Vote for Hillary... Or Not!

Lou,

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll make this very clear to you.

I do not and will not approve of siblings marrying each other - just not going to happen. If that works in your little world, then go at it and be ready to face the consequences.

My relationship is EQUAL to a straight relationship because of the love and passion I have with my partner - another consenting adult who have committed the rest of our lives together. If you want to equate that to people having sex in a prison, or brother and sister marrying each other, well good for you. But don't expect me to subscribe to your warped view of the world and don't wait for me to ask or expect your approval, because I don't need it.

All that you have proven to me is that I want nothing to do with you or your Libertarian leanings. If being a Libertarian is advocating pedophilia and marrying siblings, you can have it.

Bill writes >>> Having said that... It's easy to say that the government should be out of the marriage business. Do you have any idea what would happen if the government suddenly gave up marriage? The first thing that would happen is that the 1500+ Federal benefits of marriage would go bye bye. I listed a few of them here.

Lou responds >>> Which has absolutely zero to do with Libertarianism, and is akin to that old saw about a guy who kills his parents and then demands mercy on the basis of being an orphan. If government didn't make so many legal entanglements with marriage, then government endorsed marriage would not have so many legal entanglements.

Bill continues >>> Various states would probably follow similar suit. In Connecticut there are 855 rights associated with marriage. So the real question to ask is...

Would married heterosexual couples be ready and willing to give up all those benefits just so gay couples have nothing to bitch about?

Lou responds >>> Which has absolutely zero to do with Libertarianism. Just because Dave does not want to give up the EPA, that does not mean Libertarianism ought to be about keeping the EPA.

Bill continues >>>> Not likely. Would the Federal Government, who cares so much for equal rights for gays, be willing too? Not likely.

Lou responds >>> And what the government wants really has absolutely zero to do with Libertarianism.

Lou wrote >>> Suppose there is a biological reality that justifies a precluding fathers and daughters from marrying each other, would that biological reality justify a preclusion against fathers from marrying their sons? But then if fathers have a right to marry their sons, wouldn't equality under the law give mothers the identical right to marry their sons?"

Bill responds >>> Lou, now you are just being insulting...

I don't want to marry my son. I don't want to marry a goat. I don't want to marry my daughter. I'm not attracted to women, so I don't want to marry a woman. Are you married Lou? Do you want to marry your daughter or your son?

Lou responds >>> I see. Because Bill does not want to marry his children, it is okay to discriminate against those who do. Where have I heard that exact logic before?

I thought Bill really meant it when he said "if you support discrimination against one certain group, that is a flaw in your political philosophy."

Bill writes >>> I want the same rights that heterosexuals have. A heterosexual male is attracted to a heterosexual woman. They meet. They fall in love. The hold hands in public and on not-so-rare occasions, make out right in front of me, whether I want to see it or not. I'm not into making out with my life partner in public, but I believe I should be able to marry the one person in the world I fell in love with, that I'm attracted too, that I want to spend the rest of my life with. Do you get it yet? Is it getting though to you?

Lou responds >>> It is not my business, or the business of my elected representatives, to approve those whom Bill wants to marry.

How much more clear can it get?

That being said, two wrongs do not make a right. The answer to government precluding Person A from marrying Person B is not to get the government to sanction the marriage of A and B while precluding Person C and Person D from marrying; the answer is to get government out the business of telling consenting adults whom they can marry.

Bill opines >>> This notion of "you are already free to marry now Bill. You just have to marry a woman..." (really condescending) makes me want to puke.

Lou responds >>> Equality is not about what is good, fair, or exalted, equality is only about what is equal. It is equal to permit each and every man -- regardless or race, religion, sexual orientation, or country of origin -- to marry one (1) woman at a time. What Bill seems to be puking over is the notion that "equal" and "restrictive" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Suppose we have a prison system that segregates prisoners by sex, could not a heterosexual man demand, on the basis of Bill's equality, that he be incarcerated with a woman? After all, if two gay prisoners can go at it in a sexually satisfying way, shouldn't straight prisoners be given an equal opportunity to go at it in a sexually satisfying way?

Bill continues >>> Is THAT what you hold up as the sanctity of marriage? Is that your test? I believe that marriage should be about love, stability, and commitment.

Lou responds >>> Except between loving, stable, and committed siblings.

