|
View Poll Results: California's Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition | |||
I support the idea behind Proposition 8 | 8 | 8.08% | |
I do not support the idea behind Proposition 8 | 87 | 87.88% | |
I do not know/ other | 4 | 4.04% | |
Voters: 99. You may not vote on this poll |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
01-07-2009, 12:17 PM | #241 (permalink) | ||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
EDIT: The Hayek quote in my signature seems appropriate here. Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
||
01-07-2009, 12:20 PM | #242 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I won a Tilted Monthly (now quarterly, I believe) award for Tilted Politico. |
|
01-07-2009, 12:31 PM | #243 (permalink) | |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Cool.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|
01-07-2009, 12:36 PM | #244 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
01-07-2009, 12:40 PM | #245 (permalink) |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
My point was that when the same-sex marriage debate is said and done (if it's ever said and done), assholes on both sides of the issue will probably have been exposed. It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, though.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
01-07-2009, 01:18 PM | #246 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
And in any case, it isn't nearly so simple as Person A and Person B. Imagine all of the landlords in an entire neighborhood won't rent to people of a certain skin color. At some point, individual effects become collective effects. Quote:
The problem (for folk who share your perspective) is that most of your country folk seem to disagree with you about the extent to which the government should be involved with the practices of private businesspeople. The "shoulds" aren't really all that important to me. As far as I'm concerned, the issue here is that landlords failed to exercise their unenumerated rights with foresight, and in doing so, lost them. |
||
01-07-2009, 01:53 PM | #247 (permalink) |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
It amazes me that certain people's blind ideal of "hands off government" leads them to actually strive for a society where a restaurant can refuse to serve you for being black or a movie theater can post "NO HOMOS" signs on their door. There's a serious "forest for the trees" problem in this line of thinking. I know it's fun to want chaos, but it's completely impractical.
I'll also venture a guess that the people who "have no problem with" landlords telling minorities to fuck off are not, in fact, minorities. |
01-08-2009, 03:03 AM | #249 (permalink) | |||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-----Added 8/1/2009 at 06 : 06 : 57----- I have no objection to self-regulation to whatever extent that it exists, but my motive here is property rights. I'm looking for ways to protect individual rights, not punish people who use their rights in ways that I dislike.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek Last edited by Telluride; 01-08-2009 at 03:06 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||
01-08-2009, 08:56 AM | #250 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
There are a lot of them. Look up The Bill of Rights if you want to see some.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by filtherton; 01-08-2009 at 12:44 PM.. |
|||
01-09-2009, 07:33 AM | #251 (permalink) | |||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Like what?
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|||
01-09-2009, 08:13 AM | #252 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
How would the right to assemble count as an individual right? Granted, it depends on the context...
Quote:
Quote:
There's about a mile long stretch of Park avenue just outside of downtown Minneapolis where black people just weren't allowed in the early part of last century (I'm not sure exactly about the time range here). For many of the people who lived there that was part of its appeal. I don't have hard data about the amount of money made, but I'm pretty certain that a considerable amount of money was made in conjunction with keeping black people out of this area. Quote:
The right to not be discriminated against based on race/gender/ethnicity/ancestry/sexual orientation when one is trying to find an apartment. The right to go to a restaurant without being exposed to cigarette smoke. What, you've never heard of these rights? Well geez, they are just as valid as rights as the right of private businesspeople to decide what goes on in their private businesses. Perhaps it is better to just consider them individual rights. In fact, pretend I never mentioned collective rights at all, they aren't really all that important to what I'm trying to say. |
|||
01-09-2009, 10:29 AM | #253 (permalink) |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
I think it stems from a myopic view of government from Reagan, Bush Senior, even Clinton that the problem was "too much government" or "the government is the problem" which seems to point towards pointless anarchy or de-regulation or allowances which defy common sense. The government is here for a REASON, one of them is to protect the rights of all citizens. Government can be a beneficial thing, and it's not always the problem. We really do have government for a reason.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
01-09-2009, 10:35 AM | #254 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
how is this right 'collective'? Does this mean that I, as an individual, cannot organize, schedule, and then participate in a protest unless i'm part of an organization? That I can't paint myself a big sign and stand on a street corner by myself yelling 'the end is near'?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
01-10-2009, 08:22 AM | #258 (permalink) |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
This just in: Supporters of Prop 8 are cowards and don't want anyone to know they supported it:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingn...nclick_check=1 SACRAMENTO—Supporters of the November ballot measure that banned gay marriages in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to harassment of donors. "No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats." The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site. The groups announced the lawsuit Thursday. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake. Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, overturned a state Supreme Court decision that declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The measure's opponents have gone back to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the proposition. Advertisement The lawsuit by Bopp's clients cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support the ballot measure have received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman reported being told, "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor had a widow broken, one had a flier distributed around his hometown calling him a bigot and others have received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit. Businesses have been threatened with boycotts because people who worked there contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign, the suit said. In Sacramento, the artistic director of the musical theater company resigned after his $1,000 donation to the Proposition 8 campaign was made public, prompting threats to boycott the company's productions. Supporters of the gay marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight a ballot initiative seeking to overturn the constitutional amendment. "Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions ... and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said. "Indeed, there is significant evidence that, because of the disclosure of their names, donations to groups supporting the passage of Proposition 8 led directly to those donors being singled out for threats, harassment and reprisals." The lawsuit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California's current campaign finance laws date to the Political Reform Act of 1974, a voter-approved initiative that established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees. The secretary of state's office and another defendant, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, had no immediate comment on the suit. But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the gay-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws. He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten and attack gay-rights supporters. "They've used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said. "The Yes on 8 campaign sent blackmail letters to No on 8 supporters. "It's just amazing hypocrisy. But it's the kind of tactics we've seen from them throughout the campaign and time and time again since." Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a group that supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs' arguments are not trivial. "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected." He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states choose to have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors. "It loses in the end, but it's not as crazy an idea or an argument as it may first appear to some people," Scheer said. --------------------------------------------- Oh the irony; these folks had no idea plundering the donor info of the "No on 8" campaign to harass those voting against it, but now that THEY are being harassed, it's suddenly an issue and they want special privileges. Seriously, own up. Choices have consequences, and you shouldn't expect political protection because you acted on an unpopular opinion. |
01-10-2009, 10:25 AM | #259 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Um, it's way too late for that. The list is available online and has been copied and posted again and again. I even have a copy of it somewhere on my hard drive (Cambrian Animal Hospital, my old pet hospital, was on the list. I've since changed to a better vet).
