This man, wants to be the President of all Americans

“We have long had a tradition from the beginning of this country of respecting religious liberty and accommodating and respecting the good-faith religious views of our citizens [….] it is only the intolerance of the current day of the far-left that views with which they disagree — the far-left is such a radical proponent of gay marriage that anyone whose faith teaches to the contrary, anyone whose faith teaches that marriage is a sacrament of one man and one woman, a holy union before God, the far-left views that religious view as unacceptable and they’re trying to use the machinery of the law to crush those religious views. And I think it is wrong, I think it is intolerant, and I think it is entirely inconsistent with who we are as a people.”

Ted Cruz, on the Dana Loesch Show 

So…..because the dominant religious faith says that something is wrong…based on something they believe in, intolerance only exists on one side of the argument. And while proclaiming that ‘special rights’ must be avoided at all costs, we should carve out ‘special rights’ for a privileged segment of society…based on something they believe. Yep….sounds like religious liberty to me. /sarc

This calls for a compromise. Those opposed to gay marriage can refuse service to anyone they deem participating in such a civil ceremony….and those who engage in such can themselves be refused service by others. In return, the civil right that the party of the first part are privileged to engage in…..is extended without opposition to all American citizens.

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “This man, wants to be the President of all Americans

  1. Isn't it cute when a squirrel thinks he's found a nut? You think it's easy because you're confused.

    Pay attention, I'll type slowly just for you. Supply and demand are the market forces. A market cannot exist without both being present. A market can easily exist, as they have for centuries, without State intervention. It's basic economic theory….one which you clearly didn't learn in grade school.

    Breach of contract considerations aren't external market drivers, no matter how much you'd like them to be so. External, State market influences are artificial and not tied to breaches of contract…..because these issues occur without State influence on the market.

    I put quotes around 'necessary' because you falsely frame that State influence is a critical driver of market forces. You wish to believe, and project, that I favor no rule of law, because that is the only way your paltry argument would have a chance of appearing sound….but you cannot even illustrate a basic understanding of the free market.

    Contract law is not a driver of the market; just as theft, fraud or other injurious action is not a driver of the market.

    Once again you didn't, because you couldn't. You tried, but alas….once again fell short.

    Like

  2. Dervish: CI has never said that “no rules are necessary”. So there is no way I could have disagreed with him for saying that, since he never did. Something CI had never espoused.

    Like

  3. People who are hypersensitive about being correctly summarized as calling small business owners “plutocrats” should refrain from such errors that have been seen in these recent discussions: bringing plutocrats into discussions concerning the State harassing small business owners.

    Like

  4. Careful, you'll be accused of being a sycophant. It's in the playbook…right after duck, dodge and deflect.

    I'm still waiting for him to explain the Founders intentions behind the 2nd Amendment, and how it's been 'misinterpreted'.

    Like

  5. Yes, he has accused me of bring an “a**-kisser” because we have general agreement about the sanity of the free market vs the insanity of a command economy.

    Aside from his anal obsession, it shows a an obsession with imaginary cliqueshness and “sides” instead of truth.

    Like

  6. Yes, he has accused me of bring an “a**-kisser” because we have general agreement about the sanity of the free market vs the insanity of a command economy.

    Aside from his anal obsession, it shows a an obsession with imaginary cliqueshness and “sides” instead of truth.

    Like

  7. CI: …you falsely frame that State influence is a critical driver of market forces.

    I did not. I used the word “govern”. Go back and check. I did not use the word “driver”. I never said regulations “drive” the market. Your defense of your original incorrect assertion that regulation does not govern the market falls short. Because you completely fail to address this original incorrect assertion. Although you attempt to divert attention from this fact by throwing in a lot of ad hominem.

    CI: I'm still waiting for him to explain the Founders intentions behind the 2nd Amendment, and how it's been 'misinterpreted'.

    Yeah, I've been ignoring your assertion that you're “still waiting” because I made my case in the original discussion – and I stand by what I said there. I have no idea why you're still waiting. Likely because you think you can win the argument (while reminding readers of your “win”) by falsely asserting I never responded.

    dmarks: …the sanity of the free market vs the insanity of a command economy.

    You mean the insanity of the “free market”. What you call the “free market” does not even exist. Our markets are regulated, as they should be. And now dmarks is backtracking, given he JUST SAID he “always thought that at least some law/rules are necessary”. dmarks must be making himself dizzy.

    And it was CI who brought up a “command economy”. Which is something I would strongly oppose.

    dmarks: People who are hypersensitive about being correctly summarized as calling small business owners “plutocrats”…

    dmarks is “hypersensitive” about being called out for lying. This is an abject falsehood which has been disproven elsewhere.

