1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Dissent on a One-Way Street

Steve94 Wrote: Apr 05, 2014 12:31 PM
Obviously this fae kingdom of yours, where everybody's rights are respected, does not hold sway over the public sector, where the only tangible fear of reprisal is in having opinions against homosexuality and its civil establishment, not opinions in favour. Is it freer and equaller in the private sector? I can imagine it was once harder for homosexuals to get jobs, if not for their straight allies, though I can't remember hearing anything about people being outright pushed out of professions, or fined, or sued, for voting against Proposition 8 or promoting dysgenderism. Maybe it's out there somewhere. And maybe people only really feel the boot on their own necks, not those on the necks of their enemies.
Hurrah for your integrity, but is that the same Lord who said, "He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said [...] they twain shall be one flesh [...] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"? Is God 'evil' for making men and women, and making them into husband and wife for the dual purpose of completion and childbearing -- or are the evil ones those eager to excuse their sexual incontinence by changing men's laws and opinions?
Well, so is a democracy -- but not according to the activists, who are coming to favour the worst weapons of top-down authoritarianism that they once claimed to chafe under. But consent is an artificial construct offering little resistance to 'born that way' dogma of the natural world.
First you say any two consenting adults, but then you say, 'If they are born that way'. So, if they chose it, would you be happy to discriminate against them? You would if you thought it was wrong, which our society once almost universally did; and 'born that way' was just a Trojan horse to a people unable to consider that we can be born wrongly sometimes, or have natural inclinations that do not actually promote our welfare. Then you limit the allowability of love and marriage to 'adults' -- what if pre-adults are 'born' liking each other, or adults are born liking children? In these cases, your willingness to legislate morality still shines through. If you have morals you wish to inflict on the world for its own betterment, why not let others do the same?
Her reasoning is not difficult to follow; the bill could perhaps be more finely tuned; but the law was always meant to be prophylactic, so it seems insincere for her to judge it as if it were addressing some current exigency. Brewer has said, we don't have such a problem yet in Arizona; therefore, you may not pass a law guarding against such a problem. It's short-sighted. Now what will Arizona's faithful do, except only wait for the problem to someday emerge against, and be unable by that time to address it, and realize, as usual, that yesterday's leaders sabotaged them? The "some legislators have changed their minds about their vote" part sounds like nonsense, not within her authority to determine".
The ideal non-partisan that I fear we will never see in office is somebody whom nobody loves but everybody tolerates, who is not beholden to any one group or faction, who cannot be bought. Romney's 'fan base' is still right here, nice and cozy, waiting for him to come reclaim his second term, for the same reasons as before: he was always the stable, experienced, mature, intelligent candidate; exemplary in principles without being loud about them; full of the decorum, fairness, deference to law, and statesmanship Americans think are extinct in their leaders; not prone to the dramatic swings in public opinion that characterized his challengers. If Romney stays retired, I would accept Paul or Cruz or whomever, but 2012 was not some unusual year when, inexplicably, no strong candidate could be found so that Romney was the best of the mediocre -- rather, Romney was simply a vastly competent and strong candidate that took all kinds of abuse and media collusion to bring down below 50% (while every poll taken on the question since then has concluded he would win in a rematch with Obama), and with Romney in the 2016 race, his decent opponents would still come across as children, more fodder for the Democrat vote machine.
In response to:

Republicans See the Light on Immigration

Steve94 Wrote: Feb 08, 2014 8:48 AM
Left-dragging establishment, thy name is Steve Chapman. I wonder if he has really thought about what it means to create an inferior legal underclass -- actually bringing into existence what so many on the left have already hyperbolically complained about: second-class citizenship. Of course he would quickly realize on reflection that such a status is unsupportable in current American thinking; Chapman's 'compromise' is really just the middle point between amnesty and amnesty. People have a right to govern themselves in America; the tribes had a right to resist the Europeans, if they had had the strength, and Europeans have a right to resist both southern and foreign immigration (a right most nations reserve to themselves). The only thing we do not have is sufficient cultural self-esteem to resist liberal self-shaming that emotionally compels us to legalize our own demise.
I sure wish these propagandists would stop selling their marvellous new centralizing schemes by comparing their schools with Korean ones, at least till they come teach here. The closest most Americans will get to the parent-driven educational context of South Korea is probably in private schools and home schools. 100% is not a true statistic, even if access is the norm. Still, high-speed Internet access contributes little to nothing to the successes attributed to certain levels of Korean education. What contributes is the intact Korean family, the cultural fanaticism toward personal achievement, and constant studying.
In response to:

Free Edward Snowden -- Really?

Steve94 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 8:01 AM
Seeing the 'senior fellow's' credentials, I was honestly hoping for some solid reasoning from the anti-Snowden side, to help me understand how anybody on the right side of the aisle in 2014 could really be pushing for a more intrusive federal government. Instead, all I find is an unconvincing deflection of blame and yet another logically falacious character attack to misdirect from the central problem of a massive, innovative public surveillance program with no possibility of public accountability before Snowden. Try again, Debra Saunders; I fear you've changed no minds.
No, it's not the law; it's illegality masquerading as law. The law is what the U.S. and Utah Constitutions clearly prescribe -- the first, a division of powers, the second, real marriage -- not the narrow framework into which homosexualists can convince a set of biased judges to cram a democratic debate. Wistful sentiments are worthless here. If Utah County and the others still have any liberty left, they will dismiss and replace those well-meaning officials who submit to illegal impositions; if not, the officials and the people who retain them become co-conspirators with the judge who just pretended to erase democracy from the state by crossing lines out of its Constitution. Whatever happens to freedom in the end, a government marriage certificate at present no longer means anything in Utah, my homeland -- neither do our votes on a Constitutional amendment, it seems.
1 - 10 Next