"All of that is/was real. Libertarians want the government out of the marriage licensing business. You decide whom you want to marry, and the power of government is not involved with precluding your decision, and the power of government is not involved with compelling others honor your decision."

Kent and I ARE married. After our marriage survived all the crap it has over the last 31 years, I believe that we have every right to call ourselves "married". We act and feel as though we are. So, yes I agree with you, government approval does not make us married.

Having said that... It's easy to say that the government should be out of the marriage business. Do you have any idea what would happen if the government suddenly gave up marriage? The first thing that would happen is that the 1500+ Federal benefits of marriage would go bye bye. I listed a few of them here.

Various states would probably follow similar suit. In Connecticut there are 855 rights associated with marriage. So the real question to ask is...

Would married heterosexual couples be ready and willing to give up all those benefits just so gay couples have nothing to bitch about? Not likely. Would the Federal Government, who cares so much for equal rights for gays, be willing too? Not likely.

From Lou's post....
"Bill writes >>> It is about a CONCEPT that we should ALL be equal UNDER THE LAW. And if you support discrimination against one certain group, that is a flaw in your political philosophy. So what's next? What other group don't you like?

Lou adds >>> Are not homosexuals equally free under the law to marry one (1) consenting adult of the opposite sex? The lesbian Billy Jean King was legally married for about 20 years.

Suppose there is a biological reality that justifies a precluding fathers and daughters from marrying each other, would that biological reality justify a preclusion against fathers from marrying their sons? But then if fathers have a right to marry their sons, wouldn't equality under the law give mothers the identical right to marry their sons?"

Lou, now you are just being insulting...

I don't want to marry my son. I don't want to marry a goat. I don't want to marry my daughter. I'm not attracted to women, so I don't want to marry a woman. Are you married Lou? Do you want to marry your daughter or your son?

I want the same rights that heterosexuals have. A heterosexual male is attracted to a heterosexual woman. They meet. They fall in love. The hold hands in public and on not-so-rare occasions, make out right in front of me, whether I want to see it or not. I'm not into making out with my life partner in public, but I believe I should be able to marry the one person in the world I fell in love with, that I'm attracted too, that I want to spend the rest of my life with. Do you get it yet? Is it getting though to you?

This notion of "you are already free to marry now Bill. You just have to marry a woman..." (really condescending) makes me want to puke. Is THAT what you hold up as the sanctity of marriage? Is that your test? I believe that marriage should be about love, stability, and commitment.

Bill writes >>> Sean, thanks for the link. It was refreshing to see a politician that does suppose the gay population. Of course, I don't just vote for a candidate because of that. That is the first question I ask a politician that is courting my vote, "Do you support marriage equality (full marriage) at the state and federal level, with all it's benefits, for gay couples?"

Lou responds >>> There is something to be clarified.

Libertarians, like Badnarik, do not exactly "support marriage equality (full marriage) at the state and federal level, with all it's benefits, for gay couples", that is only a side-effect. Libertarians support getting government out of the marriage licensing business, altogether.

For thousands of years, people have been able to marry without permission slips from Big Brother; as a Libertarian, I see no reason why such papers are necessary.

One faction wants to use the power of government to force others to recognize the validity of homosexual marriages. Another faction wants to use the power of government to keep the races from intermarrying. Another faction wants to use the power of government to keep siblings from marrying. Another faction wants to use the power of government to keep Mormons from having more than one wife. Another faction wants to use the power of government to force 4 hours of marriage classes before the power of government will allow the consenting adults to marry.

All of that is/was real. Libertarians want the government out of the marriage licensing business. You decide whom you want to marry, and the power of government is not involved with precluding your decision, and the power of government is not involved with compelling others honor your decision.

Bill writes >>> It is about a CONCEPT that we should ALL be equal UNDER THE LAW. And if you support discrimination against one certain group, that is a flaw in your political philosophy. So what's next? What other group don't you like?

Lou adds >>> Are not homosexuals equally free under the law to marry one (1) consenting adult of the opposite sex? The lesbian Billy Jean King was legally married for about 20 years.

Suppose there is a biological reality that justifies a precluding fathers and daughters from marrying each other, would that biological reality justify a preclusion against fathers from marrying their sons? But then if fathers have a right to marry their sons, wouldn't equality under the law give mothers the identical right to marry their sons?

Dave, not Lou, wrote >>> Perhaps I was overstating when I said "no goverment", but I was closer than your "minimal government".

Lou responds >>> I see. Dave knows more than Libertarians what Libertarians stand for.

