Previous 11 - 20 Next
Not a troll trying to cause trouble here. I sincerely care about the principles our forefathers sacrificed so much to give us the opportunity to live by. And very much a conservative as distinguished from the modern neo? conservative movement. I hesitate to use labels as they mean different things to different people. And BTW - I was a huge Reagan supporter in his day. But hindsight has shown me where even he fell short of the ideals I think he believed in in spirit. Also KPar, I hope you noticed I apologized for the 'your idols' remark in the other thread. I try not to get personal here. Cheers!
My apologies. That came across as a personal attack. Not my intention at all. But do please check out that investigation, then draw your own conclusions.
That's the very philosophy that brought us where we are today. Keep doing the same thing over and over... I'm sure it will work next time!
Yes he certainly did. I guess he wasn't really all that great then was he... As evidenced by his lack of any remaining legacy. He still grew leviathan under his administration. In a different direction, but more central power nonetheless. And by growing that power,he gave his successors what they needed to wipe out any good he may have accomplished and create what we have today.
Then perhaps he shouldn't have used red and blue for his analogy. But in any case the point is compromising on principle. It does not matter who the other party is. Basic principles of liberty cannot be compromised with anyone for any reason.
You should watch the Frontline episode called United States of Secrets on the PBS website. See how your 'conservative' idols have shredded our constitution with the "Patriot" Act and Obama has continued to run with and expand it... I'm impressed that PBS of all sources came out with this.
You have to be joking about Mr Romneycare right? LOL Talk about compromise!
90% agreement would be great if it could be found beyond the campaign trail. But once inside the beltway they all just fall into the status quo. Nothing has convinced me that you would be any different good Dr. After all... you're already pushing 'compromise'.
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

AZRay Wrote: May 14, 2014 8:16 PM
Nice try, but there is more than one definition in Webster's because there is more than one meaning of the word in our culture. The second definition is " a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something". Marriage is certainly a strong influence and controlling factor in a persons life. So my "cute" point still stands. I already addressed the issue of the type of slavery you suggest here.
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

AZRay Wrote: May 14, 2014 4:58 PM
Slavery can most certainly be voluntary. There is forced slavery which is what most people think of and probably why so many object to my use of the word. But voluntary slavery is still slavery and that is what I'm referring to here. If you've done much study of human relationships, you've probably discovered that in the BDSM sub-culture master/slave relationships are very common and can be very intimate loving relationships. All completely voluntary of course.
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

AZRay Wrote: May 14, 2014 4:52 PM
I know we were taught in government school that slavery = cruelty, but that is not the essence of it. The essence is a claim to the life of another human being. In the case of marriage it is a mutual claim, but a valid legal claim none the less. Mutual slavery while equal as you pointed out, is still legally binding. The ability of the slave to own things is determined by the terms of the contract. Also please understand I am not saying it's wrong. Just that it is what it is.
Previous 11 - 20 Next