Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Advanced

Equal Rights

Posted by Ferdinand 
December 27, 2008 01:37PM
We haven't had any good political debates in this new version of the BENN forum yet.

I didn't want to be the first to test the tolerance of our new moderators here, so I resorted to venting pent up steam debating American Constitutional rights with the strange folks over on r3vLimited instead. It was entertaining for a while and seemed to be going along just fine, until they locked the thread on me.

It's bizarre. Of all the truly disgusting topics that thrive freely in their off-topic section, they chose to shut down the only one I found interesting. Seems they don't like having Canadians explaining the American Constitution to them.

See "A True American", and my final reply after I'd been cut off in "Why?".
December 27, 2008 02:24PM
Quote
Ferdinand
We haven't had any good political debates in this new version of the BENN forum yet.

I didn't want to be the first to test the tolerance of our new moderators here, so I resorted to venting pent up steam debating American Constitutional rights with the strange folks over on r3vLimited instead. It was entertaining for a while and seemed to be going along just fine, until they locked the thread on me.

It's bizarre. Of all the truly disgusting topics that thrive freely in their off-topic section, they chose to shut down the only one I found interesting. Seems they don't like having Canadians explaining the American Constitution to them.

See "A True American", and my final reply after I'd been cut off in "Why?".

Why were you even trying to communicate with those prepubescent, trailer park, P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act fodder? Collectively, the whole group in that thread don't have enough gray matter to constitute a brain let alone have informed opinions sad smiley

Are you snowed in? winking smiley
December 27, 2008 02:38PM
We have an opportunity to witness the same BS as our American neighbours very soon. Since Harper has seen fit to give the Canadian public the big >grinning smiley< by appointing 18 new senators; most of whom know little of governance; it is only a matter of days before we find that he is reinstated the 'not withstanding clause'.
There is no more separation of religion and state in our country than south of the 49th parallel sad smiley

The election next month should prove interesting and provide someone with a majority government...Harper doesn't seem to think it will be the Conservatives winking smiley
December 27, 2008 03:02PM
I only got to read the first two or three pages of the first thread, then I quit because of the brainless insulting, so I have missed your contribution(s).

All I can say is that at the moment, I am refusing to travel to the USA, as I feel my privacy is being intruted by the nature of the questions asked by border security (you know, the whole list of questions you have to answer so much time in advance before being able to enter the country) and the taking of fingerprints (why taking fingerprints if you aren't being suspected for a crime?).

I consider this globe everyone's, and I'd like to stand and go wherever I want, within certain limits, as others should be able to stand and go wherever they want. (as the USA does, they invade wherever they like, and impose their rules whenever they want)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2008 03:13PM by Michiel 318iS.
December 27, 2008 03:10PM
I guess the rest of the world hasn't noticed, but our government fell over a suspected attempt of the government to influence a trial. We've been adrift like an out of control ship for over the past 19 months now, not being able to install a stable government. Over the years, there've been numerous incidents with politicians acting beyond their competences, not much happens.
At the moment, I am in a trial (for a traffic violation I didn't commit) against a police officer (who would have been off duty, so his words should only be informative, not the absolute truth). I've got several witnesses of where I was and what I did that day and who is being believed? Yep, the cop... Next round is in February, I hope I have a good judge by then...

I'm pretty fed up with this situation, we're supposed to be amoungst the 'good' countries in the world, I almost have to conclude there are no 'good' countries at all...

As Mr Ghandi said when a reporter asked his opinion on western civilisation: Western civilisation? That would be a good idea!
rkj
December 27, 2008 04:16PM
As Mr Ghandi said when a reporter asked his opinion on western civilisation: Western civilisation? That would be a good idea!

Wow, powerful.
December 28, 2008 09:49AM
i think another reason the thread was locked is in general the moderators are conservative right wingers, and they started to see that you were making great, coherent arguments that were generally against their beliefs.

and by the way, i can assure you that if you start any kind of political discussion here, I will not use my moderating powers to hinder the progress of the thread as long as no one is making death threats to someone else. those must be done via PM. thumbs up


December 29, 2008 02:27PM
I couldn't read most of that crap. However, one great takeaway that I agree with: henceforth "that stupid Canadian" should be called "Turdinhand." It has a great ring to it, don't you think? spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2008 02:28PM by Cab Treadway.
December 29, 2008 02:36PM
Quote
Michiel 318iS
I only got to read the first two or three pages of the first thread, then I quit because of the brainless insulting, so I have missed your contribution(s).
I stepped into the thread starting on the 9th page, post #131.
December 29, 2008 02:38PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
henceforth "that stupid Canadian" should be called "Turdinhand."
A turd in hand is worth two in the bush.