    Like

  8. Some libertarians are anarchists (anarcho capitalists they are called) but most are not (I'm surely not)…….And as far as regulations go, yeah, we probably need some but the fact of the matter is that many regulations make matters worse (the law of unintended consequences), disproportionately harm small businesses, and in some instances even kill folks (CAFE standards on cars, the FDA keeping drugs off the market, etc.). Less is better, in my opinion.

    Like

  9. CI said: “When a private bunnies owner engages with a customer or an employee,”

    Some people have the view that the State has the divine right to steal your rabbits. A divine right granted by the abused-word “democracy”, the dialectic of history, being appointed by God, or any other such similar excuse used throughout human history to justice the rulers preying on the people.

    These people keep looking for excuses to justify their own bootlicking worship of those who wield power, instead of seeking to protect out rights.

    Like

  10. CI said: “Careful, you'll be accused of being a sycophant”

    yes, and Mr Sanders will again keep referring to oral-anal content, which is relevant to scores of explicit sexual comments he left on my blog after he was knocked down for his tantrums.

    Like

  11. dmarks: …If this is true, than it does mean he strongly opposes socialism. That would be a welcome change, to have someone abandon…

    I can't “abandon” something I've never supported. I've always opposed the “command economy” form of socialism and always supported democratic socialism and a mixed economy – as do a majority of Americans (even if they don't embrace the term “democratic socialism” because demonization of the term by the Right and Libertarians). Because socialism works and socialism saves lives.

    dmarks: CI earlier said – “Why can't you simply argue an issue on it's merits?

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hilarious. Both CI's original comment and dmarks quote of it. CI continually insults and dmarks misrepresents arguments. Both have problems arguing their positions based solely on their merits. Although dmarks' problem is MUCH larger. His arguments are so weak he has to resort to lies that have me “praising Stalin”.

    Now watch him throw another tantrum and insist he told the truth. Or sputter and complain and whine again about a “fan blog” where his lies are documented.

    dmarks: His “long standing beef” is still hanging out.

    You're imagining my “beef” “hanging out” RIGHT NOW, aren't you? I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend.

    Like

  12. I made my case in the original discussion – and I stand by what I said there.

    I just feel pity for you now. You premised your case on the statement that the 2nd Amendment had been “misinterpreted”; then when asked to provide some sort of foundation for the Framers intent for the Amendment, that would prove your assertion…..you conveniently moved on…..

    Like

  13. Will: And I'm wondering if wd will ever step up [blah blah blah].

    I condemn all bigotry, no matter who the perp is. Especially if the bigot is located in the United States. Other societies are on their own trajectory toward equality. Right now we are further along the path toward equality than the Muslim world.

    Will fails to realize this (or he ignores this fact). Remember that England abolished slavery quite a while before the United States. And, even though equal rights for all people has been a work progress throughout the history of the entire world, Will believes it is valid to criticize other countries and other societies based on OUR (as in the US) current modern day standards of equality. As opposed to viewing people's biases as a product of their time/society.

    This is the fallacy he uses to attack Muslim countries. Not that we can't try to move them in the right direction. But with Will – the fact that they are at the same place on this issue as we are – that is what he uses to justify his hate.

    In any case, I'm waiting to see if you step up to the plate and FINALLY take the side of a Black man gunned down by a White cop.

    This time will have video that clearly shows the cop planting a stun gun he says the victim “grabbed”. Without the video Will likely would have already authored a post defending the cop. So far, only silence from Will on his blog. Is it because this time he can't go with the White guy's version, as he has a long history of doing?

    Like

  14. Socialism is demonized by its legacy and adherents… from Mao and Hitler to Assad and Milosevic. It's all, for the most part oppression and mass killing, even if the oppressors get into power thru elections rather than bloody coups. We'd be much better off if socialism were entirely abolished. It works at oppression, and it kills, if you look at the big picture instead of cherry-picking the few socialists who aren't out to kill a lot of people.

    The “praising Stalin” discussion dates back to when Mr. Sanders brought up in support a truly awful and untrue quotation from Stalin he used as parf of his excuse to kill tens of millions. A quotation that deserve nothing but condemnation, along with the man. Not support.

    ” I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend.”

    You seem obsessed with that. This much was clear when you decided to start sending me scores and scores of blog messages in which you decided to talk about nothing but your p*nis.

    Oh. and about the fan blogs? You've had several each of these mancrush blogs for me, Will, Rational Nation, and others. Thing is, the only lies involved in them have been your own.

    Like

  15. dmarks: We'd be much better off if socialism were entirely abolished.