Dave claims >>> While it did not call itself by the name Libertarian, the US government of 150 years ago was minimal.

Lou responds >>> I see. The 200 year old Constitution says government can lay duties and imposts on imports and exports, and it say that government can regulate commerce -- so even though such activities are anti-Libertarian, our government was Libertarian.

The Federalist Papers had to sell the Constitution to a population in which a great many thought it was excessive government -- so even though a great many thought it was excessive government, it was really minimal government.

Google "Public Monies and Private Supplications" by Davy Crockett -- yes, that Davy Crockett. It was published in 1884, but Crockett died in 1836, so it had to have been written more than 150 years ago. In it, a constituent attacks Crockett for voting "for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown." A very un-Libertarain Act of Congress.

Question: How many legs does a lamb have if you count the tail as a leg?
Answer: Four. Counting the tail as a leg doesn't make it one.

Less government than today is not minimal government, no matter what it's called.

Dave Claims >>> Liberty for those who could afford it, which is the same way it would work today.

Lou responds >>> Nonsense. Things were different in those days. The United States even beat France to democracy, but universal suffrage was still years away. We were better than our contemporaries (unless you were Negro or Indian), but still not perfect. Today, we are even better than that, but still not perfect. Those changes did not come because of government, they came despite government, and even in opposition to it.

As in government regulation did not make America great, freedom did.

Dave claims >>> The 40 hour work week is LAW.

Lou responds >>> No it isn't. Just time and a half kicks in at 40 hours for some chosen, but not all employees. And the 40 hour workweek was a Depression Era tactic to encourage employers to hire more people than to merely work them longer.

Dave continues >>> Yes Unions are responsible for the law, but if not for these rules being codified in law, the battle would still be ongoing. You think big business voluntarily does the right thing? Maybe 10 in 1,000 do, but what about the rest?

Lou responds >>> I mentioned Champion International and the Pigeon River. Big business hires lobbyists for some reason, and it ain't to get the government to force it do the right thing.

Hey, if Champion International is so big and powerful, why does it need the government to protect it from us weenies?

Dave claims >>> Libertarianism still means NO OSHA, NO EPA, NO Social Security, NO Labor Laws.

Lou responds >>> GUILTY AS CHARGED -- AND PROUD OF IT!

Under Libertarianism, there would be no EPA to protect Champion International's right to pollute the Pigeon River.

Under Libertarianism, there would be no Department of Commerce to protect FedEx from union attempts to organize it employees.

In the hazardous materials field, there are several standards of exposure. One is determined by OSHA and is law. It is legally, even criminally enforceable. There is another exposure limit determined by a private organization called NIOSH. NIOSH is more restrictive than OSHA (and there are other international organizations offering even more restrictive standards). You can violate NIOSH without violating law. However, if there is an exposure, the civil courts will rely on NIOSH as THE industry standard. Because of the very real threats from big-time private-party law suits (Erin Brockovich did not work for the government), no sane company would be satisfied with just OSHA compliance. As this case illustrates, private groups working through the courts protect the people better than do legislatures controlled by lobbyists from Champion International.

Dave says >>> I know a LOT about the Libertarians, and I have rejected it for it's flaws.

Lou adds >>> Real or imaginary?

Dave continues >>> I'd venture to say I know more about it than it's supporters.

Lou responds >>> Yes, we have already established that Dave knows more about what Libertarians stand for than do Libertarians.

Dave says >>> Think deeper than the talking points and you will see that "Libertarianism" is nothing more than Capitalism unfettered by regulations. We all know how well THAT worked.

Lou responds>>> Do we? Name a capitalist system unfettered by regulations? As mentioned above, the Constitution of 200 years ago gave government the power to regulate commerce.

Corporations go back as far as Rome. A corporation is a legal fiction. Legally, they are referred to as "persons". Despite what government asserts, corporations don't exist. You can not see, smell, hear, or touch a General Motors, but government says it exists -- and government protects its executives from acts that the corporation does on their orders.

Heck, one of the latest fashions is the Limited Liability Corporation. For a few hundred extra dollars to the Sate, you can incorporate as an LLC and receive even more protection from the government. What a deal.

