Comment

Comment by amanda choate on May 15, 2012 at 11:54am

In response to Paul you said that Obama was trying to govern our personal decisions....and by personal decisions Patricia, do you mean who we marry? Because I sure don't want he government telling me who I can or cannot marry.

Comment by amanda choate on May 15, 2012 at 11:50am

Patricia, though I know this isn't popular sentiment, the facts are the facts, taxes have gone down under Obama. That is just the fact. If tax rates fixed things, our things would be fixed. Taxes as apercetnage of GDP are lower than anytime since 1950. Taxes are lower now than when GWB and Ronald Reagan were president. They just are, it is a fact. Are there plenty other issues that can be raised against Obama, absolutely, but you have to stick to the real ones otherwise it diminishes your argument.

Personally for me, Iam willing to pay higher taxes now ratherthan to have this debt foisted upon my children. Had we been building something that we could pass on to them, that might be different, but all we did was give ourselves tax breaks and borrow the difference. We have been unwilling to pay for the tax breaks, the wars, the medicare drug benefits all of it, 30 trillion dollars by the end of 2020. Instead last summer we decided to pass it on to the next generation, me included.

But this blog post is about justice and gay people having to ask us pretty please to let them have full rights. Because now they have to ask us permission.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 15, 2012 at 6:34am

Paul, his words are one thing, but his actions and those he pushes congress to enact, have created exactly the conditions I indicate.  The poor are poorer, and if he got his way and raised taxes, it would get worse for those in the middle class and the working poor.  He has all but eliminated the middle class by lowering their standard of living.  Point of fact, I watched a special about gas prices a week or so ago, and a couple of the people interviewed are now skipping a meal in order to buy gas to get themselves back and forth to their jobs.  He has written so many regulations, the federal government has almost total control over every action........this is not just my saying it............it is there and present and in place.  The health care bill and a number of other pieces of legislation were more about control than anything else or putting the government in charge of decisions that should be personal decisions.

Comment by Paul Davis on May 15, 2012 at 6:24am

" He really doesn't care one little bit if anyone has enough money to buy food for their family or heat for their homes as long as he has total control over everything and gets to decide what he thinks you need and what you should eat and what you should have. "

 

What evidence do you have to support such a statement? I might have sincere disagreement with Obama over policy or methods, but I have never heard him say or indicate that "he doesn't care" or that he is seekingtotal domination.

Comment by amanda choate on May 14, 2012 at 5:29pm

Fiat justitia rual caelum.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 14, 2012 at 1:47pm

John, I liked Mr. Paine's saying, and he is right as you were!  Well chosen!

 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 14, 2012 at 1:46pm

Actually, Amanda, under communism everyone gets poor which is what Obama's redistribution is all about.  He really doesn't care one little bit if anyone has enough money to buy food for their family or heat for their homes as long as he has total control over everything and gets to decide what he thinks you need and what you should eat and what you should have.  And yes, thanks to Obama the poor have gotten poorer and he is chomping at the bit to bring all those successful people that worked so hard right down to the same level..........................it is not and never was about uplifting anyone, but I would think as bright as you are, you might have figured that out.

 

Comment by amanda choate on May 13, 2012 at 4:48pm

John nice cliche', but what on earth are you referring to? Just state your argument if you disagree. Or just make remarks that require no thought and are replete with inanity.

Comment by amanda choate on May 13, 2012 at 11:41am

If the poor are poorer as you state Patricia, then how does that make Obama a communist? If he were a communist, they would be richer. As a matter of fact, those troublesome facts, fewer people are on welfare today than when Obama took office. If he is a communist he has failed. Three of the most profitable quarters for corporate America took place while Obama has been in office. So while there is plenty of failure of government to go around for everyone up there, the notion that Obama is a communist doesn't hold water. Go after him on the real issues, not the crazy crap that comes out of the mouth Glenn Beck, Mr. Seeds and Silver.

In an earlier post Isaid that there was nothing in the Constitution that said that we are equal, fully expecting to be challenged. No challenge came forth.

So here I post the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. So I ask, please read the text of  this amendment  from the perspective of a gay individual seeking a a redress of grievances while citing the text of this amendment as the source of their legal right marriage, civil unions, employment, etc. Now ask yourself, is it Constitutional to deny these, our fellow citizens these rights? Who are we, mere mortals, to deny these rights.

Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

There it is, in Section 1, "equal protection of the law." So how do we justify denying gay citizens equal protection of the laws? States cannot decide to deny anyone , any individual or any group of citizens equal protection under the law. To do so would be.....un-Constitutional. That is what has just been ruled in California. That decision, though not as heralded as the NC Amendment or the president's declaration. That one will eventually got to the Supreme Court, laws matter.

If you are unwilling to provide, not just allow, but actively provide justice to all people, then you do not deserve it yourself. 

Patricia, I feel deeply that it is wrong to deny how am able to live with my family to anyone who wants to do so. It used to be against the law for blacks and whites to wed. Was that just? Do states possess those rights. If we want small government, then how do you justify this intrusion into personal decisons? John says you can't legislate morality, isn't denying marriage to a group that very thing?

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 12, 2012 at 6:53am

Thanks Debbie.  Can't read now (out of town) but will when I return.  We have, as you can see, those who favor the socialism/communism being professed by "the one".  The other thing that is of great concern are the treaties I understand he may try to ram through during the lame duck session should he lose the election which I pray and will work towards happening! 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page