Are they kidding?

[phattonez]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050809/ap_on_go_co/roberts

A conservative group is opposing John Roberts because he helped gays in Colorado. I am conservative, but this is going too far. There was an issue in Colorado about business owners being able to discriminate against gays. If they cannot discriminate by race, why should they be able to discriminate against gays? Anyway, the case went to the Supreme Court, and they ruled that it was unconstitutional to discriminate against gays. John Roberts helped in this case on the side of the gays, so now this group is against him.

(Instead of calling it a conservative group, can we call it a fascist group?)

EDIT: Just thinking about this some more, it makes me realize that Roberts works by the constitution, and not by what he believes, which is what a judge is supposed to do. People don't like him because of what he believes, but that is not what it is about. It is about how he follows the constitution, and ONLY that.

[Starkist]

Personally I think any group should be able to discriminate against anyone it wants. Freedom of association, its in the Constitution.

[Beldaran]

Personally I think any group should be able to discriminate against anyone it wants. Freedom of association, its in the Constitution.

So if all grocery stores decided to stop selling food to christians, you would be fine with this?

If the anti-christian sentiment in this country grew to the extent that you were not able to leave your home, you would be fine with this?

The government should protect all individual's rights not to be discriminated against, whether it's christians, gays, blacks, muslims, whatever.

[Starkist]

I'm surprised at you, Beldaran. Advocating governmental interference? Where does it end? The government is near the point of telling a church business it cannot refuse to hire non-Christians. It will tell a small business owner that he cannot refuse to hire people who have lifestyles he disagrees with. I am all for the freedom of association as defined in the Constitution. The market economy works in such a way so that there will always be opportunities.

[phattonez]

The market economy works in such a way so that there will always be opportunities. That really worked for African Americans in the 18th and 19th century, didn't it?

[dandruff man]

1. Homosexuals are not and never were slaves (in american society) , so comparing homosexuality to african american slavery is not a well divised argument.

2. Even though it is widely "thought", homosexuality is still looked upon officially as a choice. There is still no concrete evidence that it is genetic. (pelase dont argue with me on this one, i have done extensive resarch on this, and i am not fighting for or against this. I am simply stating what is factual for right now.)

3. Discrimination is only wrong on the principle that you put someone down for what they actually are. (man, woman, sex, age ect.)

4. Not all discrimination is illegal. If a company funded by private dollars chooses not to hire a homosexual do to his "moral choice" (yes as far as work in the real world goes, not the "media" it may be considered a moral choice due to representing the ideas and integrity of the company.) they have that right, even in colorado.

5. Now any organization that is funded with government dollars or is a government organization may not under any circumstances not hire a person due to thier sexual orientation.

7. I can see why conservatives are upset, they see this as a moral dilemma in our country.

8. I can see why homosexuals would think that conservatives are biggots.

9. My point: if you disagree with that life style, dont hate. if you do agree with that life style, dont flaunt it. please. (its one thing to be gay, then there's antother thing to act gay. you know what im talking about all you flamming queens. :laughing: )

I personally disagree with the life style, but some of my best friends are homosexual, and i love them to death. the key is to love, and we'll all get along much better in the end. :D

[phattonez]

1. Homosexuals are not and never were slaves (in american society) , so comparing homosexuality to african american slavery is not a well divised argument.

2. Even though it is widely "thought", homosexuality is still looked upon officially as a choice. There is still no concrete evidence that it is genetic. (pelase dont argue with me on this one, i have done extensive resarch on this, and i am not fighting for or against this. I am simply stating what is factual for right now.)

3. Discrimination is only wrong on the principle that you put someone down for what they actually are. (man, woman, sex, age ect.)

4. Not all discrimination is illegal. If a company funded by private dollars chooses not to hire a homosexual do to his "moral choice" (yes as far as work in the real world goes, not the "media" it may be considered a moral choice due to representing the ideas and integrity of the company.) they have that right, even in colorado.

5. Now any organization that is funded with government dollars or is a government organization may not under any circumstances not hire a person due to thier sexual orientation.

7. I can see why conservatives are upset, they see this as a moral dilemma in our country.

8. I can see why homosexuals would think that conservatives are biggots.

9. My point: if you disagree with that life style, dont hate. if you do agree with that life style, dont flaunt it. please. (its one thing to be gay, then there's antother thing to act gay. you know what im talking about all you flamming queens. :laughing: )

I personally disagree with the life style, but some of my best friends are homosexual, and i love them to death. the key is to love, and we'll all get along much better in the end. :D
1. I said 18th and 19th century, when they were freed and could not find jobs.