    Now dmarks is advocating stealing. People paid in to Social Security and are entitled to what they paid for. Although I will point out that this will never happen. Social Security has widespread support, even among Republicans… So dmarks' dream of returning to a time when elderly people died of starvation, lack of medical care, or by freezing to death in the winter is not going to happen.

    dmarks: You seem obsessed with that.

    No, I'm creeped out by your obsession with “long standing beefs hanging out” and “weinergrams” – dmarks' words, not mine.

    dmarks: …you decided to start sending me scores and scores of blog messages in which you decided to talk about nothing but your p*nis.

    dmarks is referring to his fantasy again. This is actually something that never happened.

    dmarks: You've had several each of these mancrush blogs…

    I have zero “mancrush blogs”. This is another of your fantasies.

    dmarks: The “praising Stalin” discussion dates back to when Mr. Sanders brought up in support a truly awful and untrue quotation from Stalin…

    I never brought up an “untrue quote” from anyone.

    Like

  16. People paid in to Social Security and are entitled to what they paid for.

    You DO realize of course, that the Social Security program is an automatic deduction from a citizens income, that was NOT voted on by the PEOPLE, right? Should I, as a citizen, not have a right to the fruits of MY labor, to dispense with as I please, whither that be for richer or poorer?

    I have zero “mancrush blogs”.

    Although I have little interest in the internet feud between you too……..dmarks comment has every bit as much validity as yours regarding asskissing.

    Like

  17. CI: You DO realize of course, that the Social Security program is an automatic deduction from a citizens income, that was NOT voted on by the PEOPLE, right?

    I can't “realize” something that isn't true. You truly don't understand how our representative democracy works, do you?

    Like

  18. You can vote for a representative that supports or does not support Social Security. That's democracy. As for Constitutionality, Social Security has stood the test if time. It is here to stay. Nobody is going to challenge it in court. The Indiana RFRA is another matter. We will have to wait and see if anyone brings a case forward.

    Anyway, looks like you just confirmed how clueless you are about how these things work.

    Like

  19. I have never advocated stealing. In fact, if we abolish SS, less of people's property would be forcibly taken from their paychecks.

    “So dmarks' dream of returning to a time when elderly people died of starvation, lack of medical care, or by freezing to death in the winter is not going to happen”

    I never advocated such, but false claims from Mr. Sanders are nothing new. But let's play his game: I easily find newspaper articles about seniors starving, freezing, etc. All of the the things that Mr. Sanders said that social security abolished. Yet they happen still. Mr. Sanders bogus “returning to a time” argument only helps the case that we must abolish SS. Because the tragedies he said that SS was so important to stop are still happening. It's not even succeeding at what it is supposed to do.

    Like

  20. Stalin's statement, a reason for him to kill people ( and a justification for the greedy and lazy to kill people and steal their property in general), is quite untrue and is a slander based on stereotype and not fact.

    It's very off topic, but if a person were to bring up and support Stalin's actual statement ( and by logical extension, the rivers of, blood that flowed from it), such a person might cross the line from being merely an amusing buffoon to being a scary psycho.

    Because hating people that are actually good at something and earn good money for it (“the rich”) is very similar to hating Jews. Not becuase Jews are rich; but because such attitudes for both groups targeted for death revel in unwarranted bigotry and coveting. Pure naked greed. People who would rather steal from and kill those who are good at something rather than actually doing something productive themselves.

    Like

  21. dmarks: It's not even succeeding at what it is supposed to do.

    That is a favorite argument of those who hate the poor and wish them dead… If a government program has problems they say abolish it… As opposed to fixing and strengthening it.

    As for your denials concerning stealing people's Social Security… I guess this just shows your ignorance regarding this program. Or that you lie. Or that you want to add massively to the debt. Current workers pay for current retirees. There is a surplus (although it is invested in government bonds). If the government did not simply steal it they would have to pay it back. Obviously that would not work. I know Ron Paul has advocated phasing out such programs – but you said “abolish”, not “phase out”. It was therefore logical of me to assume you meant the money should simply be stolen.

    Abolishing all social programs is a radical fringe idea anyway. Even Republicans realize this. Which is why they never propose abolishment. Although they do propose “fixes” designed to eventually destroy such programs. But they are smart enough to realize that suggesting abolishment will get them booted from office by the voters.

    dmarks: I never advocated such, but false claims…

    You've done so twice in this thread. Not explicitly, but by ignoring the events that would flow from a decision to “abolish all socialism”. Which would be mass death and homelessness. Especially when it comes to vulnerable populations such as elderly and disabled people. But I'm sure you'll disagree… Without explaining how someone unable to work can live without money. That, is even *if* there were enough jobs. Which there are not.

    Abolishing all Socialism has got to be the dumbest thing you've ever proposed.

    dmarks: All of the the things that Mr. Sanders said that social security abolished.