But a Ferdinand is worth twice more than a Bush.
December 29, 2008 05:52PM
Quote
Ferdinand
A turd in hand is worth two in the bush.

Um, yeah. A turd in the bush? Don't think I want to go there.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
December 29, 2008 06:05PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Quote
Ferdinand
A turd in hand is worth two in the bush.

Um, yeah. A turd in the bush? Don't think I want to go there.

Not without a rabbit anyway winking smileygrinning smiley
December 29, 2008 07:51PM
Ok, I just read from the point where you jumped in until the end.

Ferd, I love you, man. If both of us weren't already married, I'd... well, nevermind, I don't want to say it. spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

Seriously though, why do you put so much effort making valid and cogent arguments supported by facts and citations when you know the only response you're going to get is something in the flavor of "stupid kanuk (sic)?" Might as well go outside and beat your head against the house. At least that way you might get something accomplished like dislodging an icicle.

Fight the good fight, though, I guess.

Although, I actually do see a little double-standardness in the juxtaposition of the views you have expressed over the years and your support of Obama. He might be a great leader (we have yet to see, but I have my hopes), but he never has seemed to show much in the way of undying support for the Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong, and what he's done since the election has impressed me, although it's ticked off a lot of his supporters. If you were American, I would put you in the Libertarian Party (with the exception of gun laws, I guess), based on what I know of you, and that's very much the other end of the spectrum from our pres-elect.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
December 29, 2008 09:11PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
...
Although, I actually do see a little double-standardness in the juxtaposition of the views you have expressed over the years and your support of Obama. He might be a great leader (we have yet to see, but I have my hopes), but he never has seemed to show much in the way of undying support for the Constitution....

Why is it that the new guy is so suspect of what you infer when the sitting and past president has blatantly pissed all over the constitution? Why do people have such closed minds and only see what they want to see?

Nothing personal Cab, just an observation I've made about so many who continue to diss the democratically elected leader. Detractors threw all manner of BS and innuendo out there about Marxist ties, communist leanings and other completely unfounded nonsense.

Funny how most if not all the actual documented proof of wrong doings and/or dubious actions of the loser are so conveniently ignore, swept under the rug or buried. This is the real double standard.

Unfortunately, the country has been so badly raped that I doubt even Obama can restore it. The real power people will continue to stuff themselves at the trough until there is nothing left sad smiley

This applies pretty much to Canada too :X
December 30, 2008 11:04AM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Ferd, I love you, man.
I

you too dude.

Quote
Cab Treadway
Seriously though, why do you put so much effort making valid and cogent arguments supported by facts and citations when you know the only response you're going to get is something in the flavor of "stupid kanuk (sic)?" Might as well go outside and beat your head against the house. At least that way you might get something accomplished like dislodging an icicle.
It was amusing for a while. But I must admit they scored a crippling hit on me by locking the thread without warning. I didn't see that coming at all.

Quote
Cab Treadway
I actually do see a little double-standardness in the juxtaposition of the views you have expressed over the years and your support of Obama.
Somebody mentioned that on the r3vLimited thread too, but nobody explained it there. What's the deal with Obama not showing respect for the Constitution? I haven't seen any of that, but I haven't gone looking for it either. What's the basis for people saying that?
December 30, 2008 04:29PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
Cab Treadway
...
Although, I actually do see a little double-standardness in the juxtaposition of the views you have expressed over the years and your support of Obama. He might be a great leader (we have yet to see, but I have my hopes), but he never has seemed to show much in the way of undying support for the Constitution....

Why is it that the new guy is so suspect of what you infer when the sitting and past president has blatantly pissed all over the constitution? Why do people have such closed minds and only see what they want to see?

I'm defending neither the current pres nor the loser of this past election. I didn't vote for either of them, and I'm certainly not a big fan of either. It's possible to dislike one of two candidates without necessarily supporting the other. Obviously I would have rather had McCain in office than BO, not because I like him a lot, but rather because he was the only other possible choice. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, however, even though he had no realistic chance at winning.