2. Fine, I won't fight with you on this one.

3. What does that argument prove? It doesn't say anything.

4. If they have two people that have the exact same qualifications, they cannot choose a straight person over a gay person. I don't know about that privately funded thing.

5. Good?

6. What happened to number 6?

7. I am a conservative though, and I don't think that they should be discriminated against in the workplace, or anywhere for that matter. Let them be gay, I am against it, but they are whom they choose to be.

8. Allright . . .

9. I don't like flaunting, but I don't hate them either.

I don't see how the post was for or against the original post, but I must say that although I don't like their lifestyle and how they flaunt their decision, they do not deserve discrimination and should not be hated. This group that pulled support for Roberts obviously hates gays, which portrays conservatives incorrectly.

[dandruff man]

6 was taken by the underpants gnomes.

[Cloral]

As for the matter of choice, recent pheromone studies strongly suggest that homosexuality is not a choice. For the uninitiated, pheromones are an odorless substance people give off when they are aroused. For most people, inhaling the pheromones of the opposite sex creates a subconscious arousal responce. However in homosexuals, this responce is triggered by the pheromones of the same sex. Since the responce is subconscious, the person isn't making a choice.

[Axel]

The Constitution also gives Congress the right to regulate interstate trade. Any business that doesn't engage purely in commerce within its own state thus falls under federal restrictions. What state constitutions allow is entirely up to the state.

phat, you mean the late 19th and 20th centuries. Slavery didn't end until the 1860's.

[AlexMax]

As for the matter of choice, recent pheromone studies strongly suggest that homosexuality is not a choice. For the uninitiated, pheromones are an odorless substance people give off when they are aroused. For most people, inhaling the pheromones of the opposite sex creates a subconscious arousal responce. However in homosexuals, this responce is triggered by the pheromones of the same sex. Since the responce is subconscious, the person isn't making a choice.

Source?

The 'opposing' group are no better than the KKK in terms of ideals. Honestly, who gives a shit.

[phattonez]

The Constitution also gives Congress the right to regulate interstate trade. Any business that doesn't engage purely in commerce within its own state thus falls under federal restrictions. What state constitutions allow is entirely up to the state.

phat, you mean the late 19th and 20th centuries. Slavery didn't end until the 1860's.
Not all African Americans were slaves though, and while slavery occured, they could not find jobs. I guess we should say 17th to 20th century.

[MacWeirdo42]

Firstly, it goes without saying that you have the right to believe whatever you believe. Therefore, I think they completely have the right to oppose him, however moronic it may sound.

Secondly, what's the deal? Sounds to me like they very much believe in legislating from the bench, as it were. Kind of ironic, if you ask me. You're absolutely right, a judge's position on the issues shouldn't matter one bit, because s/he is supposed to uphold the Constitution above all else.

Thirdly, I don't know why the hell the liberals are opposing him (caught a glimpse of it in the article). Not that he'd be my first choice or whatever, but honestly, Bush is in office, what do you expect? All I'm saying is that if he nominated anyone, I can guarantee that we'd be just as upset with whoever it was, if not more so, so there's no point in anybody getting their panties in a bunch.

Fourthly, back to the "homosexuality is a choice" aspect of this discussion, I'd like to add that sexual arousal is an uncontrolled response. I could choose to sleep with men all I want, it's not gonna make me suddenly turned on by them (well, theoretically, it could, but it'd require some mental reprogramming - see Pavlov).

[dandruff man]

choice and sexual arousal are not even in the same field. if you want to be crude, anyone can be turned on by anything. if a female prefers sex toys, it does not diagnose a sexual oreintation prefference. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality is more than sexual stimulation. It is a mind set and emotional series of choices.

And as far as the pharmones are concerned, i know that there is studies leaning towards a genetic response to homosexuality, my only point was that there is yet to be some concrete evedince to this situation.

oh and it was already adressed, but slavery was well into the 18th century.

as far as 6 goes, its still missing from those darn gnomes... :scared:

[Cloral]

http://www.deanramsden.com/Brain_differences3.htm
I'd link to the actual article in the NY Times, but I am not a member there so I cannot access the article.

And okay, it doesn't PROVE that homosexuality is involuntary. But it does seriously suggest that in at least some cases it is. And what you are saying dandruff man, is it is OK for you to be biggoted towards them simply because a possability exists that it is a voluntary choice. Think about that.

[phattonez]

Firstly, it goes without saying that you have the right to believe whatever you believe. Therefore, I think they completely have the right to oppose him, however moronic it may sound.

Secondly, what's the deal? Sounds to me like they very much believe in legislating from the bench, as it were. Kind of ironic, if you ask me. You're absolutely right, a judge's position on the issues shouldn't matter one bit, because s/he is supposed to uphold the Constitution above all else.