    It lessened them greatly. I did not use the word abolish. This is a game dmarks plays.

    Like

  22. Progressive taxation (which we have in the US) has not resulted in “rivers of blood”. Believing those who make more should pay a higher tax is rate not “hate”. I would call it hate, however, when someone wishes to abolish all social programs. Because that will result in people dying. Whereas if the wealthy have to pay a little more in taxes – they will be just fine.

    Not only is your comment off topic, it is pure idiocy. And very disrespectful to Jewish people (bordering on antisemitism). Venture capital pioneer Tom Perkins made a similar idiotic comment, people were understandably offended, and he ended up issuing a (bogus and insincere) apology. dmarks is simply pulling a page out of the Conservative playbook with this offensive garbage.

    dmarks: …and by logical extension…

    Your “extension” is completely illogical. The people you slander do not want to steal. They want a fair wage as opposed to the lowest wage that “the market” will set. dmarks is the one endorsing greed.

    Like

  23. If you think we've been discussing the realpolitik of our current system you've been confused and wasting our time. We've been discussing the justification and Constitutionality of how this system operates. But nice dodge, it means you think you don't have to provide a logical foundation for your premise. Laws you like = Constitutional. Laws you don't like = unConstitutional.

    Of course nobody is going to challenge SS, once an entitlement is enacted, it's here to stay. That's one of the more saddening aspects of our society; the willingness to surrender individual sovereignty anytime a political offers money.

    Like

  24. The only greed here is the arrogance of an employee feeling entitled to more of the emoloyer's property (money) than they have actually earned.

    Instead of earning more money, they want it just handed to them.

    Like

  25. See the iron law of wages. Only someone who worships wealth and whos worldview is greed-based (in that they cheer when income inequality grows) would argue that those not content with the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker is “naked greed”. The only naked greed here is that endorsed by dmarks (his belief that taking advantage of workers and swelling the ranks of the working poor is awesome).

    Like

  26. The Supreme Court ruled Social Security to be constitutional under the General Welfare clause.

    dmarks: Yes, CI… money forcibly taken from others.

    You say “forcibly taken”, the Constitution says this is a just and proper role of the federal government.

    What this shows is neither CI nor dmarks have a logical foundation for their premises. Laws they like = Constitutional. Laws they don't like = unConstitutional.

    Libertarians hate the general welfare clause, but it is a part of the constitution. Put in there to provide flexibility in providing for the needs and wants of the people.

    Like

  27. CI: Good though, to know that you agree with the Heller decision.

    I acknowledge the ruling. Anyway, what you're saying is that it does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Only what Libertarians have to say in regards to the Constitution matters.

    Like

  28. Given the manner in which you project your paradigm of what you think that I believe…….I'm not entirely convinced.

    I'd honestly be more than happy to discuss the merits of any given issue with you…..sans blanket statements on Libertarianism or personal pejoratives. I for one, welcome honest debate.

    It either serves to educate me further…..or it makes my position that much stronger.

    Like

  29. We have a 4,000 year recorded history of Government price (and wage) supports being nothing but an abject failure and yet the left continues to trot them out in their knight in shining armor manner over and over again………….I think that economist, Bryan Caplan, nailed it best when he said that those who understand the text (and I would suggest to wd that he get an introductory economics text and read it) are pro free-trade, pro-free-market, and pro-production while those who don't are anti-foreign (those on the right being anti-immigration, those on the left being anti-free-trade) anti-market, and pro-make-work.

    Like

  30. Will: …introductory economics text..

    Baloney. Another claim similar to your laughable assertion concerning “introductory history texts” stating that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.

    Bryan Caplan, being an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, did not “nail it best”. He gives the Libertarian wealthy-serving position.

    Like

  31. …. did not “nail it best”. He gives the Libertarian wealthy-serving position.

    The transparent premise behind his statement “I think that economist, Bryan Caplan, nailed it best….” was that of personal opinion; rendering your retort just as valueless as you claim his is.

    I've been trying to figure out, do you simply have a lot of idle time on your hands…..or have you simply never been exposed to anything approaching formal debate?

    Like

  32. I checked into Caplan. He did not give anything like a “wealthy-serving” position, a type of position which has nothing to do with libertarianism.

    If you want to look for a “wealthy-serving position”, you need to look no further than than liberals, favoring handing out hundreds of billions to so many wealthy corporations, from banks to auto companies to Chinese energy related companies. Libertarians have an excellent position record against “wealthy-serving”… it's one of the main things that has attracted me to the ideology/group.

    Like

  33. and here is an excellent article by CATO in which they shed light on and oppose this extremely costly type of “Wealthy-serving”.

    A type which the liberal Democrats lead the way on (the wrong way) with the Republicans close behind.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s