you have sex with, forever.
maybe you reprobates can't imagine giving up your carnal lusts because its what you're living for, but that lifestyle is meaningless, sad and no better than what animals do.

Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

I'm not surprised by the bias of the sift, nor the childish behavior of its members..I was interested if anyone here had an inherent sense of fairness and could look past their own bias..but I guess not

Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant.

I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell. To me, you might as well be banging rocks together if you don't know you have a soul, or there is a God. People like this are mostly automated because they don't really know how anything works, or that God controls everything.

I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

you can always look back on the glory days when you were a talking turd on the internet..

if he wants to be civil and converse like real people instead of rabid animals, I'll be here.


How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle.

You'll get to mock God for a little while and do what you want, until His mercy runs out and He takes you off of this world. You'll be found guilty at the judgement and then you'll join the devil and his angels in the lake of fire. Do you think you'll think it was worth it then? I'm betting not.

If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong.
Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago.
It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily.

What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

Gay rights? Sinners have no rights, they are a slave to sin. America is becoming more like babylon every day, especially in what it deserves as punishment for its actions.

Apparently homosexual atheists are in force these days.

as usual the sift turns off its brain

I am a highly rational and logical person , who has reasoned these things out to a much deeper level than any of you would be willing to give me credit for

You're entitled to your malformed, tumor-swollen opinion. Mine happens to have biblical justification.

In the context of a bunch of googly eyed mouth breathers saying God doesn't exist, where Satans special little helpers file in to preach their faith, not much is going to come out of this which is positive.

Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

I have better things to do than waste my time arguing on the internet for fun, and it's not fun to argue.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.

You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless,
He was in fact just an arrogant, prideful being who wanted all the power for himself.

One day, people will thank me for opening their mind up to how they've been lied to every day of their life and indoctrinated into a world system thats literally trying to drag them straight to hell.

Satan has you.

You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.



Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.



>> ^shinyblurry:

You think you were sent by God? Try again..
And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day.

Satan doesn't make you do anything..he merely tempts. It's not Satans fault that someone sinned. He couldn't legally be blamed for any sin that humans do. Our nature is fallen, that is why we're such easy targets. We naturally want to do things which aren't right. The flesh and spirit are at war with one another. The flesh has insatiable desires which never end, and lead people into self destruction. We're willing victims, which is the problem. This is why we must be born again. Until we put on the righteousness of Christ, we don't stand a chance.

The bible is more than a cautionary tale, it is our true history. What is seen by the eye is the surface of the spiritual war that is underlaying all things. Every person you meet is a soldier on one side or the other, and a war is being waged for his very soul. What comes out of his mouth are the weapons of this war, the sword of truth or the flaming arrows of the enemy. There are no coincidences, because all things are being orchastrated.

Since you do appreciate the bible, I will recommend the book of Ecclesiastes to you. It is a book of sayings of wisdom, written by a King who had done it all, seen it all, had every thing a man could ever possibly want and more. It his cautionary tale about life.

Also, I honestly don't see how you think that the one who controls life and death is evil for presiding over it. Over 2 million people are born and die every day. God is sovereign, and He can adjudicate His creation how He pleases. As He said to job, "Have you ever in all your life caused a day to dawn?" He didn't need anyones help in making the Earth, and He certainly doesn't need anyones advice in running it. It was *because* of the evil man was doing that He brought His judgement to bear.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Change 'Satan' to greed and self interest, and I'm pretty much on board with what you are saying in this comment. I think attaching greed and self-interest to a demon allows us to put one degree of separation between the good and bad side of our own nature - hindering us from taking responsibility for the ill we actively or passively commit on others. "Satan made me do it."
I think there is much wisdom in the Bible, so long as we look at these stories as cautionary tales rather than literal truth; so long as we look at these stories as the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of a just God - because there are a number of horrors perpetrated by God that far surpass the evil of men.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This "ridiculous caped horned boogeyman" is the image that Satan prefers, and the secular media portrays. It's the image the spiritually undiscerning have of Satan, that he is some overt and absurd caricature of evil. Nothing can be further from the truth. Satan masquarades as an angel of light. When he shows himself to someone, it's under the pretense of good not evil. He is a master manipulator and tactician, more intelligent and powerful than any other creation of God. He shows himself to be a giver of secret knowledge, a liberator of humanity. Someone who has our best interests at heart. His influence is everywhere, in our culture and media, from main street to wall street to pennsylvnia avenue. His product is sin and everyone is buying, and all those who do become his slaves.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Unsaved people don't believe in Satan. You are confusing love with mockery. Satan is one of the most poorly constructed characters in all of Christian mythology - a ridiculous caped, horned boogeyman designed to frighten young children and gullible adults into going to church. When South Park or Tenacious D features Satan, they aren't praising Satan, they are making fun of religion. >> ^shinyblurry:
Unsaved people love this idea of devil as some sort of freedom fighter..but that wasn't the case.