Thirdly, I don't know why the hell the liberals are opposing him (caught a glimpse of it in the article). Not that he'd be my first choice or whatever, but honestly, Bush is in office, what do you expect? All I'm saying is that if he nominated anyone, I can guarantee that we'd be just as upset with whoever it was, if not more so, so there's no point in anybody getting their panties in a bunch.
They have every right to oppose him, but what they choose reflects much of the Republicans, but I completely disagree with what they believe. A group like this should have their mind set towards the majority of the Republican party.

The fact that people don't like Bush's nominee just because of his beliefs is fine. Does that mean that they should not vote for him? Of course not. We have seen that he follows the constitution above all else, and puts his beliefs second. What ever he does on his own is none of our business. His professional career reflects this.

The whole Michael Moore, Farenheit 9/11, Bush is an idiot mindset comes into thought in your third paragraph. People hate whatever Bush does, no matter what it is. He signed an energy bill and a transportation bill, and we saw how little coverage that got. All that we see are the bad things he does. So when he does a good thing for a deserving person, people automatically think that the person does not deserve. They look for any small bad thing and hype it up. Instead of judging by the person who nominated him, we should judge him by what he has done, and should do without bias, which is what many Democrats are not doing.

[dandruff man]

that is a great question. i think it all depends on who you are and what your objectives are. for example there is a gym called lady of america (i think), that is an all ladies gym. they have the right to discriminate against men for membership. no one complains about this.

but we are talking about employment here right? say i am an insurance agent who sells insurance to clergy in the bible belt. i will probably not hire a homosexual becuase if i do, it will not be in the moral intrest of my clients to have an employee who disregaurds my client's intrests.

however, if i live in new york and sell insurance to companies, and i discriminate, my clients, (even if they agree with me) will probably back down due to them being associated with a biggot and therefore, them loosing buisness.

when it is okay to discriminate is subjective not objective. it all depends on your scenario.

[MacWeirdo42]

Er, in case you missed the point, phattonez, I was somewhat agreeing with you there in that last paragraph. Granted, I could be missing the point, too, but that's that. Just saying that although I'm about as liberal as you get (well, without being a total headcase), and I can't stand Bush just as much as the next guy, and I do think everything he does is just plain evil, as much as I don't like it, he did win the election and everything (this time, anyway - as opposed to his first term, freakin' electoral college - sorry), and while I do feel it's my duty to make known everything that I believe he's done wrong, at the same time, he is allowed to freakin' run the country any way he chooses, so there are times when I wish people would just shut up.

As for the whole Republican party thing, it seems to me that there's great tension building up between the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. Actually, it's something that's been bothering me, because it seems to me that the economic conservatives have been pandering to the social conservatives for more votes lately, which can't really explain, but it bothers me, I guess mainly because although I disagree with economic conservatives, I can tolerate them a lot more than the social conservatives.

[dandruff man]

well no matter if you hate bush or not, and if your hate economic conservatives or not, you have to admit one thing, right now, our economy is in amazing shape. even a democrat will tell you that. numbers don't lie. if our money is good, then ultimatley our leadership is as well.

[phattonez]

I don't think it exactly works like that, but I am saying that we cannot hate every single thing a person does. Even the worst people have done some good. I think this nomination was good for democrats and republicans, because his professional work shows that he does not lean toward one side or another. If people could get past their stubborness, they would see that this was a great nomination.

[dandruff man]

well what i meant from that comment is that if our money is doing well, then our leadership is making the right choices. now whether a person agrees on moral issues from that leader is one thing. but when someone says everything bush does is evil, it is a clear case of someone just listening to the media and judging a president with just one issue that they dont like.

like i said numbers don't lie, and as long as our dollar is gaining strength, the unemployment rate goes down, the dow goes up and terrorists are kept at bay, as well as other countries trying to make W.O.M.D. are being kept at bay, i'd say our president is doing pretty well. and even bush haters have to admit, he's doing a pretty good job this second term around.

[Daarkseid]

well no matter if you hate bush or not, and if your hate economic conservatives or not, you have to admit one thing, right now, our economy is in amazing shape. even a democrat will tell you that. numbers don't lie. if our money is good, then ultimatley our leadership is as well.

Dilapidated infrastructure, anaemic job growth, and rising healthcare costs aren't what I'd call amazing. But then if we were to ignore the parts of the economy that concern the majority, and only on those that concern the wealthy, then yes, it is amazing.

[Beldaran]

Dilapidated infrastructure, anaemic job growth, and rising healthcare costs aren't what I'd call amazing. But then if we were to ignore the parts of the economy that concern the majority, and only on those that concern the wealthy, then yes, it is amazing.