Lou >>> Perhaps I was overstating when I said "no goverment", but I was closer than your "minimal government".
While it did not call itself by the name Libertarian, the US government of 150 years ago was minimal. Liberty for those who could afford it, which is the same way it would work today. The 40 hour work week is LAW. Yes Unions are resposible for the law, but if not for these rules being codified in law, the battle would still be ongoing. You think big business voluntarily does the right thing? Maybe 10 in 1,000 do, but what about the rest?

Libertarianism still means NO OSHA, NO EPA, NO Social Security, NO Labor Laws. They always defend this with their "hey you can sue them" arguement, but that is lame. Unless you are suing someone with deep pockets (McDonalds, etc) you will NOT get a lawyer to take the case on it's merits, and so justice will be for those who can buy it.

I know a LOT about the Libertarians, and I have rejected it for it's flaws. I'd venture to say I know more about it than it's supporters. Libertarians themselves cannot agree whether or not there is any social safety net for the poor or handicapped, some say roads & military only, and just ignore those cripples starving in the streets. Think deeper than the talking points and you will see that "Libertarianism" is nothing more than Capitalism unfettered by regulations. We all know how well THAT worked.

Much to ponder in these comments.....

Sean, thanks for the link. It was refreshing to see a politician that does suppose the gay population. Of course, I don't just vote for a candidate because of that. That is the first question I ask a politician that is courting my vote, "Do you support marriage equality (full marriage) at the state and federal level, with all it's benefits, for gay couples?"

If the answer is "No." or "Well, I support civil unions...", they are gone. No vote from me. Why? Well, this is not just about MY rights and what I will get from the government. It is about a CONCEPT that we should ALL be equal UNDER THE LAW. And if you support discrimination against one certain group, that is a flaw in your political philosophy. So what's next? What other group don't you like?

If they pass that test, then I want to know where they stand on other issues, the environment, what roll they see the US playing in world affairs, poverty in this country, joblessness, women's rights, education, and what roll they see religion playing in the life of America (read, do they respect the separation of church and state?).

All of this is quite easy for me - most don't pass the first part of the test on marriage equality.

The people of the United States need to WAKE UP AND TAKE THEIR GOVERNMENT BACK. We have been lazy and have allowed this mess that is our current government to go unchecked. If you don't take politics too seriously, it's actually funny to watch - one blunder after the other. If you care about the future and safety of our country, it stops being funny, and becomes downright scary. It shows how vulnerable we have let ourselves become on so many issues - national security is right at the top of the list. News flash: WE ARE NO MORE SECURE NOW THAN WE WERE PRIOR TO 9/11! You may think we are, but we aren't.

Dave wrote >>> So instead of getting a somewhat flawed Al Gore, who was clearly the only educated choice when it comes to the environment, and a LOT closer to the values of the Nader voters, we ended up with "Mr. President Big Oil, rape the wilderness, leave no wildlife refuge unmolested". He actually let big oil companies write the US energy policy.

Lou adds >>> If I remember correctly, at the time there was a controversy about Gore supporting drilling in the Amazon rainforest by Occidental Petroleum, and a Clinton plan to sell the 47,000 acre Elk Hills oil reserve in California to Occidental Petroleum -- and that Gore owned about half a million dollars of stock in Occidental Petroleum.

From the view of those that support Nader, Gore was not a clear alternative.

Dave wrote >>> As for the "Libertarian" party, I am quite familiar with them. You couldn't MAKE me vote Libertarian. Their premise is truly laughable. No laws, no government, if anyone harms you, just sue them. It's all about slashing government to nothing ... Hey, if you want no government at all ... This whole "all governemnt is bad" is bull. We pretty much had a Libertarian government 150 years ago. We also had slavery, monopolies, 72 hour work weeks, staggering numbers of job related deaths, child labor. Of course the Libertarians have a solution - If someone Kills you, just sue them!

Lou counters >>> Dave doesn't know squat about the Libertarianism. Dave asserts more than once, Libertarianism about no government; he is flat out wrong. Libertarianism is not about NO government, it is about MINIMAL government.

We never had a Libertarian government 150 years ago, or ever. Slavery was enforced by government -- it was the Supreme Court that returned Dreg Scott to his owner -- not as Dave suggests, the "no government of Libertarianism".

Government did not end long work weeks, unions did -- despite major government resistance. One major reason unions are declining in today's world is that government is now usurping their purpose of securing job, health, and wage protections.

But even so, FedEx is enjoying a federal ruling against its employees unionizing on a local level. It is the federal government, not the "no government of Libertarianism", that is protecting FedEx from its employees!