Quote

Nothing personal Cab, just an observation I've made about so many who continue to diss the democratically elected leader. Detractors threw all manner of BS and innuendo out there about Marxist ties, communist leanings and other completely unfounded nonsense.

I'm not dissing him at all. I actually am pleasantly surprised about how he's gone about his business since the election. I did not want him in office, but I think he might be not bad. His ardent supporters have been quite ticked off, though, because he's showing himself to not be as liberal as they wanted him to be in the selections he's been making for positions in his administration, by backing off the (unrealistic when they were made) declarations that he'd pull us out of Iraq immediately, etc.

Marxist ties, et al, are not unfounded nonsense and innuendo. Connections between him and Marxists have been written about ad nauseum, how he sought out the Marxists when he was in school because he felt most comfortable with them, etc. I have not heard such claims discredited.

As I've said since the election, perhaps he'll be the greatest thing for the world since fire, I certainly hope so, but I have been scared of him because of his lack of a real record, and the record that is there being so far to the left. To those who are far on the left, that's a good thing. To those of us in the middle or to the right, that's a scary thing. I am not a fan of higher taxes and potentially leading us towards socialism, and if he takes us there (as many have said he will want to), I will not be happy about it. Maybe that's all a vast right-wing conspiracy and he really doesn't feel that way. The point is, he doesn't have much of a record that shows he is or isn't anything in particular, so he can be all things to all people, both good and bad. That's how he made himself so appealing to people and got elected, in my opinion. He's very intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic, and charming. He gives a good speech and fills people with hope. The hope that I have, however, is that he's not all fluff and that he might actually have something to back up his speeches. We shall see.

I believe that the best government is small, efficient, and doesn't intrude much in business or the lives of its citizens. To that end, I am vastly disappointed in the US government, and Bush certainly has made things worse, not better. I fear the likely reality that in an attempt to pull the US and the world out of the current economic situation, BO is going to make the government even bigger and more all-encompassing. Maybe that's necessary, or on the other hand, maybe a somewhat prolonged recession is necessary to get businesses to learn to operate better. I have no real idea.

Quote

Funny how most if not all the actual documented proof of wrong doings and/or dubious actions of the loser are so conveniently ignore, swept under the rug or buried. This is the real double standard.

Again, it's not about McCain being such a wonderful candidate. I felt that we were in a lose-lose situation, and since the candidate representing a party I actually do share ideals with had no shot, I did prefer the guy who wasn't Obama, because I felt he was the lesser of two evils. Maybe that was wrong, maybe it was right. It's of no moment, because BO is the next pres, and I will support him as such, even when/if I disagree with him. I consider myself part of the loyal opposition, but I'm not just opposed to him, but rather to the whole system and situation we find ourselves in.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
December 30, 2008 04:38PM
Quote
Ferdinand
Quote
Cab Treadway
I actually do see a little double-standardness in the juxtaposition of the views you have expressed over the years and your support of Obama.
Somebody mentioned that on the r3vLimited thread too, but nobody explained it there. What's the deal with Obama not showing respect for the Constitution? I haven't seen any of that, but I haven't gone looking for it either. What's the basis for people saying that?

The worst, IMO, is that he's said that he wants to appoint judges who "legislate from the bench." Or at least I've heard that he's said that. Maybe that's another vast right-wing conspiracy. Anyway, that's not what the judicial branch is supposed to be about, and I don't want that.

I maybe shouldn't have said what I did about him being disrespectful to the Constitution. I don't know that for sure, and I don't have any citations. I guess the dichotomy I see in your posts vs. your support of him is that he just tends to be very liberal, big government, high taxes, etc, and I read into your posts a lot of deep respect for the Constitution, and the extension of most of your musings seems to be to be a very libertarian perspective. BO, on the other hand, seems very not-libertarian. I'm not saying that one can't be both a supporter of the Constitution and also be liberal and in favor of large government, etc, but in my experience, most people who cite the Constitution and individual rights like you do tend to be more conservative politically.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
December 30, 2008 08:30PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
I read into your posts a lot of deep respect for the Constitution.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert by any means. My deep respect is really only a recognition of the Constitution as the highest law in the land. Every other piece of legislation, right down to the smallest community by-law on how your garbage cans have to be lined up on the edge of the street, all of it has to respect the principles laid out in the Constitution.

The issue that started the r3v thread concerned search and seizure without probable cause or consent. I think we pretty much beat that one to death.

