Grmpy and Tomasz' political disagreement thread

Discussion
1

Ok, I have decided to start a new thread spinning off of the debate that Grmpy and I are getting into over at the thread about the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling. That one’s turning into a couple threads in one, so I figured this would be a good place to dump any opinions about what role you think government needs to play in your lives.

Grmpy - I think we left off by discussing how much government branches (in this case judicial, natch) can really effect the reduction of discrimination and related nastiness. While some of us may take them at their word that they are trying to build a more harmonious society, I remain skeptical.

Why? Because our federal government is wildly inconsistent with the ‘tolerant’ image it projects, and that alone makes me suspect an ulterior motive other than the advancement of civil rights.

Consider: the same regime that painted the White House “rainbow” is also one that:

  • funnels arms and other forms of “aid” to Ukrainian fascist / ultra-nationalist groups (do a web search for ‘Right Sektor’) to aid them in their conflict against Russia

  • tacitly approves of Saudi Arabia’s military actions against Yemen, and has had a long and bizarre alliance with this medieval theocracy (where are our ambassadors for gay rights to this kingdom where there is capital punishment for homosexuality?)

  • supports the apartheid state of Israel (despite some very minor “you kids stop that or we’ll turn the car around!” scolding), and has supported it when that country was one of the few ‘1st world’ nations aiding apartheid South Africa.

These are just a few examples of how this federal government, trying to be a shining beacon of tolerance and diversity to the world, has dropped the ball on that same issue
while it attempts to maintain its messy web of strategic alliances.

We could argue that there are different standards for domestic and foreign policy, but I call shenanigans on that - if you want to remake the world in your image, you make your dealings with other nations consistent with how you conduct business in your own nation.

2

It’s complicated. No pure path exists, and it would be idealistic to think it would.
Doing international business violates U.S. law in some circumstances, but the business still has to take place.

3

now you are way off topic.
The SCOTUS ruling was just and fair for the society we live in.
anything else is dishonest and unfair for those that are oppressed
There’s really nothing else.

We could argue that there are different standards for domestic and foreign policy, but I call shenanigans on that - if you want to remake the world in your image, you make your dealings with other nations consistent with how you conduct business in your own nation.

no shenanigans. foreign and domestic policy are different. we are not the world authority. we are however the US authority so we can easily shape policy and law here whereas no where else. We can urge and we can suggest in other parts of the world but we have no jurisdiction over them.

besides comparing foreign policy and domestic policy is a false equvilancy.

4

What exactly are you guys arguing about? I’m not saying that in a dickish way. I’m honestly curious and don’t feel like reading through past threads.

5

What exactly are you guys arguing about? I’m not saying that in a dickish way. I’m honestly curious and don’t feel like reading through past threads.

Its from the “YaY for Gay people” thread. He thinks the SCOTUS should not have stepped in but rather let gay people get discriminated against until the public opinion fully swayed in favor of civil rights.

The SCOTUS stepping in and doing their job they are (secretly mind you, not because they have any concern for civil rights) creating divisiveness among the people in order to stay in power and continue to legitimize their existence or so he says.

6

He thinks if we go back in time to be hunter-gatherers, that it’s going to take care of most of our problems. With the exception of fighting over religion/beliefs.

The only way that would happen is to wipe out the portion of the population that refused to accept the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Hmmm. This sounds very similar to something from yesterday.

7

He thinks if we go back in time to be hunter-gatherers, that it’s going to take care of most of our problems. With the exception of fighting over religion/beliefs.

The only way that would happen is to wipe out the portion of the population that refused to accept the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Hmmm. This sounds very similar to something from yesterday.

No, I don’t believe that, I was providing examples of people who do believe that, in order to make a point that there are intractable problems within the human psyche that will exist no matter how minimal our complex our system of interactions may be.

I am also at odds with people from the ‘deep ecology’ movement like Pentti Linkola, a guy who openly calls for a totalitarian “green police” to kill off people who refuse to do what you mentioned above.