As for suing (so what part of Dave's "no government of Libertarianism" supplies the courts?), what's deficient about suing?

Big Business simply does not have the power many say it does. If those rich and powerful corporations had the power to make things happen, then you would be diving an Edsel to buy New Coke, right now.

They want you to like them so you will buy their goods and services. If they are only money-hungry entities that do not care what you think, then Kellogg would not underwrite PBS programming, Bill Gates would not donate $100 million to AIDS research, and Philip Morse would not buy ads that have nothing to do with their products.

There are numerous laws that government has to protect business from accountability. I am talking about basic laws, not special ones.

Here are two definitions from the Devil's Dictionary:

CORPORATION, n.
An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

TARIFF, n.
A scale of taxes on imports, designed to protect the domestic producer against the greed of his consumer.

In a Libertarian government those protections do not exist; in a Libertarian government corporate officers will be held accountable for their decisions. They will not be able to use "corporate veils" or trusts to shelter their assets from those who would sue them.

Government protection makes it possible for business to do nasty things. My favorite example is the Pigeon River in Tennessee (home state of a famous environmentalist that Dave thinks is a clear choice).

If you drive down Interstate 24, there is a billboard next to the Pigeon River that says "God help us, the EPA won't". Champion International runs a paper mill (in NC) that has been pouring caustics into that river, since 1908.

In today's world you can't do anything about it. The EPA has given Champion International legal permission to dump caustics into a river it doesn't own. A Libertarian government could not protect Champion International from the citizen(s) downstream; the current system can, and does. In a Libertarian system there is no influence to offer at any price; in the current system, money buys the legal right to pollute (it can also buy pardons from laws that one gets caught breaking).

While it is true that a large corporate entity can overwhelm a single citizen in buying power, it is equally true that a single citizen can bring McDonalds to its knees over hot coffee, or that Ralph Nader can force GM to redesign the Corvair, or that pressure groups can force Hollywood to protect animals in the making of its films.

Oh... one more thing! Bill, you wanted to know if I know of a politician actively supporting gay rights - in fact I do! The guy I voted for for president last time :)

http://www.badnarik.org/whybadnarik/why_gays.php

Woah woah woah...

The Libertarian PARTY exists not as an anarchist entity!! If it was then there would not be a political party.

As for your comment about countries with NO governments, last I checked there aren't any. Countries are not recognized without a government since the idea of a 'country' is a socio-political concept. Furthermore. I DON'T underestimate the power of the Presidency. But come on! TWO Supreme Court Justices are you worst fear??!!? I can't believe I'm even saying this, since it's like a junior high civics lecture... The Supreme Court does not make laws. The Legislature makes laws. So what are you worried about? Gay Marriage bans? Guess what - STATE legislatures are already banning homosexual marriage - the only thing the Supreme Court could do is rule it unconstitutional. SO ok, maybe they don't do that with Bush's TWO judges, then it gets postponed until the next judge retires and they revisit the case. But honestly, if you look at the Supreme Court's history you'd notice that over the years the justices have been remarkably consistent in terms of upholding the US Constitution - that's their job - on the whole justices of the US Supreme court cannot be so easily categorized into conservative or liberal. Besides, ultimately they aren't here to decide gay marriage - or abortion or anything else (AGAIN; Legislature). They are just here to deal with constitutionality. So relax dude... it's not the end of the world.

Speaking of "it's not the end of the world" for all your whining about G.W. Bush, he only has a couple more years in office (you see the beauty of our constitution now?). But do you honestly think that Al Gore was educated? Ad hominem attacks aside, the guy has said some pretty wild things about the environment that often amount to fear mongering based on totally unproven and highly debated science. Besides - say Al Gore was the 'smarter' candidate, that means absolutely nothing if his philosophies lead the US into

The trouble here is that you guys act like Democrats like Gore or the Clintons are saints - when they strip away more of your freedoms on a daily basis than Republicans as a party platform ever have if you look at it historically.

Ok... now I have to go back to libertarianism for a moment. Do I really need to remind people that socialism and communism are only possible through totalitarian means. Redistribution of wealth, "free" health care at a national level, national wellfare programs, etc - REQUIRE someone at the top deciding which people get benefits and which don't and how much. I generally vote libertarian - because I believe in FREEDOM... something that seems to elude both major parties and most of the sheep who categorize themselves by those parties.

