Casett, even if your contention were true, why are we beholden to what you believe they felt?
Can you not argue rightness on its own merits?
And no, you are the one appealing to political correctness with your assertions to the will of the majority. It takes backbone to stand against the clamoring crowd to do what is right, even though the masses cheer for bigoty and intolerance like yours.
It's not a matter of expression of belief, but a legally backed recognition. If I'm married by law, I can go to court to enforce the rights that go along with it. That's what marriage is about, a legal status.
Do you intend to take that away from everybody? Or are you just ignorant of it?
ANN O'MALLEY, I'd say you should turn down the rhetoric, but it's not like Republicans have been reluctant to call President Obama a traitor. Among other things.
Guarantee somebody will be upset your words here, but conspicuously silent with other examples.
EDWARD E. CAHILL, contraceptives prevent abortions? You'll never get them to get past their declarations that women should just keep their legs closed.
CHARLES P. WILSON, The Biblical God has a lot of laws that this nation doesn't follow, and a marriage is actually very much a civil matter. As long as that's the case, and as long as we don't write laws based on the dictates of any particular religion, I'll pass on using the Bible as sole and inarguable reference.
JOY STURTEVANT, you may want to look for the Republicans who do that. I've never noticed you calling them out.
Keep trying to drive that wedge. No, the NAACP isn't abandoning its mission, nor is your expression of concern anything but a transparent attempt to split apart a group with a common cause by a phony presentation of some division between them.
But really, since when was the number of people voting for something (especially when turnout is less than 100%) a sign that it's right to do?
Can't we find a few examples of this side of the paper declaring opposition to the tyranny and discrimination of a popular referendum?
Oh wait, we can.
PS, North Carolina's ballot referendum DID explicitly disavow Civil Unions, and yes, believe it or not, there is no recognized right to private contracts which offer the same benefits of marriage.
Though really, the lack of the same process being available to do so as anybody else, you'd think that'd be obvious enough as discrimination.
Actually we know many of the founding fathers were responsible for disclaiming excess religious influence in the government, from their explicit words and actions.
They didn't want a theocracy, and would probably resent you co-opting them to advance your own agenda.
So where's your proof that it was unions? Oh wait, you complain about me without evidence, but offer none for your own contentions?
Credibility=Negative.
See when you make demands like that, you put an obligation on yourself first.
Me? I'm not even interested in bothering showing you any facts, you won't see them when they're waving in front of your face. Heck, you'd probably blame the Unions over Chinese government subsidies just to make the point.
rick1, please do not claim to quote me and then edit my words.
That's a misrepresentation and very offensive.
But you are making an assumption about them, and no, my description of how you feel is not revealing anything about me.
Keep trying to project your faults onto others, it's nearly as phony as your attempt to say "I never said or assumed that they are all blankless welfare leeches" when you say in the next sentence that the great majority is gaming the system. So...you're not saying it's all, just the great majority.
What an improvement. Really, you're damning yourself with that. I'll accept your contention that you believe it's only the great majority.
Fine, then I'll revise my words to say you're just assuming that great majority are shiftless welfare leeches as part of your dogma.
How does that make your actions any better?
Strange that you're so upset at the word "shiftless" though. Why did you edit my post to remove so inoffensive a word? That's more offensive that you would do that.
Shame on you.
hambone, it's too hot to go outside and do anything.
Saying a prayer while acting in the capacity of your office is. Or letting somebody else say it, who you invited.
That's the difference.
I'm not surprised you won't recognize that.
I'd accept a moment of silence, at which time anybody who wished could silently say their prayers or whatever, but when you have an actual ceremony, you're crossing the line.
Especially when there are good odds that anybody ELSE wanting to say a prayer would not be allowed to do so.
TOES02800, keep telling yourself that it was the unions at fault, when the reality it was the corporate CEO's who took the money they could have spent improving the factories and put it into their own pockets.
I know you want me to believe your unsupported anecdotal stories, but I'll pass on that when there's actual facts, like how Bain loaded up the mill with debt, paid itself, then left the actual creditors hanging.
Or do you want me to tell you about anecdotes? Ok, there's the CEO who made a piece of equipment run 24-7 without proper maintenance, then complained when it broke down. And tried to blame the overworked employees who were running it because they were so exhausted they couldn't do things properly. Never seen that happen? You can find it here, at some of our local factories.
Dare you to visit them?
Rick1: Only if Obama were planning on doing everything Pena wanted.
Which if he is, is a problem even if Pena is a complete saint.
Lost identity
Casett, even if your contention were true, why are we beholden to what you believe they felt?
Can you not argue rightness on its own merits?
And no, you are the one appealing to political correctness with your assertions to the will of the majority. It takes backbone to stand against the clamoring crowd to do what is right, even though the masses cheer for bigoty and intolerance like yours.
It's not a matter of expression of belief, but a legally backed recognition. If I'm married by law, I can go to court to enforce the rights that go along with it. That's what marriage is about, a legal status.
