Topic: Random Political Thoughts

[Ben Shockley]

They also think that, if Larry the Cable Guy doesn't have access to someone else's personal information, or can't walk into Harvard and get a look at Obama's records, it's a sign of a conspiracy.

Right.   And if any particular cabinet department (of a Democratic administration, only) won't give up 100% of intra-office inter-personal documents whenever a demagoging congressman "demands" them without any legal theory or justification for why they are material to anything.
They are exactly the same people who scream about "government intrusion" and "mark of the beast" and start reaching for their anti-tank 12-gauges when they're asked to submit their social security number on some form..!  Or whenever someone threatens them with better medical-insurance coverage.
Irony is lost on these idiots.

[McPhallus]

Looking forward to hearing Savage in a few.  He's sure to be off on a tear.

you'll get no disagreement here.  it's just that i don't think obama's solution is the right one.  we listened for TWO YEARS to this guy telling us what a bunch of cunts the insurance companies are... and now he's forcing the poorest among us to become their customers or pay a fine?  really?  and his supporters (the people who cheered as he railed against the insurance industry) are on board with this too?

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Parrots speak of pre-existing conditions being accepted while ignoring the fact that health insurance coverage does not guarantee treatment of any kind.  Physicians can and do limit the amount of patients they treat.  Insurance companies do DENY treatments THEY deem too expensive or experimental, etc, even if the physician RECOMMENDS the denied treatment. This reality will only sharpen as "hordes descend."

The treatment will be offered; insurers will just extend you out by making your appointments further and further into the future hoping that in the 2 years you wait for surgery you will die.

[Zircon]

We wanted the Court to really decide the limits of the Commerce clause of the Constitution, instead, the Court whimped out by hiding behind the authority to tax. It's a HUGE mistake on the part of the Court because now it invites ever more Commerce Clause issues to boil up. Lost an opportunity to decisively draw the line on the extent of the Commerce Clause. That is the real failure that occurred today.

[BobGrau]

1So what do you propose Bob, the UK model? 2Do you actually think medical care is free? 3Are you a moron? 4I think you're model is fucking bullshit.

1I don't propose anything, I'm not an economist or politician. I just talk shit on the internet to boost MV's ad revenue, in the hope that he might start paying me for it.
2No, I don't think medical care is free, I pay for it with something called 'tax' and if that was the worst thing my taxes paid for, I'd happily pay more. Remember I live in a country that pays one particular family wages simply for existing.
3By your definition, probably. But it's only a message board.
4I'll try to work on it.

[PB the Deplorable]

They also think that, if Larry the Cable Guy doesn't have access to someone else's personal information, or can't walk into Harvard and get a look at Obama's records, it's a sign of a conspiracy.

All modern presidents and presidential candidates have routinely provided exhaustive documents - tax returns, birth, health, school, docs related to prior service in state/fed govt, all sorts of pretty boring stuff.  Instead of that, Obama has literaly spent millions on lawyers bottling all this stuff up.  There is a lot we don't know about time gaps in his life, other things he's said or are part of his narrative are seemingly contradictory (did he ever decide once and for all which Honolulu hospital he was born in?). 
 

Prior to his 2 years in the US Senate, outside of Illinois he was a complete unknown and seemingly appeared on the national stage out of nowhere.  Do you really not see why some of this would lead to questions?

[HAL 9000]

We wanted the Court to really decide the limits of the Commerce clause of the Constitution, instead, the Court whimped out by hiding behind the authority to tax. It's a HUGE mistake on the part of the Court because now it invites ever more Commerce Clause issues to boil up. Lost an opportunity to decisively draw the line on the extent of the Commerce Clause. That is the real failure that occurred today.

Actually, I'd respectfully disagree with your analysis. The ability to use the Commerce Clause to compel activity was actual diminished by SCOTUS today, as five of the nine judges rejected this argument, including Chief Justice Roberts when he wrote:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

So my analysis is that, Commerce Clause arguments to compel or mandate activity was diminished, while the ability to compel activity via a tax, even though the legislation went out of its way to deny it was not a tax (the incoherent concept "invented" by Justice Roberts)  was largely increased.

Either way, I am deeply saddened by the Government's continuing intrusion into our lives, and the gradual erosion of our individual freedom, liberty and sovereignty.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

 

[Liberace!]

So my analysis is that, Commerce Clause arguments to compel or mandate activity was diminished, while the ability to compel activity via a tax, even though the legislation went out of its way to deny it was not a tax (the incoherent concept "invented" by Justice Roberts)  was largely increased.

i believe you are correct.  this was also my understanding of the ruling today.