The question I still had concerned the principle of equal rights, and in particular how that relates to same-gender marriage. I was wondering why, after the California Supreme Court ruled that gays/lesbians indeed had the same right to marriage as anyone else, how was it possible for Californians to vote in the last election to remove that right? I'm not understanding the Constitutionality of that.

When Canada last debated this issue, the only difficult question was whether the right to practise your religion, or the equal right of gays/lesbians to marry took precedence. I'm pretty sure it was ruled that gays/lesbians couldn't walk into some ultra-conservative church and demand to be married, if it contravened the preachings of that particular church. But it was also confirmed that no ultra-conservative church could deny the gay/lesbian couple's right to get married in any other church that would accommodate them.

So I'm puzzled how it is that California could one day allow gay marriage, then change their mind and disallow it? Either they have a Constitutional right or they don't. How does that work?
December 30, 2008 08:58PM
Quote
Ferdinand
So I'm puzzled how it is that California could one day allow gay marriage, then change their mind and disallow it? Either they have a Constitutional right or they don't. How does that work?

I don't pretend to understand that, either. In my ever-so-humble opinion, that is an issue that should never be voted on at all. You are absolutely correct in the r3v thread about how it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the population agrees on an issue, the rights of that 0.1% need to be protected. I am a practicing Christian, but I do not believe that homosexuals are against God or nature, and I don't think I believe that it's a choice, either. I think people are who they are, but the biggest issue is that all people, men/women/gay/straight/whatever, should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. If two people want to spend their lives together, as long as both are mentally mature enough to make that choice, who am I to tell them they're wrong? I probably do some things in my life that others might disagree with, too. In fact, the logical extension is that why do we have to stop marriage among two people? I'm not sure I can say we have to. If multiple people all consent to be married to each other, I don't have the right to say they can't. My feelings on the matter have no bearing.

What really gets me about the gay marriage issue is that the right-wing zealots seem to have no problem with non-Christian straight couples. If a couple never steps foot in a church after their marriage, or gets married by a JOP and never goes to a church at all, then lives their lives according to whatever the heck they want, well, the anti gay marriage folk think that's just dandy. To me, I have much more respect for the monogamous same-sex couple who have been together for 20 yrs than for the the people who are married for convenience or tax purposes or have an "open" marriage or whatever. But that's not an issue to these people, simply because the two people involved are of the correct gender.

I think that all couples should, in the eyes of the law, have a "civil union" or whatever you want to call it, and be subject to the same tax laws, property ownership laws, access to their loved ones during hospital visiting hours, etc. I couldn't give two poops about who someone is diddling, as long as it's all legal and amongst consenting adults, all this crap about same-sex couples being allowed to be "married" somehow changing the validity of my marriage? It's just that, crap.

Anywho, that's a long-winded response to simply basically agree with you. I don't think it should be a legal issue at all, especially not since this country is apparently now so forward thinking and advanced.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
December 30, 2008 09:06PM
Well said.

The world surely would be a better place if everyone were as level-headed as you are.
December 30, 2008 10:37PM
Quote
Ferdinand
Well said.

The world surely would be a better place if everyone were as level-headed as you are.

I think that part of why Cab is so well grounded is because he is what I would consider a real christian. For him being a christian is a way of living his life and setting a positive role model by example thumbs up

...I just wish I was as level-headed winking smiley
December 31, 2008 11:28AM
Thanks for the compliments, guys. I guess I just try and live my life by the golden rule "Do unto others" and all that. I know I'm not a perfect example by any means, but I try. Sometimes Mrs. Cab is frustrated because she says I'm too level-headed. tongue sticking out smiley

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
December 31, 2008 11:35AM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Thanks for the compliments, guys. I guess I just try and live my life by the golden rule "Do unto others" and all that. I know I'm not a perfect example by any means, but I try. Sometimes Mrs. Cab is frustrated because she says I'm too level-headed. tongue sticking out smiley

'Steady as she goes' is always better in the long term thumbs up

Here's wishing you and your tribe a Happy and Prosperous New Year B)
January 05, 2009 02:35AM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Quote
Ferdinand
So I'm puzzled how it is that California could one day allow gay marriage, then change their mind and disallow it? Either they have a Constitutional right or they don't. How does that work?