Interestingly enough, since we’re on the topic, John Zerzan was once a big public backer of the fellow in Atom’s avatar.

8

[reply]He thinks if we go back in time to be hunter-gatherers, that it’s going to take care of most of our problems. With the exception of fighting over religion/beliefs.

The only way that would happen is to wipe out the portion of the population that refused to accept the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Hmmm. This sounds very similar to something from yesterday.

No, I don’t believe that, I was providing examples of people who do believe that, in order to make a point that there are intractable problems within the human psyche that will exist no matter how minimal our complex our system of interactions may be.

I am also at odds with people from the ‘deep ecology’ movement like Pentti Linkola, a guy who openly calls for a totalitarian “green police” to kill off people who refuse to do what you mentioned above.

Interestingly enough, since we’re on the topic, John Zerzan was once a big public backer of the fellow in Atom’s avatar.[/reply]

Clandestine affairs.

9

no shenanigans. foreign and domestic policy are different. we are not the world authority. we are however the US authority so we can easily shape policy and law here whereas no where else. We can urge and we can suggest in other parts of the world but we have no jurisdiction over them.

besides comparing foreign policy and domestic policy is a false equvilancy.

I realize I got off topic, but I think this digression was necessary to provide some background on my skepticism. We’ve determined that I am not an apocalyptic Christian or a homophobe, so I felt I needed to explain a little more why I feel that this ruling is just a federal power grab, and an attempt to neuter the 10th Amendment by riding the wave of popularity that gay marriage currently enjoys. While I feel a lot of gays will enjoy a better quality of life as a result of this, and I don’t deny them that, I again take the supposedly batty opinion that this ruling has as much to do with centralizing government power as it does with gay liberation.

And, I know, it is a stretch to compare the aims and responsibilities of the State Department and the Supreme Court. However - all these entities are supposedly representative of the will of the American people, and all contribute to how we are perceived by the rest of humanity and by history. I just find it massively hypocritical and sick that this country supports a nation which sentences homosexuals to death, while simultaneously claiming to advance the cause of human rights.

As a side note, this is not a new thing on the U.S. historical timeline either, and so this isn’t just another attempt on my behalf to call out the Obama administration exclusively. At the same time that Lyndon Johnson was initiating his “Great Society” over here, and advancing civil rights locally, his administration was massively expanding our military role in Vietnam. I will never understand why our rulers think they can at once be agents of peace and harmony while they throw millions into the meatgrinder of war at any given opportunity.

10

What exactly are you guys arguing about? I’m not saying that in a dickish way. I’m honestly curious and don’t feel like reading through past threads.

Don’t worry, you can still order back issues of the comic which features this story arc: “Grmpy Force One issues #151-155: Rise of the Tomaszoids”

11

[reply]
no shenanigans. foreign and domestic policy are different. we are not the world authority. we are however the US authority so we can easily shape policy and law here whereas no where else. We can urge and we can suggest in other parts of the world but we have no jurisdiction over them.

besides comparing foreign policy and domestic policy is a false equvilancy.

I realize I got off topic, but I think this digression was necessary to provide some background on my skepticism. We’ve determined that I am not an apocalyptic Christian or a homophobe, so I felt I needed to explain a little more why I feel that this ruling is just a federal power grab, and an attempt to neuter the 10th Amendment by riding the wave of popularity that gay marriage currently enjoys. While I feel a lot of gays will enjoy a better quality of life as a result of this, and I don’t deny them that, I again take the supposedly batty opinion that this ruling has as much to do with centralizing government power as it does with gay liberation.

And, I know, it is a stretch to compare the aims and responsibilities of the State Department and the Supreme Court. However - all these entities are supposedly representative of the will of the American people, and all contribute to how we are perceived by the rest of humanity and by history. I just find it massively hypocritical and sick that this country supports a nation which sentences homosexuals to death, while simultaneously claiming to advance the cause of human rights.