Ralph Nader - does not believe in Freedom. He believes in Socialism... which is antithetical to freedom. Socialism is just one step towards governmentally institutionalized communism - which is all totalitarian and true fascism. So fine... go ahead and vote for someone like Ralph Nader - hell vote for the people already in office. Freedoms are being limited one by one - and not by President Bush... President Bush isn't responsible for banning smoking in New York City (my current hometown), he's not responsible for putting up police cameras in private businesses, nor is he responsible for the limiting of free-speech despite what liberals in the US tend to shout about.

Perhaps it's time to quit blaming the President for everything that's ever gone wrong... maybe try to use your mind rationally and realize that conspiracies aren't everywhere. It's a natural societal progression and Bush is just one of a long chain of the same thing, Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Communist Party... EVERY PARTY (except usually the libertarian party) moves towards larger government, more control, higher taxes.

Maybe it's time to wake up... the pragmatist voting attitude needs to change. You want freedom - start paying attention to who's really taking it away (and it's not libertarians!) and who wants to bring it back.

Ok anyway - I'm tired of this... go ahead and think that life is dualistic and that there's one side or the other side and you're seeing both. The truth is - even if there were only TWO points of view on any issue, the joke is that you're only seeing ONE view between the Republicans and the Democrats: BIGGER GOVERNMENT = BETTER

It worked so well for Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Japan..... Ohhhhh wait... my mistake. What I meant was 100s of Millions of People died... No more sheep please.

Danger, Sean, Danger! You underestimate the power of the President. GW Bush got to pick at least 2 Supreme Court justices, my worst fear. His presidency will cripple progressive causes and human rights advances for decades after his term is finished.

Seems like last time the pie-in-the-sky voters voted for the candidate who really represented their values, they ended up putting GW Bush in the White House, because Ralph Nader never had a snowball's chance in hell, all those Nader votes were, in effect, Bush votes. So instead of getting a somewhat flawed Al Gore, who was clearly the only educated choice when it comes to the environment, and a LOT closer to the values of the Nader voters, we ended up with "Mr. President Big Oil, rape the wilderness, leave no wildlife refuge unmolested". He actually let big oil companies write the US energy policy.

Yea, I'll agree that voting your true choice SOUNDS terrific. Too bad the reality doesn't line up. As for the "Libertarian" party, I am quite familiar with them. You couldn't MAKE me vote Libertarian. Their premise is truly laughable. No laws, no government, if anyone harms you, just sue them. It's all about slashing government to nothing, promoted by "no taxes" extremists. Hey, if you want no government at all, good for you, but there are already PLENTY of such countries. Might I suggest you try Yemen? This whole "all governemnt is bad" is bull. We pretty much had a Libertarian government 150 years ago. We also had slavery, monopolies, 72 hour work weeks, staggering numbers of job related deaths, child labor. Of course the Libertarians have a solution - If someone Kills you, just sue them!

ok..... On the LIBERTARIAN thing...

Find me one that will REALLY support our issues, he/she will get my vote. But I'm sick and tired of compromising my values and my needs (I pay mega taxes damn it!) for asshole politicians who don't give a shit about the people they SERVE.

Well... I will agree on one thing... Hillary's hair is gay.

I was beat up by a lesbian years ago, and she had hair just like Hillary's. :(

Come on everyone! How can you say that Hillary doesn't support LGBT... (Big Grin) Everyone knows that she is a Lesbian, allbeit still in the closet, but first and foremost, she is a lying, scheming, look-you-in-the-eye-and-bullshit-you politician. If it looks, acts, smells, and feels like an in-the-closet Les, thin it is. Forget about Hillary, she is a lost cause. Go Libertarian!

Sean,

I agree with a lot of what you said, but.... I never said (and never meant to imply) that either party has done anything to promote the civil liberties of our system. To tell you the truth, I can't stand either party. I think they are both WORTHLESS!

I never said that Bill Clinton was an effective president. I merely said that he is smarter than what we have now, which isn't saying a hell of a lot.

"Nobody on EITHER side? AS if politics is a dualistic enterprise... Quit looking at the old hat parties that never do anything for you and start looking at individuals and if you must stick to a party why not start paying attention to parties that base their platforms on civil liberties like the Libertarian Party?"

And get them ELECTED how? Like it or not, there are two ELECTABLE parties in this nation. I would LOVE to see other options. Unfortunately, in our system of electing candidates, it takes a lot of money to just get your name out there.

