Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    Meanwhile, while we argue whether gays can marry the rest of our freedoms disappear... brilliant.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to wozzy's comment:


    Meanwhile, while we argue whether gays can marry the rest of our freedoms disappear... brilliant.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo


     




    I am no fan of Obama, believe me. I firmly disagree with many his and his administration's actions and believe there are plenty of decisions to bash the Obama administration on. But this clip is completely taken out of context. Here is the full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVZWLqkBtf0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVZWLqkBtf0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVZWLqkBtf0

    He was speaking about how rights and liberties were stripped from many Europeans in the name of nationalism or colonialism. Individual rights were taken by the government and political powers, such as those that occurred in Germany. He juxtaposes the contrasting ideologies of 1. power being derived from the governed, leading to the belief that all men are created equal and 2. that order and progress can only be maintained when individual rights are yielded to the government. He takes a stand against this second ideal throughout his speech.


    The relevant parts of the speech pertaining to the video clip (that was spliced together to make it sound worse than it is) begin around 2:30 in the video. I'd suggest checking it out. 


    And believe me, I was thrown back too when I saw that clip and wondered what the context was. Thankfully, the context makes it clear what was intended to be said.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Meanwhile, while we argue whether gays can marry the rest of our freedoms disappear... brilliant.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    The deluge of brainwashing over the last 6-8 years from the mainstream media regarding gay marriage is ludicrous when contrasted against their absolute silence on the systematic dismantling of the right to privacy.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from cousteau. Show cousteau's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.



    so then couples (straight) that can't have children are now going to be denied? What about couples that don't want to have kids? And show me some real data that shows kids raised in a gay family are some evil deviants that steal, kill, and are generally bad due to their nurturing. I'll wait. And DON'T cite some bogus and biased evangelical Christian-based group that would rather herd them "gays" together and ship them off to some island 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from JMUFranco. Show JMUFranco's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.



    I am adopted because my adoptive parents could not conceive. I dare you to tell them with a straight face that their marriage should not be recognized because its purpose was to breed. I could have very easily been raised by a gay family elsewhere.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    The deluge of brainwashing over the last 6-8 years from the mainstream media regarding gay marriage is ludicrous when contrasted against their absolute silence on the systematic dismantling of the right to privacy.



    The good news is that gays will be able to marry in the concentration camps.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    I am no fan of Obama, believe me. I firmly disagree with many his and his administration's actions and believe there are plenty of decisions to bash the Obama administration on. But this clip is completely taken out of context. Here is the full speech:



    His actions belie a man who cares about America, freedom or what makes us unique and great; the middle class.

    He answers to cabalist bankers alone, not you and me.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to cousteau's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.



    so then couples (straight) that can't have children are now going to be denied? What about couples that don't want to have kids?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    It wasn't instituted to be micro-managed, so don't deflect.

    If you look at the restrictions on marriage over the ages they have had the common denominator of being supportive of a stable environment for healthy offspring.

    Thus, polygamy and incest are prohibited as well.

    What the prohibitions have not been about is sexuality. It's only today that the media driven agenda has made that a focus of the discussion.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from cousteau. Show cousteau's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to cousteau's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.



    so then couples (straight) that can't have children are now going to be denied? What about couples that don't want to have kids?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    It wasn't instituted to be micro-managed, so don't deflect.

    If you look at the restrictions on marriage over the ages they have had the common denominator of being supportive of a stable environment for healthy offspring.

    Thus, polygamy and incest are prohibited as well.

    What the prohibitions have not been about is sexuality. It's only today that the media driven agenda has made that a focus of the discussion.



    well maybe it's time for sexuality to be the discussion. Again, there is no evidence that kids raised in a gay household are any more likely to be criminals or other anti-social people. The rights cry that it "ruins marriage" and does not help children is total bunk

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.



    I am adopted because my adoptive parents could not conceive. I dare you to tell them with a straight face that their marriage should not be recognized because its purpose was to breed. I could have very easily been raised by a gay family elsewhere.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I didn't say your adoptive parents marriage shouldn't be recognized.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from cousteau. Show cousteau's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to cousteau's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JMUFranco's comment:

     Legal denial of marriage/rights to same-sex couples is legally unjustified under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    No. Legally, all males have the exact same rights as all other males; (same goes for a female and all other females).

     

     



    See, the issue isn't based upon sex, but rather based upon sexuality. It's generally new grounds, at least Constitutionally, to expand protection to that class based upon sexuality. Rather than saying both men and women should have the same right to marry, they argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same right to marry.

    I know it's not uniformly enforced across states, but I know that (at least in public institutions) in my home state of Virginia, homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Thus, they have achieved protected class status in that regard, similar to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's something that the individual cannot change (but rather, only hide), and discrimination against them IMO is wrong.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I am also against discriminating against someone because of their gayness. But they are not being discriminated against regarding marriage.