As a side note, this is not a new thing on the U.S. historical timeline either, and so this isn’t just another attempt on my behalf to call out the Obama administration exclusively. At the same time that Lyndon Johnson was initiating his “Great Society” over here, and advancing civil rights locally, his administration was massively expanding our military role in Vietnam. I will never understand why our rulers think they can at once be agents of peace and harmony while they throw millions into the meatgrinder of war at any given opportunity.[/reply]

nationalism, unification, N.W.O.

We can’t control everyone everywhere, despite sanctions and trade embargoes.

War is an American corporation cash cow. It also employs millions of U.S. citizens as well as kills them on the front line.

12

I realize I got off topic, but I think this digression was necessary to provide some background on my skepticism.

your background holds no weight when your reasons are invalid… Providing a non Sequitur is what you’re doing

“you shouldn’t drink Alcohol because I’ve always driven a red car.”
“but those things don’t have anything to with each other?”
“Let me tell you why I drive a red car…”

explaining the reasons why you drive a red car still has nothing to do with why I shouldn’t drink.

We’ve determined that I am not an apocalyptic Christian or a homophobe, so I felt I needed to explain a little more why I feel that this ruling is just a federal power grab, and an attempt to neuter the 10th Amendment by riding the wave of popularity that gay marriage currently enjoys.

The ruling is not a power grab. The federal government gains NOTHING off of this ruling. All they did was reaffirm that you cannot discriminate against the citizens. The SCOTUS took nothing away. They righted a wrong. How can you not understand that? More importantly, why are you trying to turn it into something else?

While I feel a lot of gays will enjoy a better quality of life as a result of this, and I don’t deny them that, I again take the supposedly batty opinion that this ruling has as much to do with centralizing government power as it does with gay liberation.

That makes no sense. The government already has centralizing power. Did you copy off of the wrong person in Government class? We don’t live under the Articles of Confederation. the federal government is already the supreme law of the land. They did not assume any power they did not already have. and as I said before they did not take anything away from anybody so there is no power grab.

And, I know, it is a stretch to compare the aims and responsibilities of the State Department and the Supreme Court.

That’s it, you know better, there is no “however” after that statement.

[strike]However - all these entities are supposedly representative of the will of the American people, and all contribute to how we are perceived by the rest of humanity and by history. I just find it massively hypocritical and sick that this country supports a nation which sentences homosexuals to death, while simultaneously claiming to advance the cause of human rights. [/strike]

Immaterial. Has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling and how we treat our own citizens

As a side note, this is not a new thing on the U.S. historical timeline either, and so this isn’t just another attempt on my behalf to call out the Obama administration exclusively. At the same time that Lyndon Johnson was initiating his “Great Society” over here, and advancing civil rights locally, his administration was massively expanding our military role in Vietnam. I will never understand why our rulers think they can at once be agents of peace and harmony while they throw millions into the meatgrinder of war at any given opportunity.

Obviously an attempt to make others into what we want… isn’t that what you wrote? that’s what you wrote, right? Countries kill gays yet we have no problem with those countries… well we have a problem with them but the alternative is the meat grinder. you can’t have it both ways.

Think of it as parenting. you will let your kids play how they want. the people across the street will parent their own kids with stricter actions. Can you force those parents across the street to parent like you? no, you can’t, but you can try to persuade, try to get them to ease up on the reigns. what does matter, though, is how you parent your own kids.

14

Is this what you are for or against?

It’s what I’m for. You obviously missed the metaphor how the federal government is the parent to the states because we don’t live under the articles of confederation

If you are for it then I would assume you would be in favor of states being allowed to make their own decisions instead of having a handful of people in the supreme court tell everyone how to act.

I’m all for states making their own decisions as long as they abide by the law; and discrimination is not lawful. What’s even more fucked up up than a “Handful of people on the supreme court” telling everyone how to act is ONE Jane doe inbred hillbilly in the county offices telling everyone how to act. “A handful of people in the supreme court” is impartial unlike the toothless, half naked man worshiper, jane doe in the county office.