Actually, I saw on the news last night that our economy really is doing well. Job growth has been excellent, people are spending more money, and things are moving along nicely. Alan Greenspan raised the federal interest rates again, surprised at the rapid economic growt and worried that are robust economy might result in inflation. Our economy is growing faster than that of any other industrialized nation on earth.

It's just we don't feel it as much because gas prices are pathetic, the war is a distracting negative, and over-all there is a negative pall acrosss the country.

[dandruff man]

exactly my point. thank you my friend. our economy is not improving for just the wealthy, consumer spending is at a all time high. even with what the gas prices are, oil consumption is in more of a demand than ever. why? because people have the money to spend. the economy is doing well for everyone. (everyone meaning working people who have a personal sense of responsibility and not a lazy bum wishing they had some.)

as far as economic growth goes, i don't know if we are the most accelerated right now. it might be china, i know the race is neck to neck.

[Axel]

Dan, your information is wildly innaccurate. The economy is sluggish and unpredictable, at best; the WoMD thing was utter bullshit; and the energy bill was more Bush's way of ignoring environmental concerns than anything else.

As for economic vs social conservatives: Economic conservatives I can respect because they take up a comprehendable position, one I disagree with but nevertheless which makes sense. I have yet to meet a social conservative who can't be classified as a bigot.

[Starkist]

That's because you choose to ignore logic, resorting to name calling to further debate. The economy is better now than it was at this point in Clinton's presidency. As for WMDs, although they have not been found, Saddam Hussein was at the very least seeking them out and preparing to build them. Why do you think President Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998? For his health?

[Axel]

It is you who ignore logic. I have not mentioned Clinton once, because I have no interest in him. I was a child during his presidency. I compare Shrub to my own standards, not those of any other man. It is because you are so accustomed to having other people tell you what you should want that you expect me to idolize him. But I am thankfully nothing like you.

[dandruff man]

telling us that you were a kid during Clinton's administration just greatly reduced your credit in this argument. kids dont pay attention to these types of topics, and now at the oldest you are in high school which tells me you speak off of emotion and media ideals anyway.

you cannot know anything about our economy if you are not in the economy. living with your parents strongly suggests your absence of the economy. spending your fast food job paycheck on vidoe games at best buy, gas, and fast food dosn't give you experiance enough to make those types of comments.

talk to me when you have money tied up in mutal funds and stock options. then i will entertain a logical and mature non juvinille verbal discussion of our economy.

[Axel]

I believe that trying balancing tuition, food, and board on my limited scholarships, loans, and paychecks gives me more than enough authority to speak about money.

[dandruff man]

what you are reffering to is called your personal budget. everyone has them. what the conversation is about is the American economy. these are two different topics. your personal situation is not our national economy. please stick with the topic at hand.

[Axel]

You are the one who accused me of having no knowledge of personal economy. If you wish to discuss macroeconomics, then stay on that subject. If you want to talk about the judiciary, which was the begining of this topic, then you should have avoided economy all together.

[Beldaran]

Either way, Axel, if you think the economy is sluggish and poor right now, you are disagreeing with the federal reserve, wall street, and thousands of analysts who I think are more qualified to judge.

[Axel]

As a student of history I trust nothing to be stable that doesn't remain predictable over the course of a full year. In twelve months tell me the economy is stable, then I will believe you.

[Starkist]

I compare Shrub to my own standards, not those of any other man.

You are still a child, Axel. You have no frame of reference to compare anything with. Your ideal standard exists in your own mind.

Your ad hominem statements also do little do legitimatize your arguments.

[Axel]

I am childish, there is a key difference.
"The approach is, literally, childish. Adults suspend disbelief; kids ask questions and require answers." ~Terry Pratchett

[Beldaran]

As a student of history I trust nothing to be stable that doesn't remain predictable over the course of a full year. In twelve months tell me the economy is stable, then I will believe you.

I doubt what kind of student of history you are if you cannot equate the economic downturn of 2001-2003 with 9/11, the demise of the airline industry (which people fail to realize is a significant driving force in our economy), and a dramatic change in people's financial habits due to the fear of terrorism, a war, and uncertainty about the future. And I doubt what kind of economic authority you are if you cannot equate the economic upswing of 2004-2005 with Bush's business friendly economic policies and a general political movement away from the socialist values of the democratic party.

And I doubt what kind of logician you are if you consider almost two years of dramatic economic growth to be unstable.

Also, economies are never completely stable and if you are waiting for a president who provides a constantly growing economy that is never unstable, then you are politically delusional.