[analog kid]

All modern presidents and presidential candidates have routinely provided exhaustive documents - tax returns, birth, health, school, docs related to prior service in state/fed govt, all sorts of pretty boring stuff.  Instead of that, Obama has literaly spent millions on lawyers bottling all this stuff up.  There is a lot we don't know about time gaps in his life, other things he's said or are part of his narrative are seemingly contradictory (did he ever decide once and for all which Honolulu hospital he was born in?). 
 

Prior to his 2 years in the US Senate, outside of Illinois he was a complete unknown and seemingly appeared on the national stage out of nowhere.  Do you really not see why some of this would lead to questions?

Your first sentence is demonstrably untrue, starting with Romney. The rest of your post isn't any more credible. Why not try to fact check the things you believe in? Do you know how to fact check something? Do you realize how many institutions would have to be complicit, and how impossible that would be? Yours is a classic example of willful ignorance.

[EvB]

that's exactly right. 


one of my roommates when i was 19 was a guy named terry.  he was a VERY gay drag queen.  EVERY FUCKING CONVERSATION with this guy would inevitably end up being steered (by him) toward his gayness.  always.  i've known several gay people like that who have hinged their entire identity onto being gay.  just stop it, already.  i felt like grabbing him by the collar and shouting, "BEING GAY DOESN'T MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON!!!!  YOU DON'T NEED MY APPROVAL OR CONFIRMATION!!!!"

Sounds like someone who is young and insecure, whatever their 'partition.'

[Liberace!]

Sounds like someone who is young and insecure, whatever their 'partition.'

my point was that it seems from my personal experiences with gays that a disproportionate number of them are woefully insecure.

[EvB]

my point was that it seems from my personal experiences with gays that a disproportionate number of them are woefully insecure.

Well hell, yes - wouldn't you be?  Thankfully, that's changing.  But yes, I get it - and I think if you'd done what you said you wished you'd done, it would have been a huge favor to you both. Live and learn I guess.

[onan]

my point was that it seems from my personal experiences with gays that a disproportionate number of them are woefully insecure.

Gay people aren't anymore insecure than any other group. They may be more vocal than others. Then again when was the last time a guy got beat up for being heterosexual? I am close friends with one gay couple. I have known them for almost 20 years. Their discussions are pretty much the same as mine and my wife's. We hardly ever talk about gay stuff, well we talk about it as much as we do heterosexual stuff... I think one time.

[HAL 9000]

[attachimg=1]

[attachment[/attachment]

[someguy]

[b_dubb]

Guys get beat up for lots of reasons. Wearing the wrong color clothes. Making eye contact with wrong psychotic. I won't say that being gay doesn't make you a target. But I think there is something to the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness. Go to the Castro District in San Francisco. Go to the Folsom Street Festival. You'll see that for a lot of gay men that sex has become a compulsion towards instant gratification. And that everyone has to accept them or they're just evil.
I went to the Folsom Street Festival and after seeing the Mutual Felatio Society of SF both with their molded plastic glory hole I began to consider there may be something to the AMA's position that homosexuality was a mental illness. But then maybe this behavior is all part of a fringe element within the gay community?  I know some responsible seemingly well adjusted gays. They aren't dressed up in bondage gear in a gay pride parade. They're at home doing their taxes and mowing the lawn.

Don't think the freaks are indicative of the general population because they are not

[onan]

Guys get beat up for lots of reasons. Wearing the wrong color clothes. Making eye contact with wrong psychotic. I won't say that being gay doesn't make you a target. But I think there is something to the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness. Go to the Castro District in San Francisco. Go to the Folsom Street Festival. You'll see that for a lot of gay men that sex has become a compulsion towards instant gratification. And that everyone has to accept them or they're just evil.
I went to the Folsom Street Festival and after seeing the Mutual Felatio Society of SF both with their molded plastic glory hole I began to consider there may be something to the AMA's position that homosexuality was a mental illness. But then maybe this behavior is all part of a fringe element within the gay community?  I know some responsible seemingly well adjusted gays. They aren't dressed up in bondage gear in a gay pride parade. They're at home doing their taxes and mowing the lawn.

Don't think the freaks are indicative of the general population because they are not

Anyone that thinks (in the general sense) homosexuals don't have some form of mental illness has little understanding of mental illness as a concept.

Mental illness isn't one specific behavior that sets up a significant decrease in level of functioning. The societal aspect alone could cause enough issue to engender some significant mood disorder. Even worse case and instead of a depressive state a personality disorder might be the final outcome. Don't however confuse homosexuality as a mental illness rather than a homosexual with a mental illness.

But those same conditions occur in non-homosexual environments too. Only a handful of years ago research discovered the anatomy of some male homosexuals was more similar to a female brain. The conjecture there alone suggests the possibility of mental illness. We as a society pretty much give a pass to compulsive "straight" sex.