|
01-10-2009, 11:49 AM | #260 (permalink) | |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
Quote:
well there's no way that the state will grant them this anyways (I'd think), so really this is more about trying to put some spin onto an ugly situation. Reading between the lines, this story boils down to: "Uh oh, we've pissed off a lot of people and they're not taking it lightly so let's play the victim card to buy some time" |
|
01-10-2009, 12:12 PM | #261 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned
|
Nice. So after threatening (PageOneQ | Anti-gay blackmailers demand protection money from gay marriage supporters) companies who donated to No on 8 to publish their names if they did not make a same size donation to Yes on 8, they now want to prevent names of proponents to be published. Just wow.
__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. |
01-11-2009, 09:28 PM | #262 (permalink) | ||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
And there's a word for taking stuff from people who are mean to you, solely because they're mean to you - and it's far from my first usage, but it continues to be fitting - it's childish. Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||
01-11-2009, 09:50 PM | #263 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
The right to live somewhere without being unduly discriminated against is just as valid as the right to rent to whomever you want to. This is because neither of these things is actually a "right". They are just things that different folks think ought to be rights. Quote:
|
||
01-11-2009, 10:08 PM | #264 (permalink) | |||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I consider a right to be the moral ownership of a particular ability or object. That is what I mean when I say 'right'. When you say that people should be forced to rent to other people, why do you not then consider that a right? What do you mean when you say 'right'? Try to make me understand how "neither of these are rights" isn't just a meaningless distraction. Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|||
01-11-2009, 11:03 PM | #265 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Quote:
My "way" doesn't matter, because I don't have a particular way with respect to the moral high ground of landlord/tenant relations (well, actually I do, but it's a stupid thing to argue about, so I won't). All I have pointed out is that in the past, certain landlords have shown an inability to perform their jobs as landlords to the satisfaction of their fellow citizens, and that, in fact, they failed so miserably that the ensuing public outcry resulted in a significant reduction in the things they could do in their capacity as landlords. I neither endorsed nor denounced what happened. Quote:
I don't think that they're rights in a moral sense, if that's what you're asking. Quote:
Let the complete lack of any mention by me that *mean people should have their stuff taken from them for being mean* anywhere in this thread by the counterexample then. |
||||
01-15-2009, 06:50 PM | #266 (permalink) | |||||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|||||
01-15-2009, 07:38 PM | #267 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
01-17-2009, 09:13 PM | #268 (permalink) | ||||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Better yet, before you answer that, answer this: are you interested in defending your viewpoint or are you not? If you're not, please stop half-pretending that you are.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||||
01-18-2009, 11:58 AM | #269 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
I'm not interested in arguing the viewpoint you seem intent on attributing to me.
Quote:
Here's what happened: some landlords failed to behave in socially acceptable ways-- they showed an inability to behave in a way that society found acceptable. I'm sorry that the mere mention of these facts implies about me, well, whatever the hell you think it implies about me. Your attributions of me aren't my responsibility. I just thought it odd that you'd be so sensitive to language. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by filtherton; 01-18-2009 at 03:57 PM.. |
|||||
01-19-2009, 09:59 PM | #270 (permalink) | ||||||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It takes no more than a very basic sensitivity to language to realize that you have a horse in this race. And that's even without referencing that second quote in this post. Stop being disingenuous. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||||||
01-20-2009, 06:02 AM | #271 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Well, seeing things or not, I'm not interested in arguing about those things here, so if that's what you want to argue about, I suggest you start your very own thread with a clearly defined subject concerning your beliefs about property rights.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
01-22-2009, 05:05 PM | #272 (permalink) | ||||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I cleared up your misrepresentation - "you're being mean!" - and you repeat it here nonetheless. Also lying - unless you just skipped that part of my post - and also annoying. Quote:
Nah. You answered poorly. Don't answer for me - ask me. Please stop persisting in inventing new arguments for me - I like my own just fine.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||||
03-05-2009, 11:30 AM | #273 (permalink) |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
KRON 4 News, Ustream.TV: San Francisco Local News and Information. Travel&Nature,Traffic,Weather,News,Local News
Live Stream of today's California State Supreme Court hearings |
03-05-2009, 03:51 PM | #275 (permalink) |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
Ken Starr was representing the supporters of Prop 8, but it didn't seem to be going well for him. The justices kept saying (basically) "you want us (the court) to tell 18,000 couples that the marriage that we told them was legal and binding a year ago is no longer legal and binding?"
Then one of the lawyers who represented the opposition to Prop 8 opened by saying that "the will of the majority" in this case runs in direct opposition to the constitutional right to equal protection because there are built in prejudices in the voting body. Had you asked "the people" 50 years ago to vote on whether or not a black man could marry a white woman, what do you think the outcome would be? He also pointed out that if gender is a trait that can't be used to discriminate, then neither should homosexuality, especially with the separation of church and state. It was very interesting to hear both sides. I'm not sure when a decision is expected. |
04-03-2009, 10:10 AM | #279 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
Tags |
california, prop |
|
|