It is a sham how we’re expected to believe our vote counts and then we go out and vote for something and then a year or two later the govt comes in and says, “No, we’re going to go ahead and do it our way since we know better than you.”

It’s a sham how you think you can vote away peoples’ rights. YOU CANNOT. it’s unconstitutional. and that is why the supreme court knows better than you in this instance.

You were in the navy right? So, If I can get it on the ballot that people that served in the navy can’t make over $3 an hour and get that passed it should stand as law? “flp flpfl flpf no no that wouldn’t be right.” but why it passed on the ballot?
I suspect you were absent/day dreaming/ had a teacher who didn’t teach it when High School government class talked about the “tyranny of the majority” which is one of the reasons the supreme court was established.

The fact is is you don’t like it cause you don’t understand it.

That’s why I don’t even vote.

that’s your right. sucks, but still your right.

I don’t think the govt is out to get me or that it has any secret agenda.

That’s refreshing

I just think everyone in power is a bunch of idiots.

Perhaps if everyone voted we might be able to counter act that… Hintity hintity hint hint hint.

You know that’s a pretty general/easy statement to make. why do you think they are idiots?

The US govt is nothing more than a giant home owners association that only enforces the rules that will piss off the people who have the nice looking houses and yards.

SO much for the government not out to get you. The government doesn’t only enforce rules that will piss people off.

All they do is bring down your property value so that some dumbass with a bunch of Bermuda grass growing all overt the sidewalk doesn’t feel like scum for not knowing how to edge his yard.

HOA don’t bring down property values and they certainly wouldn’t let a house be unkept like that.

Then they go and have block parties and have a bunch of stupid activities for 3 year olds that exclude 75% of the people who don’t even have young kids.

probably because the other 75% are able to have their own parties.

So, you pay $100 or so dollars per month so some asswipe can tell you that you have to have “weathered wood” shingles instead of the nice cedar one you want.

SOunds like it’s time for you to move to another neighborhood where they’ll let you put up the nicer shingles.

And if you want solar cells on your roof, well SCREW YOU!

I can’t imagine why they would let the neighbor have a shitty yard but not let you have nice clean solar panels

It doesn’t fit into their agenda, unless of course you have some gay or black people living in your house. In that case they are scared to say no because you might say you are being discriminated against for being a gay or black solar energy enthusiast.

SO the moral here is that the minorities have had it way easier in this country than the white folk? YOu really need to brush up on your history if that’s the case. I’m not sure how the homeowners association is an apt metaphor.

That’s pretty much my take on the whole mess.

and that’s unfortunate because it would appear you have a number of things wrong, and in those wrong understandings you have gone and oversimplified them which makes them even more wrong. It’s no wonder you’re angry. you just don’t know.

15

Celebrity Death Match: Yard Nazis vs. the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS does not make nor enforce the laws, it only interprets the laws.

Congress (House and Senate) makes laws. Police enforce laws.

President can only veto or sign a bill into law after it has passed both the House and Senate.

Guess who you can vote for directly?

Remember who is elected by an electoral college comprised of unknown persons v. a popular, direct vote?

You want change? Choose wisely.

16

Celebrity Death Match: Yard Nazis vs. the SCOTUS.

Glad to see another combatant has joined the fray above.

It’s officially a TROOP SURGE!

17

[reply]Celebrity Death Match: Yard Nazis vs. the SCOTUS.

Glad to see another combatant has joined the fray above.

It’s officially a TROOP SURGE![/reply]

If only the Yard Nazis could make valid arguments based on facts.

18

your background holds no weight when your reasons are invalid… Providing a non Sequitur is what you’re doing

“you shouldn’t drink Alcohol because I’ve always driven a red car.”
“but those things don’t have anything to with each other?”
“Let me tell you why I drive a red car…”

explaining the reasons why you drive a red car still has nothing to do with why I shouldn’t drink.