God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation how He pleases. God caused a global flood which killed everyone in the world except for 8 people. God recalls the lives of over a million people every day. It's in His hands. It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily. He has the power over life and death and is well within His rights to use it. Who are you tell God what He can or cannot do with it? This entire world belongs to Him.

You seem to be under some illusion that people are generally good. They're not. Have you ever read a history book? People are generally sinful. God dealt with people as they deserved. Are you blind or just stupid? Do you not see the evil going on in this world? Everywhere you put a human authority, you have corruption and death. There aren't any innocents here. I think you are just naive.

I don't know what your sins are, but you do. You are guilty and without Jesus you will stand condemned for them at judgement day. Your sin, btw, isn't just not honoring God, it's also blaspheming Him and speaking all sorts of vile things against Him. You just can't seem to keep your mouth shut about Him. You gravitate to everything I do or say about God here, just to get your mockery in. Well, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole:

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Satan doesn't force people to do evil, nor do people get confused about what is right and wrong. Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong. God allows people to use their free will choice, and He allows them to reap the consequences of their actions. He gives them every chance to repent and gives them fair warning of the consequences if they don't. Everyone has a real chance to prove themselves in this world, and if they prove themselves to be evil, then that is what they are. God isn't looking to send people to hell, but if they prefer doing evil then they deserve to go there.
This isn't about what you consider fair, lets just lay that joke to rest. This is about your desire for personal autonomy and your rejection of Gods authority. It's your desire to sin without consequence. Like every other unrepentent sinner, you are a hypocrite who shakes his fist at God because he knows full well that he is guilty and doesn't want to be judged for it. You refuse to come to God for forgiveness because you prefer your sins.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

In one breath you tell me "Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong." Then in the next you say God doesn't give a shit about what I consider fair? I'm just supposed to shut up, obey, and worship? The list of atrocities committed by your God in the old testament is long and thoroughly revolting, and I'm just supposed to swallow it all and sing his praises?
Talk about hypocrisy!!!
You want to put a joke to rest, stop with that bullshit about wanting to sin without consequence! I know full well that actions harmful to one's self or others have consequences right here and now. No need to wait for divine justice. And the only "sin" I am committing as far as you know is the one about not worshiping God. But honestly, that's all part and parcel with my understanding that he doesn't exist. So unless you have some specifics about my "sins", your assumptions are meaningless and just make you look like a judgmental ass.
"Think for yourself. Otherwise people will think for you, to their own benefit." - Max 11:13

It's simple. There isn't going to be any sin in Heaven. Therefore, if you don't turn from your sin you are unfit. You're going to live forever, the question is where. Everyone has a fair chance to choose it or reject it. Your mistake is you look at everyone else and say, what about this guy or that guy, thinking someone slipped through the cracks, not knowing the power of God. He knows all of His children, He hasn't forgotten about any of them. It's not Gods unwillingness to give someone eternal life, it's their unwillingness to change. You place limits on God because of your limited ability to comprehend Him. It's not about other people or what their opportunity is, it's about you. Like I said, sinners aren't going. It's up to you if you want to change that. The door is open and always has been.

I'm also done playing the bible gotchya game. If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong. I believe the verse that said:

6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the land, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man in the land, and He was grieved in His heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

I look at the world today and I don't find that hard to believe. Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago. I would have started over immediately after Adam and Eve messed up and made robots instead. But im just a flawed human being. God is perfect and will bring this to the best possible conclusion. He didn't have to continue on with humanity and its insanity, but He did because He loves us. You'd have to be a loving God to put up with this wicked, ignorant generation.




>> ^hpqp:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://religion.videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
So your answers to my questions are:
1) Unrepenting "sin" merits eternal torture, as does not wanting to spend eternity with God.
Not only is "sin" an arbitrary concept (I hope you don't eat seafood, or at least repent for it!), but your God sure sounds like a psychopathic husband: "love and worship me, do what I say, and we can live happy ever after! But dare consider me violent, capricious or simply immoral, just you dare leave me and I'll hunt you down and torture you! It'll be what you wanted, since you didn't want to be with me in our perfect love relationship!"
2) Craig choked on his foot trying to rationalize one of the Bible's atrocities, so I'm not touching that.
Fine, I didn't ask you to defend his argumentation, only to comment on it. Follow up question: how would you justify God's orders to kill every living thing (except the virgin girls, those are for sex slaves)?

Yes, but what about the fears!

