I like hqpc's argument, however if they are in wedlock, the vows they each took probably included something along the lines of being faithful to each other.

"I love you, and will be forever faithful to you my love, except of course when I want to bed a hot woman."

Most marriage vows should include this, divorce lawyers would go bankrupt overnight.

Best cure for that is education, not cutting aid for those who are otherwise completely fucked. Then they'd be driven to abortions even more!
>> ^quantumushroom:

Both sides claim to want to make abortion, "Safe, legal and rare."
Ending all rewards for breeding out of wedlock might increase abortions but will also save a hell of a lot of money long term. Stopping wanton breeders means ending breeder culture.

Both sides claim to want to make abortion, "Safe, legal and rare."

Ending all rewards for breeding out of wedlock might increase abortions but will also save a hell of a lot of money long term. Stopping wanton breeders means ending breeder culture.

I was in grade school when this came out, so I watched to see if the modern WW has just gotten cynical and sold out in his old age. Maybe he was more honest back then.

hmmmmm.....a documentary where poverty is highlighted alot, but not one mention of the poverty rate and how it changed from the 60s to the time of the film. Ditto with education: all these 'experts' bemoan the decline in education, but not one mention of any broad measure against the 60s: graduation rates, average test scores, average GPAs, anything. Could it be that they don't have access to this information?

Dishonest.

And shilling for educational vouchers; I had no idea that issue had been defeated way back in the 80s. It seems the people of DC were even too savvy back then to fall for it.

Eliminating the minimum wage is a cure for poverty? Please explain the math to me!

In the example of the phili high school, a least he admitted that there were more students who graduated, despite the other problems. "These diplomas were worth less", yeah, but that was a nationwide phenomenona. And I agree about the cab issue.

The guy at about 21:00 goes through this elaborate narrative about a black ghetto girl, and her incentives to have a child out of wedlock so she can get paid, but then says it's not about race. WTF?

Give me a break QM. This is exactly what is wrong with America, your moral compass is all screwed up. It's not ok to have a (non)affair and one should resign for doing so but Palin who is almost too stupid to insult can be President of the United States?

I would argue the greater immorality is to support someone who is clearly too inept and out of their depth to hold the highest office in the country over someone who has the intellect and critical thought process to be a Congressman but sends some 'dirty' pictures/messages to someone.

Hell i'd take the intellectual and critical thinking Congressman even if he banged a few of these girls over a clearly inept but morally sound (and i'm not even saying Palin is morally sound) person when it comes to running the country. Everyone makes mistakes, we're humans and not infallible. I don't believe you can just someone on one mistake, no matter how stupid.

JFK and Clinton demonstrated that nailing a few women out of wedlock doesn't mean you're not capable of holding office. What he does in his private life is his business - Wiener made the mistake of flashing his on twitter. If he'd kept private between consenting adults who are we to call for his head???

Firemen and policemen don't lose their job for having an affair and they serve in a public position and are probably bigger role models than politicians.

If one can competently complete their job whilst banging hookers then what's the issue?

According to statistics, these "young people" (in reality ALL people) are not acting responsibly.

40% of American births are now out of wedlock.

And for fk's sake ONE in SIX Americans has the herp.

For those of you think 75 million is suspiciously low, you're right.

>> ^bcglorf:

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.
From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.


From merriam-webster.com:

1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Looks like Webster's has changed their definition.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.


The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 criminalized all marriage between white and non-white:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
The Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia ruled the Racial Integrity Act unconstitutional in 1967:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I can't help but notice you ignored my question. When did you choose to be heterosexual?

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.

From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.

It appears to me the definition that was used more than 100 years ago still is remarkably unchanged, save for the very loud and demanding cry from some today that want to remove the reference to "a man and a woman". Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

I guess I'm confused. If this is true, why aren't Republicans converting to Islam?

Everything they said Muslims want, Republicans want.

Gays executed, freedom to beat their women, eye for an eye justice, cut the hands of thieves (or people who "steal" by trying to set up tax-funded entitlement programs), no abortion, no sex outside of wedlock, no moral obligation to be honest to non-conservatives, etc.

I suppose they're just engaged in Taqiyya themselves.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberal "tolerance", like liberal "charity", is executed at gunpoint. Society is lectured by the liberal about how we have to "tolerate" (and subsidize) illegal aliens, revolving-door criminals, excessive taxation, out-of-wedlock births, homosexuality promoted in government schools, etc. because there is no truth, everything is relative.