    Marriage laws are not based on sexuality, but rather the potential to breed and the need to enhance the cohesiveness of families for the sake of minors.



    so then couples (straight) that can't have children are now going to be denied? What about couples that don't want to have kids?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    It wasn't instituted to be micro-managed, so don't deflect.

    If you look at the restrictions on marriage over the ages they have had the common denominator of being supportive of a stable environment for healthy offspring.

    Thus, polygamy and incest are prohibited as well.

    What the prohibitions have not been about is sexuality. It's only today that the media driven agenda has made that a focus of the discussion.




    BTW...keep up the Crusty the BB ball sucker owning. He's too stupid to know that his arguments are baseless an 90% of people find him beyond contemptible

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    The deluge of brainwashing over the last 6-8 years from the mainstream media regarding gay marriage is ludicrous when contrasted against their absolute silence on the systematic dismantling of the right to privacy.



    The good news is that gays will be able to marry in the concentration camps.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    They won't be in the camps.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    sick

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    That something was instituted millenia ago is not - or should not be - relevant. Institutions are social constructions, and are all dynamic and subject to change. That something has lasted a long time is not in itself an argument for it to be either moral or rational. I won't pretend to know the 14th ammendment, but I would say that JMUFranco made a good case.

    In the end, the opening question was not for or against gay rights, but if ESPN should show them kissing. And the only real answer to that question is, if you don't like it you can turn off your TV.

    Supra societatem nemo

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    I think opra and her planned reality show had a lot to do with this. IMO it looked staged in some aspects. Could have goodell been contacted and told that this was going to become a made for tv event?  What if that did happen and Sam didn't get drafted?  Who is the bad guy the ?  If your into conspiracy theories. Let's see what the rams get for compensation picks next year. Maybe they get a 3rd for a player that is valued less. I for one was not impressed with Sams combine

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     I just have to ask Bradysgirlforreal if you're a boy or a girl, because if you're a boy the irony is delicious. If you're a girl, I kinda wonder why you care so much.   

     




    Ya gotta love Irony-and Paradox while we're at it?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Meanwhile, while we argue whether gays can marry the rest of our freedoms disappear... brilliant.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJukZTtJxFo

     




    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?



    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura ticket, a mass social media campaign to write them in.  Dissolve the privately owned Federal Reserve and have America start printing our own money again.  Refuse any United Nations resolutions that try to circumvent our Constiturion.  Remove money and special interests from politics entirely.  Abolish electronic voting. Jail the bankers and financers who have purposely tried to bankrupt America.  Give states the power to govern themselves with little Federal oversight.  Legalize industrial hemp and make it a major cash crop and stop the destruction of our national resources immediately.  The solutions are there and pretty straight forward.  The actions necessary and mobilization is the hard part, people are confused, pulled in every direction by false prophets, tea party's and  people labeling themselves as Libertarians.  The sure sign someone is FOS is if they say they can work within and around the two party system and make things better.  The system is broken.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?



    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura ticket, a mass social media campaign to write them in.  Dissolve the privately owned Federal Reserve and have America start printing our own money again.  Refuse any United Nations resolutions that try to circumvent our Constiturion.  Remove money and special interests from politics entirely.  Abolish electronic voting. Jail the bankers and financers who have purposely tried to bankrupt America.  Give states the power to govern themselves with little Federal oversight.  Legalize industrial hemp and make it a major cash crop and stop the destruction of our national resources immediately.  The solutions are there and pretty straight forward.  The actions necessary and mobilization is the hard part, people are confused, pulled in every direction by false prophets, tea party's and  people labeling themselves as Libertarians.  The sure sign someone is FOS is if they say they can work within and around the two party system and make things better.  The system is broken.

    These are just empty postulates. Remove money and special interests from politics? That is perhaps the most naive statement of the year. One of the most well-known definitions of politics is that "Politics is the distribution of ressources in a society." It is all about money and special interests - as it has always been. 

    I think I dislike bankers as much as the next guy, but IMO they did not purposely try to bankrupt the country, they tried to get rich. The answer is not to remove federal jurisdiction in this - or other areas. It is, obviously, to regulate the banking sector better.

    Complicated problems are not always - if ever - Gordic knots, to be solved with a simple solution. Complicated problems most often need complicated solutions. 

    I don't believe in quick fixes, not for the economy and not for the exhaustion of natural resources.

    Supra societatem nemo

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?



    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura ticket, a mass social media campaign to write them in.  Dissolve the privately owned Federal Reserve and have America start printing our own money again.  Refuse any United Nations resolutions that try to circumvent our Constiturion.  Remove money and special interests from politics entirely.  Abolish electronic voting. Jail the bankers and financers who have purposely tried to bankrupt America.  Give states the power to govern themselves with little Federal oversight.  Legalize industrial hemp and make it a major cash crop and stop the destruction of our national resources immediately.  The solutions are there and pretty straight forward.  The actions necessary and mobilization is the hard part, people are confused, pulled in every direction by false prophets, tea party's and  people labeling themselves as Libertarians.  The sure sign someone is FOS is if they say they can work within and around the two party system and make things better.  The system is broken.