[dandruff man]

axel, you may know a lot about video games, but it is obvious you don't know much about economics. due to this proven fact, i am going to quit posting in this fourm. it is a waste of my time to discuss economics with you.

[Axel]

The economy was on a downturn before 9/11. There is an economic cycle, periods of growth and recession, inflation and unemployment. Everyone should know that. Keynesian economic theory holds that the federal government should work to moderate both ends of the spectrum, keeping inflation and unemployment low. However Adam Smith's "invisible hand," the self-correcting mechanism, ensures that after a long period of recession the economy will again climb.
Shrub overshot before 9/11 and only the fact that the economy plummetted afterwards allowed his attempts any margin of success. That he pushed for making those changes permanent is a sign of how little he understood what he was doing. If his plans were successful then they stimulated the economy and pushed it out of recession, continuing that push would cause inflation. On the other hand, if they don't cause inflation then they were not responsible for stimulating the economy out of the recession. Lose-lose situation.

[Daarkseid]

The economy is better now than it was at this point in Clinton's presidency.

This, I'll believe, when my Dad is making nearly the same amount of money he was during those years. He's a software engineer with over two decades of experience, and having worked at Micron(another large software company) and Cadence in senior positions.

He finally found a job(and had move out of state to work) a few months ago, and even that doesn't pay as much as his last job did during the period of 2001-2003, at the worst period of our economy in the Bush Jr. years.

[Starkist]

I'm sorry to say that your father is not a good economic indicator.

[Daarkseid]

You can go to hell.

[Axel]

Odd, I thought that was his line.

[MacWeirdo42]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Bush was responsible for the economic downturn in 2001 or he wasn't responsible for the recovery of 2004-2005. Personally, from what I can tell, the economy is far too complex to be in the hands of one man, and hence, I tend to subscribe to the second option. Not that I'm saying the president doesn't play a role in the economy, but he does not singularly command the economic future of the United States.

There was also the tech bubble burst and all of the corporate scandals which played their roles in what happened in 2001. As for the recovery, being that the economy was doing fine before 2001, isn't it possible that the economy is simply recovering from these crises, and that Bush's policies are not driving it as much as he wants us to believe?

Oh, and I personally hate Bush for being a war-mongering bastard, and death and destruction is a bit much to ask me to overlook, so yeah, maybe I do ignore whatever good he may have done, but it doesn't make up for the evil anyway.

[Axel]

I can't see that he's done any good. However, he was not responsible for the downturn. That was the simple economic cycle, a fact of life. It is his response that is so reprehensible. You see, if his tax cuts brought us out of the recession then making them permanent will cause severe inflation. On the other hand if they did not then they are nothing more than income redistribution.

[Starkist]

Income is already being redistributed, as the rich pay 1/3 of their paychecks to the government while the poor pay nothing.

[Axel]

The exact numbers are probably wrong, but this is essentially true. But all Shrub did was shift the burden, assuming he isn't attempting to cause inflation.

[dandruff man]

starkist and axel, sorry to break it you, but our economy is in the hands on one man. his name is not bush, its alan greenspan. you know, the chairman of the federal reserve board, the man who approves the intrest rates. ya talk about him. if you neglect him and just talk about bush, your views on the nations economy is void.

[Axel]

Hardly. Monetary policy is never quite so effective as fiscal policy, particularly in encouraging the economy to grow.

[dandruff man]

what are you talking about? greenspan has kept federal reserve rates down to encourage buying. buying increases our economy. you don't pay attention to reality do you?

[phattonez]

They have gone up recently. Originally they went down to help recovery after 9/11.

[dandruff man]

i know. that's a good thing. maybe not for individuals, but for the economy as a whole its good becuase it means that there is once again confidence in the buyer's market. and when there is confidience in the buyer's market, investors are comfortable with investing. yet another piece of evedince that our economy is doing very well.

by the way, how did we rabbit trail this far from the original thread? oh well, its been fun.

[Axel]

Monetary policy is the attempt to use money supply to control the economy. Greenspan has no direct control over interest rates, but by modifying the the supply of money he can change the interest rates. Expansionary monetary policy is less effective than expansionary fiscal policy (which uses taxes and grants to influence demand) because of the economic phenomenon known as "pushing on a string," if people aren't confident then it won't matter what the interest rate is, they won't spend. Monetary policy is also, by deffinition, slow to take effect because it relies on influencing investment and through investment all further demand. However, monetary policy is relatively easy to implement because the Federal Reserve can act quickly. Fiscal policy can act more immediately because it influences consumer spending directly, however since it relies on Congress and the President (who have poltical careers and general ignorance to cope with) can easily be bogged down before implementation.