More contradictions. Because liberals say that we should not:

• Deport people who fail to get government approval for entering our country, at gunpoint
  
• Imprison people indefinitely without trial, at gunpoint
  
• Tell people when they're allowed to have children
  
• Tell people who they're allowed to fall in love with
  
• Tell people which God they're allowed to pray to
  

We're the ones who are imposing our views on people...at gunpoint?

As for taxes, you really have some choices to make about the Constitution. Either it's an enforceable contract you're a signatory to (which includes an obligation to pay the taxes levied by Congress), or it's just ink on a page somewhere that has no relevance on our lives.

You don't get to pick bits of it you like, and ignore the rest.

Ordinary tolerance and liberal "tolerance" are very different.

Liberal "tolerance" is a political weapon to segregate and isolate those 'dummies who want their freedom' from the vision of self-annointed liberal elites.

Liberal "tolerance", like liberal "charity", is executed at gunpoint. Society is lectured by the liberal about how we have to "tolerate" (and subsidize) illegal aliens, revolving-door criminals, excessive taxation, out-of-wedlock births, homosexuality promoted in government schools, etc. because there is no truth, everything is relative.

One thing I respect about those jihadists: warped as they are, they're upfront about who and what they stand for, far more so than Progressives.





>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberal "tolerance" doesn't work on faithful muslims

The very idea that you think tolerance is some sort of tool to modify the behavior of the tolerated is humorous.
I honestly don't think you have any sense of what morality is about.

>> ^thepinky:
but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which I believe wholeheartedly in, but which is not an explicit part of the Constitution.

Quite right, though, taken at it's literal meaning "Congress shall not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" quite implicitly means that laws cannot be based on religious doctrine. In all actuality having "Christmas Day" a federal holiday is a violation of the First Amendment. Anti-Gay marriage laws are pure and simple unconstitutional.

When a law has ZERO basis outside of religious doctrine, as those preventing gay marriage, they are in violation of the First Amendment. As for people voting based on their religious beliefs, sure that doesn't violate the separation of Church and State, having faith based ballot measures does.

>> ^PHJF:
One can oppose gay marriage from a strictly utilitarian perspective. Marriage is about making BABIES, babies which fuel the economy. All sociopolitical barriers aside, I don't foresee two men or women impregnating each other anytime soon.

I'll agree with that position as soon as they make it a crime to have a child out of wedlock. That's like saying that if a straight person cannot procreate they shouldn't be allowed to get married, which is just as absurd as non breeding gay people. Why does Satan have such idiotic lawyers? You'd think with all of them going to Hell, he could pick the cream of the crop.

0:32 "He's to old to be on that show" Hey lady, your just as old, and 1/4 the wit of the guy your attacking.

0:52 "I only watch Fox News channel" Yes, because Fox New channels is honest, and reports events 100% factually.

1:07 "...I believe his son was born out of wedlock." Really? Wasn't Palin's daughter's son born out of wedlock TOO? Hypocrite!

1:15 "Is someone making jokes of his son" Yeah lade, talk to the idiot at 1:07 for your answer.

1:39 I'll spare the dialog. This woman really has no clue what such an action would do to this country.

Could we have those in the GOP be sterilized, so they dont inflict the next generation with their retarded brains?

"His son was born out of wedlock!"

So? What? What does your little goverment supported RELIGIOUS Ceremony have to do with anything?

People born out of wedlock don't sprout horns and suddenly start commiting acts of evil.

>> ^Aemaeth:
Umm, I'm not sure I get it. I don't really see how pro-choice gets tied into this.


Gov. Palin made it clear that it was Bristol's choice to have the child, out of wedlock and whatnot. The point is that Gov. Palin has very clearly stated that she DOES NOT SUPPORT LETTING OTHER FAMILIES GIVE THEIR DAUGHTERS THIS SAME CHOICE (nor is she a fan of other related things; http://blog.videosift.com/dag/This-cartoon-sums-up-my-feelings-on-Palin)


In other words... (Gov. Palin) - "My daughter is pregnant at 17; she chose life. You're daughter is pregnant at 17? Tough shit; she's having it, because abortion is wrong and should be illegal."