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.
The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

The idea here is to prevent what happened with Exxon Valdez, where Exxon fault paying claims for 20 years until the SCOTUS cut the payouts by 80%, and many claimants had died.
The idea is that this creates a giant facility for doing out-of-court settlements, something the majority of claimants and BP would do anyways. It doesn't prevent claimants or BP from going through the courts, it mostly just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims, and adds a 3rd option for processing claims (the Independent Claims Facility), which people can use, or not.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.
Last part first, I agree that the whole thing seems like a somewhat meaningless capitulation to perverse media narratives.
That said, the agreement was never meant to deprive anyone of their right to lay claims in court. Basically, it was just a way to A) make sure the money is removed from BP's bank account before claims are processed B) give claimants a 3rd alternative for getting claims assessed (aside from the courts and direct negotiation with BP), and C) give both BP and Obama a PR win for being proactive on the topic.
I guarantee you that Obama will be in a world of hurt if this does become a backdoor way to deprive people of their right to sue in court -- the left and right would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
The key thing that irks me about hearing this fear about creeping executive power from anyone on the right is that there's this huge drama about "taking" money from BP (as in, asking for voluntary contributions to an escrow fund), but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. That's the point Colbert made in his segment on this same topic.
Again, this is bullshit intended to try to make BP out to be some sort of victim of a fictitiously tyrannical Obama administration, when I think the safe bet is that Obama sat down with Hayward and said "look, here's a way for you to really show people you're on the up and up with paying the money..."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

The idea here is to prevent what happened with Exxon Valdez, where Exxon fault paying claims for 20 years until the SCOTUS cut the payouts by 80%, and many claimants had died.

The idea is that this creates a giant facility for doing out-of-court settlements, something the majority of claimants and BP would do anyways. It doesn't prevent claimants or BP from going through the courts, it mostly just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims, and adds a 3rd option for processing claims (the Independent Claims Facility), which people can use, or not.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.

Last part first, I agree that the whole thing seems like a somewhat meaningless capitulation to perverse media narratives.

That said, the agreement was never meant to deprive anyone of their right to lay claims in court. Basically, it was just a way to A) make sure the money is removed from BP's bank account before claims are processed B) give claimants a 3rd alternative for getting claims assessed (aside from the courts and direct negotiation with BP), and C) give both BP and Obama a PR win for being proactive on the topic.

I guarantee you that Obama will be in a world of hurt if this does become a backdoor way to deprive people of their right to sue in court -- the left and right would come down on him like a ton of bricks.

The key thing that irks me about hearing this fear about creeping executive power from anyone on the right is that there's this huge drama about "taking" money from BP (as in, asking for voluntary contributions to an escrow fund), but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. That's the point Colbert made in his segment on this same topic.

Again, this is bullshit intended to try to make BP out to be some sort of victim of a fictitiously tyrannical Obama administration, when I think the safe bet is that Obama sat down with Hayward and said "look, here's a way for you to really show people you're on the up and up with paying the money..."

>> ^Psychologic:

I can see why the Tea Partiers dislike Paul... his speeches must confuse the hell out of them.
Free Market = Good
Corporations = Bad
Corporations -> part of the Free Market
More Regulation = Larger Government
Less Regulation = Stronger Corporations?
Medicare/Social Security = Bad?
It's much simpler to think that corporations are the victims of big government and that the budget can be cut significantly without touching entitlement programs.


You and several people in this thread seem terribly confused about his viewpoint, so maybe a libertarian like myself can help you. The "free market" is a term tossed around a lot. What we mean is essentially mutually agreeable trade between producers and the right to make contracts. We believe in courts to adjudicate disputes, penalize and deter fraud, enforce (not interpret) the constitution, etc.

The key oversight for most Dems I talk to is that they want to police/regulate effects rather than eliminate the policy that is producing those effects. I despise "goosing" laws that attempt to reward/induce one legal behavior over another legal behavior, indiscriminately, across an entire populace. I also despise laws that offload one party's risk onto another. Most of the time, I think they're created by well-meaning people who think goosing the populace is their job only to have their goosing backfire. Even if they recognize it was their fault after the fact, a politician will always say the problem is not what they did, but what they didn't also do.

The best analogy I can think of is some cops throwing a bunch of candy on the street, then using the subsequent accidents to justify full-time crossing guards at every intersection. Those are unproductive jobs which can only exist at the expense of private ones. A libertarian sees that the ROOT problem is the policy of throwing the candy in the street, not the accidents it begets. Without a central bank price fixing interest rates well below where the market would have had them, the true risk of borrowing would have been realized, and demand which fueled creative lending wouldn't have existed. Banks naturally do not want to loan money unless they believe they are going to be paid pack, but the GSEs called Fannie May and Freddie Mac were buying and standing behind subprime loans on a massive scale from the commercial banks originating them. The whole concept behind those GSEs is based on the socialist policy that home ownership is more American than renting. That needing a downpayment and good credit before an institution will lend is discriminatory to poorer people. Which is just ridiculous, because that's prudent lending.