As to sexual compulsion... hard to refute. The reasons are difficult to explain in a handful of paragraphs.

[stevesh]

As to sexual compulsion... hard to refute. The reasons are difficult to explain in a handful of paragraphs.

My simplistic mind has always assumed that gay men tend toward sexual compulsion because their partners are, well, other men. We straight guys would be sexually compulsive, too, if women would let us.

[onan]

My simplistic mind has always assumed that gay men tend toward sexual compulsion because their partners are, well, other men. We straight guys would be sexually compulsive, too, if women would let us.

Yup, me too. Then again there are women that are just as compulsive as men. As sex goes we are a pretty crazy bunch. I mean really who cares if 2 guys or 2 women are getting each other off 10 times a day. What does that have to do with others except for how can they get similar action?

[stevesh]

Interesting though that sexually compulsive (keep wanting to spell that 'cumpulsive') women are usually considered to have psychological problems.

Personally, I don't care if any number of men and/or women or any combination thereof are getting it on (or getting married for that matter). I have quite enough trouble managing my own sex life without insisting on being able to ramrod (sorry) someone else's.

[Zircon]

Homosexuality has been around forever. I'd think that even during prehistoric times when a woman wasn't around, men would engage in sex. Greeks and Romans did this when on military campaigns. And we all know about Sodomy and Gonorrhea from the Old Testament.

I never had a problem working with gay men as they were comfortable in the working environment knowing straight men knew they were gay. I have almost always had a problem with lesbians however. They actually dislike men. They actually dislike straight women (regard them as slaves).

Most straight women I know are uncomfortable around lesbians as well. Lesbians often demean straight women and act "butch" around them trying to assume a male role expecting the straight woman to comply by submitting or leaving.

Mental disorder? Let me see. Gay men use their mouths and anuses as substitute vaginas. If you want sex then why settle for a filthy ass hole. Go get the real thing. There is plenty out there and in our loose culture, more than willing to participate. Lesbians are more often driven to hate men so they go after women with a like past. You'll quite often see two divorcees with kids who are living in a lesbian relationship.

I do not like companies that suggest, "we love gays and lesbians" as part of their hiring practices. What you do in your own bedroom shouldn't be a consideration for employment.

[Liberace!]

Homosexuality has been around forever. I'd think that even during prehistoric times when a woman wasn't around, men would engage in sex. Greeks and Romans did this when on military campaigns. And we all know about Sodomy and Gonorrhea from the Old Testament.

I never had a problem working with gay men as they were comfortable in the working environment knowing straight men knew they were gay. I have almost always had a problem with lesbians however. They actually dislike men. They actually dislike straight women (regard them as slaves).

Most straight women I know are uncomfortable around lesbians as well. Lesbians often demean straight women and act "butch" around them trying to assume a male role expecting the straight woman to comply by submitting or leaving.

Mental disorder? Let me see. Gay men use their mouths and anuses as substitute vaginas. If you want sex then why settle for a filthy ass hole. Go get the real thing. There is plenty out there and in our loose culture, more than willing to participate. Lesbians are more often driven to hate men so they go after women with a like past. You'll quite often see two divorcees with kids who are living in a lesbian relationship.

I do not like companies that suggest, "we love gays and lesbians" as part of their hiring practices. What you do in your own bedroom shouldn't be a consideration for employment.

based on my own personal experiences and observations, it's hard to disagree with much you've written here.

[onan]

Sodomy isn't only practiced by homosexuals. Same with oral sex.

[BobGrau]

I think I might organise a Masturbator's Parade.
 
Who's in?

[onan]

I think I might organise a Masturbator's Parade.
 
Who's in?

Fuck, I would join you, but I can't walk and keep a rhythm going.

[BobGrau]

 

[McPhallus]

My simplistic mind has always assumed that gay men tend toward sexual compulsion because their partners are, well, other men. We straight guys would be sexually compulsive, too, if women would let us.

Oh, I think we are.  How many women have you seen today that have given you that male rush, however brief and fleeting? I can think of several.  Think of the way some rock stars and celebrities get to engage their compulsions at will?  They have the opportunity at their fingers.  Thinking about it and acting on it, though, are two different things.

[McPhallus]

I think I might organise a Masturbator's Parade.
 
Who's in?

Twirling our flesh lights in synchronicity.  Fuckin' A!

[Zircon]

Sodomy isn't only practiced by homosexuals. Same with oral sex.

But with homosexual men it seems to basically be the only way to bust your nut other than masturbation or weird shit with your feet. Maybe "sword" fighting with erections? Hell, they must get inventive?

[Zircon]

I think I might organise a Masturbator's Parade.
 
Who's in?

Oh man!!! The image that flashed in my mind upon reading your post.