"If you don't start voting and voting for people who honestly represent your values (rather than just the lesser of two evils as people have been voting for centuries) then nothing is going to change..... Think about it!"

Believe me... I've thought about it for many years. That is what has brought me to the conclusion that most all politicians are worthless, self-serving jerks who only care about themselves and power. They don't care about most of the people they represent, and they certainly don't care about gays.

But here's a final thought.... is there ANYONE OUT THERE who is going to run for President of the United States who is ACTIVELY SAYING, "If you elect me to be President of the United States, I will work towards EQUALITY FOR ALL PEOPLE - INCLUDING GAYS"?

If you know of anyone, let me know.

What I can't figure out is why everyone who is posting here, including the original author cannot seem to see past party lines?

Bill Clinton was an almost entirely ineffective president. To start off with, the office of the presidency is a lot less powerful than everyone in America would like to believe - the constitution set it up that way. But he didn't do anything for civil liberties or civil rights, he like nearly all democrats just stripped more rights from the public. Republicans did/do the same things! At least the Republican's are relatively honest about their lack of concern for added rights for gays. Democrats like the Clinton's are simply two-faced about it...

So I guess... When are you guys going to wake up!? Both major parties do nothing but strip more rights away, raise dependency on national government, and destroy more freedoms with every passing year.

You want to find politicians who are honest and who WILL stand up for your rights as citizens of the United States of America (a term I say with a lot of pride)? Start re-evaluating your premises!!

"As for gay marriage, nobody on either side will have the intestinal fortitude to stand by us"

Nobody on EITHER side? AS if politics is a dualistic enterprise... Quit looking at the old hat parties that never do anything for you and start looking at individuals and if you must stick to a party why not start paying attention to parties that base their platforms on civil liberties like the Libertarian Party?

If you don't start voting and voting for people who honestly represent your values (rather than just the lesser of two evils as people have been voting for centuries) then nothing is going to change..... Think about it!

I agree with everything you said, Dave. Just a few comments....

If you believe in democracy, then you MUST stand up and protect acts that that democracy defends. If you believe in free speech, then you must defend those who say things that would turn your stomach. Take Fred Phelps, for example. I hate his guts and I hate everything he says and everything he stands for. I hate that he would use something like a funeral to make a cheap political statement with. But, I defend his right to do every single thing he is doing, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. The Constitution gives him that right. I also believe that people who burn the U.S. Flag should have that right.

It also gives me the right to call the President a "dip shit" and to bitch and moan about people like Fred Phelps. The lesson: Democracy isn't easy.

I agree with you on Bill Clinton being a better president than Bush. Clinton's ability to think through an issue is so far above Bush, it's not even funny. Aside from that, George W. Bush isn't exactly raising the bar that high in his presidency. It's not saying much for anyone to say that they would make a better president than George W. Bush.

My problem with Bill Clinton was that he backed down on supporting gay troops in the military. He won my support by saying that he would make being gay a non-issue in being able to serve in the military. Then, when the shit hit the fan, he backed off and settled for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Jack Off". To me, that was an eye opener that his promises meant nothing. You never sacrifice your principles. Even if you feel you've won the battle by doing that, you've lost.

And now we have Hillary who I believe will say and do anything to get elected - pretty much like Bill Clinton. In the real world, I totally understand her stance on gay marriage. She would never be elected, and she knows it. But to me, it's simply personal. I won't vote for anyone who is basically saying that I'm second class from the get go (which probably means I won't vote for a president).

I know... I'm being a selfish bastard, but it's my vote.

I've met Hillary, she is very smart, articulate, and a deep thinker - pretty much the polar opposite of our current president. However she did something recently that TOTALLY ALIENATED me. Hillary supports that sickening 'flag burning' ammendment. Talk about pandering! Could she really believe that you protect the flag by undermining what it stands for? I doubt it, but she wants to gather votes from mouth breathers. Not to mention that 99% of people burning the US flag are doing it abroad. This is a bullshit issue, but even if it WERE REAL, she's on the wrong side.

As for Bill, whether you had personal issues or not, and despite his mistakes, he was an excellent president by comparison not to what we would hope for, but to what we have had in the past 50 years. Compared to Bush, he was a GOD.

As for gay marriage, nobody on either side will have the intestinal fortitude to stand by us, so that one is off the table...we are AGAIN going to face the choice between those who consider us below them, and those who want us dead. Tough choice.