Do you intend to take that away from everybody? Or are you just ignorant of it?
"GOP conspires to disrupt Obama" and other Letters to the Editors
ANN O'MALLEY, I'd say you should turn down the rhetoric, but it's not like Republicans have been reluctant to call President Obama a traitor. Among other things.
Guarantee somebody will be upset your words here, but conspicuously silent with other examples.
EDWARD E. CAHILL, contraceptives prevent abortions? You'll never get them to get past their declarations that women should just keep their legs closed.
CHARLES P. WILSON, The Biblical God has a lot of laws that this nation doesn't follow, and a marriage is actually very much a civil matter. As long as that's the case, and as long as we don't write laws based on the dictates of any particular religion, I'll pass on using the Bible as sole and inarguable reference.
JOY STURTEVANT, you may want to look for the Republicans who do that. I've never noticed you calling them out.
Lost identity
Keep trying to drive that wedge. No, the NAACP isn't abandoning its mission, nor is your expression of concern anything but a transparent attempt to split apart a group with a common cause by a phony presentation of some division between them.
But really, since when was the number of people voting for something (especially when turnout is less than 100%) a sign that it's right to do?
Can't we find a few examples of this side of the paper declaring opposition to the tyranny and discrimination of a popular referendum?
Oh wait, we can.
PS, North Carolina's ballot referendum DID explicitly disavow Civil Unions, and yes, believe it or not, there is no recognized right to private contracts which offer the same benefits of marriage.
Though really, the lack of the same process being available to do so as anybody else, you'd think that'd be obvious enough as discrimination.
Cheap Shots
Jack_Dennis, your attempts at labeling are as pathetic applied to me as they are to President Obama.
All it says to me is that you've been indoctrinated to throw that insult around, so you don't have to face up to your lack of a persuasive argument.
Alprova, don't forget Solyndra built their factory. That's not fraud, and so begs the question, what did happen?
Honest answers reflect on Chinese price-dumping.
Erstwhile conservatives just scream at the bankruptcy as if that was the whole story.
Pray on, Hamilton County Commission
Actually we know many of the founding fathers were responsible for disclaiming excess religious influence in the government, from their explicit words and actions.
They didn't want a theocracy, and would probably resent you co-opting them to advance your own agenda.
I suggest not trying to make them your pawns.
Cheap Shots
Jack_Dennis: Age-old right-wing reactionary tactic, create outrage against the unions.
Maybe you think Haymarket Square has been forgotten, but not so much.
Cheap Shots
So where's your proof that it was unions? Oh wait, you complain about me without evidence, but offer none for your own contentions?
Credibility=Negative.
See when you make demands like that, you put an obligation on yourself first.
Me? I'm not even interested in bothering showing you any facts, you won't see them when they're waving in front of your face. Heck, you'd probably blame the Unions over Chinese government subsidies just to make the point.
Cheap Shots
rick1, please do not claim to quote me and then edit my words.
That's a misrepresentation and very offensive.
But you are making an assumption about them, and no, my description of how you feel is not revealing anything about me.
Keep trying to project your faults onto others, it's nearly as phony as your attempt to say "I never said or assumed that they are all blankless welfare leeches" when you say in the next sentence that the great majority is gaming the system. So...you're not saying it's all, just the great majority.
What an improvement. Really, you're damning yourself with that. I'll accept your contention that you believe it's only the great majority.
Fine, then I'll revise my words to say you're just assuming that great majority are shiftless welfare leeches as part of your dogma.
How does that make your actions any better?
Strange that you're so upset at the word "shiftless" though. Why did you edit my post to remove so inoffensive a word? That's more offensive that you would do that.
Shame on you.
hambone, it's too hot to go outside and do anything.
Pray on, Hamilton County Commission
Saying a prayer while acting in the capacity of your office is. Or letting somebody else say it, who you invited.
That's the difference.
I'm not surprised you won't recognize that.
I'd accept a moment of silence, at which time anybody who wished could silently say their prayers or whatever, but when you have an actual ceremony, you're crossing the line.
Especially when there are good odds that anybody ELSE wanting to say a prayer would not be allowed to do so.
Cheap Shots
TOES02800, keep telling yourself that it was the unions at fault, when the reality it was the corporate CEO's who took the money they could have spent improving the factories and put it into their own pockets.
I know you want me to believe your unsupported anecdotal stories, but I'll pass on that when there's actual facts, like how Bain loaded up the mill with debt, paid itself, then left the actual creditors hanging.
Or do you want me to tell you about anecdotes? Ok, there's the CEO who made a piece of equipment run 24-7 without proper maintenance, then complained when it broke down. And tried to blame the overworked employees who were running it because they were so exhausted they couldn't do things properly. Never seen that happen? You can find it here, at some of our local factories.
Dare you to visit them?
Rick1: Only if Obama were planning on doing everything Pena wanted.
Which if he is, is a problem even if Pena is a complete saint.
Keep money out of politics!