    Very well spoken Wozzy-I am all in!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?



    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura ticket, a mass social media campaign to write them in.  Dissolve the privately owned Federal Reserve and have America start printing our own money again.  Refuse any United Nations resolutions that try to circumvent our Constiturion.  Remove money and special interests from politics entirely.  Abolish electronic voting. Jail the bankers and financers who have purposely tried to bankrupt America.  Give states the power to govern themselves with little Federal oversight.  Legalize industrial hemp and make it a major cash crop and stop the destruction of our national resources immediately.  The solutions are there and pretty straight forward.  The actions necessary and mobilization is the hard part, people are confused, pulled in every direction by false prophets, tea party's and  people labeling themselves as Libertarians.  The sure sign someone is FOS is if they say they can work within and around the two party system and make things better.  The system is broken.

    These are just empty postulates. Remove money and special interests from politics? That is perhaps the most naive statement of the year. One of the most well-known definitions of politics is that "Politics is the distribution of ressources in a society." It is all about money and special interests - as it has always been. 

    I think I dislike bankers as much as the next guy, but IMO they did not purposely try to bankrupt the country, they tried to get rich. The answer is not to remove federal jurisdiction in this - or other areas. It is, obviously, to regulate the banking sector better.

    Complicated problems are not always - if ever - Gordic knots, to be solved with a simple solution. Complicated problems most often need complicated solutions. 

    I don't believe in quick fixes, not for the economy and not for the exhaustion of natural resources.

    Supra societatem nemo

     




    Me thinks you need more spinach and less pastries-LOL

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brady2Welker47. Show Brady2Welker47's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

     

    Brady2Welker47

    Anyone? Any idea how Sam the Ram is doing in OTAs?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?



    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura ticket, a mass social media campaign to write them in.  Dissolve the privately owned Federal Reserve and have America start printing our own money again.  Refuse any United Nations resolutions that try to circumvent our Constiturion.  Remove money and special interests from politics entirely.  Abolish electronic voting. Jail the bankers and financers who have purposely tried to bankrupt America.  Give states the power to govern themselves with little Federal oversight.  Legalize industrial hemp and make it a major cash crop and stop the destruction of our national resources immediately.  The solutions are there and pretty straight forward.  The actions necessary and mobilization is the hard part, people are confused, pulled in every direction by false prophets, tea party's and  people labeling themselves as Libertarians.  The sure sign someone is FOS is if they say they can work within and around the two party system and make things better.  The system is broken.

    These are just empty postulates. Remove money and special interests from politics? That is perhaps the most naive statement of the year. One of the most well-known definitions of politics is that "Politics is the distribution of ressources in a society." It is all about money and special interests - as it has always been. 

    I think I dislike bankers as much as the next guy, but IMO they did not purposely try to bankrupt the country, they tried to get rich. The answer is not to remove federal jurisdiction in this - or other areas. It is, obviously, to regulate the banking sector better.

    Complicated problems are not always - if ever - Gordic knots, to be solved with a simple solution. Complicated problems most often need complicated solutions. 

    I don't believe in quick fixes, not for the economy and not for the exhaustion of natural resources.

    Supra societatem nemo

     



    I wonder who wrote the definition you quote? Because politics shouldn't be confused with free markets, or rights or liberties. Free markets govern themselves with little oversight. A guiding hand, not what we have today with crony capitalism and tax, banking laws set up to make the bankers richer while the average American suffers. A small federal government, with power in the hands of the state and the individual is what this country was intended to be. The federal government has per the constitution a very strict set of things it can engage in. What they do today is well beyond their scope as set forth by our founders. 

    Does it seem strange to you that greater than 50% of those in congress are millionaires? How about the fact that they became millionaires while in congress. Special interest groups have this country and the politicians by the stones. Because of this, bankers benefit, not the tax payer. Banker bailout? How about giving that money to the taxpayers that were raked over the coals with a propped up and criminal derivatives market that was designed to implode. What do the bankers care? No one goes to jail, they just get bigger bonuses, leaving us to foot the bill. 

    Wozzys comment about the Fed is spot on. Congress is the only entity charged with the printing of money and control of interest rates. What the Fed is, is a cabal of bankers who rig the system, drive us further into debt so we are beholden to them via that debt and interest payments. A private banking organization like the Fed has no business setting monetary policy or the printing of money. It's criminal to say the least. With this control, it doesn't matter who or what party is in office, because the control of a country, our country is about who controls the money..see the Fed. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share