I don't pretend to understand that, either. In my ever-so-humble opinion, that is an issue that should never be voted on at all. You are absolutely correct in the r3v thread about how it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the population agrees on an issue, the rights of that 0.1% need to be protected. I am a practicing Christian, but I do not believe that homosexuals are against God or nature, and I don't think I believe that it's a choice, either. I think people are who they are, but the biggest issue is that all people, men/women/gay/straight/whatever, should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. If two people want to spend their lives together, as long as both are mentally mature enough to make that choice, who am I to tell them they're wrong? I probably do some things in my life that others might disagree with, too. In fact, the logical extension is that why do we have to stop marriage among two people? I'm not sure I can say we have to. If multiple people all consent to be married to each other, I don't have the right to say they can't. My feelings on the matter have no bearing.

What really gets me about the gay marriage issue is that the right-wing zealots seem to have no problem with non-Christian straight couples. If a couple never steps foot in a church after their marriage, or gets married by a JOP and never goes to a church at all, then lives their lives according to whatever the heck they want, well, the anti gay marriage folk think that's just dandy. To me, I have much more respect for the monogamous same-sex couple who have been together for 20 yrs than for the the people who are married for convenience or tax purposes or have an "open" marriage or whatever. But that's not an issue to these people, simply because the two people involved are of the correct gender.

I think that all couples should, in the eyes of the law, have a "civil union" or whatever you want to call it, and be subject to the same tax laws, property ownership laws, access to their loved ones during hospital visiting hours, etc. I couldn't give two poops about who someone is diddling, as long as it's all legal and amongst consenting adults, all this crap about same-sex couples being allowed to be "married" somehow changing the validity of my marriage? It's just that, crap.

Anywho, that's a long-winded response to simply basically agree with you. I don't think it should be a legal issue at all, especially not since this country is apparently now so forward thinking and advanced.


Hi All,

I am certainly not an expert in marriage law, but I have lived in California since the late 1990s. I am in favor of same-sex marriage. Below is the Wiki link to Same-Sex Marriage in California. I have assumed the Wiki Same-Sex marriage history info is correct (seems correct in my recollection). The Wiki article has the events listed a bit out of chronological order. In 2004 for one month, Gavin Newsom the Mayor of San Francisco allowed same sex marriages before the State Government shut the operation down. This action initiated* a whole series of legislative, court and election/voter activity. (* Both the pro and con political forces were present and eager to debate. Newsom just decided to hasten the matter.) In CA, we have the Initiative Process Wiki on Initiative Processwhich allows groups to gather signatures, and then place a measure on the ballot and possibly change our state laws including the state constitution. (This process does not exist at the national/federal level. Only at the state level.) Large political groups can use this process to further their agendas. Prop 22 and Prop 8 which you may read about in the Same-Sex Marriage Wiki are examples of initiatives. My advice - when you read the Same-Sex Marriage Wiki, just try to remember which governmental body has done which action. Every group seems to have a spoon in the pot: Mayors, Governors, State Senators and Assemblymen, the Courts, to name a few.

I think it's also important to mention that while CA is quite politically liberal in the large coastal cities (LA, San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose) the inland communities often vote more conservatively. We also have a large Latino/Hispanic population which is influenced by the Catholic Church's definitions of marriage. After the November election, there was much debate over how CA could elect Obama by a landslide and yet pass Prop 8 which bans same-sex marriage. I heard several theories on National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting TV including - The Mormon Church and other large church organizations (sometimes called Mega-Churches mainly located in the inland communities) spending big bucks to ban same-sex marriage, newly registered minority* voters were reluctant to allow same-sex marriage, and long time Republican voters (who were pissed off by the Bush Administration and the current war) voted for Obama and against same-sex marriage. (* California no longer has a majority of voters of any ethnic background, therefore the term minority is no longer appropriate. I don't know what the correct term is. Sometimes I see "Historically Under-represented" used, but then the sentence reads strangely.) And just to confuse the matter further, we did elect Republican and occasional Conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Governor's Office. Yes, it is a confusing California Dream. Yet somehow we make it work.

Same-Sex Marriage on Wiki
FYI - AB=Assembly Bill in the article. The State of California government has a bicameral legislature with Senate and Assembly bodies which roughly parallels the Senate and House of Representatives structure in Washington DC.

Cheers, Kelly
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 7
Record Number of Users: 3 on September 29, 2015
Record Number of Guests: 109 on June 08, 2017