Let me state it again slightly differently, and you can tell me if this does or doesn’t have a logical flow to it.

I find the SCOTUS ruling a.) good for homosexuals but b.) as likely to be part of a larger campaign towards allowing the FedGov to be the primary arbiter of morals in this country, a job which they should not hold. More on that in a moment.

I stated that I don’t believe they deserve to be the moral arbiter of anything, using an example of erratic foreign policy to show that they do not act along lines of moral consistency, but simply do whatever is politically expedient at the moment.

So if it is convenient for them to use some Middle Eastern country, in which gays can be publicly executed, to have a military launchpad from which to attack another country, then good for them I suppose…but their overall approach towards the sanctity of human life is very very flawed.

The ruling is not a power grab. The federal government gains NOTHING off of this ruling. All they did was reaffirm that you cannot discriminate against the citizens. The SCOTUS took nothing away. They righted a wrong. How can you not understand that? More importantly, why are you trying to turn it into something else?

I suppose I am just one of these people who would object if SCOTUS determined that it’s legal for free Gummi Bears to be distributed to all American children on the 15th of each month. Sorry. I know it is hard to understand, but though I am not against the outcome of this ruling, I disagree with this level of interference in social life and in social institutions like marriage which (though they have been interfered with by government for millenia) should not require a state stamp of approval to exist.

I have to contest actions like these simply because they get the government more into the game of steering our value preferences. Or at the very least they condition the public to think that this is the way things should be.

Think of it this way.

If we are to have a government at all (my opinion on that was made clear in the other thread) It is perfectly acceptable for that government to make, for example, driving laws that help us to synchronize with the behavorial expectations of other drivers, and to keep people at an optimal level of road safety. Now - to accomplish that, these rules tell us which side of the road to drive on, how fast we are allowed to go etc. These rules do not indicate things such as what route we should take from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’, or (borrowing your non sequitur example) what color car you should have during the drive. Until those things can be proven as public safety issues and not personal value preferences, open society itself should come to its own conclusions on these matters.

Obviously an attempt to make others into what we want… isn’t that what you wrote? that’s what you wrote, right? Countries kill gays yet we have no problem with those countries… well we have a problem with them but the alternative is the meat grinder. you can’t have it both ways.

Sure you can - well we can sure as hell stop using our role as globo-cop to help the countries that persecute gays. If, again, we wish to have any leg at all to stand on when we are trying to “make the world safe for democracy” (a mantra that at least the past couple U.S. administrations have used as justification for foreign invasions), actions like these eventually need to be taken into consideration.

19

If only the Yard Nazis could make valid arguments based on facts.

I also just realized my mistake from my previous post - I got a memo now from Central Command; I am not to refer to escalations of forum conflicts as “troop surges”, due to the negative p.r. this projects.

The Pentagon has insisted that we instead refer to such situations as “Happy Fun-Time Forest Animal Jamborees.”

I have been stripped of my rank for this oversight

21

Hey, I am all for getting rid of marriage licenses (local government fee collection) and expensive weddings (more money unnecessarily paid out).

People get married for all sorts of different reasons.

Do you see it as a piece of legal paper that gives you certain benefits to the other person in the form of a tax deduction, distribution of assets, medical decisions, insurance benefits, etc. or do you see it as something more?

In relation to a monogamous relationship, marriage is bartering sex with one person for financial security/goods and services with the aforementioned benefits. You don’t need a legal piece of paper to do that nor do you need a legal piece of paper to have children. You want to be with only one person for the rest of your life, you don’t need a legal piece of paper to do that either.

Other than for the man-made benefits mentioned above, most of which can be taken care of with legal paper other than a marriage certificate, why even bother getting married?

deja vu

23

President can only veto or sign a bill into law after it has passed both the House and Senate.

which includes passing a number of sub committees in both houses, before it even gets voted on there.

You want change? Choose wisely.

That sounds like a Bernie Sanders endorsement. Good for you!!