And what do they do after the whole thing? Another goosing. Bailing out the failed banks with money from everyone, including their small competitors who were looking to replace them. When you penalize good behavior and reward bad behavior, you create a self-fulfilling loop. I see people who voted for the heavily lobbied, popular, liar candidates and they are POed at CEOs of TARP recipients giving themselves huge golden parachutes. What did they think was going to happen when you gave these idiots MORE money? They are compounding the mistake, over and over and over again.

If you understand Paul's perspective, then you believe that most of our problems, our debt, our military empire, our recurring speculative bubbles, is not from a lack of government intervention, but too much of it in key places. No domestic currency is allowed to compete with the dollar, interest rates aren't set by the market, banks get blanket federal insurance on deposits so they don't have to compete on safety of those deposits. We have subsidies, a concept that presumes a politician spending someone else's production is more effective than the producer himself. We have different tariffs for different industries. It's not that companies are innately bad, it's that we have failed to create a constitution that could not be subverted by rogue judges. You can't be influenced into exercising a power you don't have. Once a judge interprets something to say "yeah, you can do that so as long as you say it's for the general welfare," then the government becomes a conduit for corporate welfare that it wasn't beforehand. People don't understand how powerful the government is. They literally have the power to take money from you by force. It's a necessary evil that they have that ability. That is why it is so god damned important to define and restrict its functions so that groups or businesses don't use it as a conduit to gain an unfair advantage, tapping into involuntary appropriations in what is supposed to be a free/voluntary marketplace.

Even if such an inane law had been passed by the legislature in OK, I would think it would be found unconstitutional if ever taken to court, as it is clearly a suppression of free speech. First amendment protections are to be most vigorously defended when the speech in question is offensive or controversial, as I recall the gist of previous adjudications on the matter....

I think they're modeling to be book-ends.

"adjudicate rat conflicts" - LOL!

>> ^rottenseed:
I wish they would hold REAL debates...you know, with formal rules. I hate this talking over each other bullshit.


Well, usually the reporter would be adjudicating 2 people with opposing view points rather than pushing a viewpoint themselves...

I pine for the days when the news was reported, not packaged with a neat little party line bow then force fed to me...

Replying to each paragraph seperately...

>> ^blankfist:
Same sex marriage will eventually win in this country. It's a natural progression that cannot be denied. Still, that doesn't make it any more right that it exists for heterosexuals and not homosexuals right now. I think there needs to be a push for the legality of marriage being something the government regulates, recognizes and manages due to the limitations given us by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

I agree, though I would argue that government should just drop marriage altogether and only deal in civil unions. Despite how much I like it, I don't think the "civil union only" argument flies very far.

You could always argue state's rights, but those are also defined.

Are they? The state's rights are defined in that state's constitution, but if I remember correctly, any action not explicitly granted or denied in the U.S. Constitution is left for the state to adjudicate by default. Marriage is a state's rights issue, so I don't think there's a higher authority than the state constitution here.

I think separation of church and state is clearly defined, and marriage is certainly defined as a religious institution, therefore it has no place in our government. That's where gays and lesbians need to go. Show it's unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, Separation of Church and State is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution (I haven't checked CA's Constitution for it). As such, I'm not convinced a Constitutional challenge along those lines will succeed, though I suppose I could be pleasantly surprised. Claiming "civil union = marriage" and then leveraging Brown v. Board for a 14th Amendment challenge seems like a better avenue to me. Regardless, there's no reason why every avenue can't be attempted at once.

>> ^lucky760:
The 14th Amendment is on our (opponents of Prop side.


I'm not sure it is -- If marriage is between a man and a woman, then prohibiting same-sex marriage would not be prohibited under the 14th Amendment. Since marriage is adjudicated by the state, I doubt federal law could be used to enforce a particular definition of marriage. I wish the courts had stepped in to decide this *before* the election.

For the record, I'm a straight male who is outraged and saddened by prop 8's passage. Ideally states would only issue certificates of civil union, which could be between any two (or more?) consenting adults. Marriage would be a religious issue that was not issued or recognized by the state.


Edit: After a bit more thought, I think a 14th Amendment challenge could work, but depends on showing that civil unions are essentially the same thing as marriage. At that point judicial precedent (Brown v. Board) would kick in.

Utterly unrelated but pleasing new word. Froglet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7490521.stm)

Adding small cute addition to this pleasing thread.

(The froglets are said to be about the size of the top of a little finger.

Experts say the recent mild weather, with damp and rainy conditions, were ideal for the creatures to appear.

Lost tails

Martin Gray, Royal Parks visitor service manager, said: "This is usually the time of year that the toads migrate.

"They are what we call 'toadlets' in that they are at the stage where they are no longer tadpoles, have lost their tails and cannot breathe under water. )

I (preusmably like the artical writer) prefer froglet to the experts toadlet. Perhaps critttter can adjudicate for the world