tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post4349582843592929861..comments2024-03-28T19:11:42.225-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Yet MoreMarshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-7851762322895803232007-12-16T18:01:00.000-06:002007-12-16T18:01:00.000-06:00Dude. What's your point? That Babbin can tell wh...Dude. What's your point? That Babbin can tell who is or isn't with the prez whilst working under him? The real question is whether or not such is true. If Babbin's stuff is on the mark, where's the bias? If his stuff is true, then he's biased about truthfulness. Not a bad thing.<BR/><BR/>Regarding sources, I'm going to have a blog asking everyone to name what they consider to be an unbiased source of info. Should be fun. Imagine everyone agreeing with one voice. Not that it'll happen, but just imagine...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-87984095802670489722007-12-15T13:03:00.000-06:002007-12-15T13:03:00.000-06:00Here's another Jed Babbin gem:nationalreview.com/c...Here's another Jed Babbin gem:<BR/><BR/>nationalreview.com/comment/comment-babbin030603.aspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-15554954896835436382007-12-15T12:40:00.000-06:002007-12-15T12:40:00.000-06:00Ah, yes - Human Events. What a shining beacon of o...Ah, yes - Human Events. What a shining beacon of objectivity. No editorializing there, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-5728672557004828722007-12-14T00:55:00.000-06:002007-12-14T00:55:00.000-06:00The NIE also contradicts its own assessment from 2...The NIE also contradicts its own assessment from 2005, yet dances around that little fact. According to Human Events, those putting together the NIE report are known Bush-bashers. I just wanted to throw that out there, not having read the whole NIE article yet.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-75238327414102281082007-12-04T16:07:00.000-06:002007-12-04T16:07:00.000-06:00While I disagree that it applies to this particula...While I disagree that it applies to this particular discussion, I couldn't help but chuckle about this little nugget of partisan gold:<BR/><BR/>"Liberals tend to ignore reality in favor of THEIR truths."<BR/><BR/>Um, excuse me? Am I the only one here who notices when the NIE contradicts your homeys over in the White House? Let's keep it real, Art. The manipulation of facts is not a partisan habit by any stretch of the imagination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-20791059011243474422007-12-04T15:50:00.000-06:002007-12-04T15:50:00.000-06:00"I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose..."I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose it. How does THAT make any sense?"<BR/><BR/>That's a complete misreading - intentional or otherwise - of the point I was trying to make. I expressed bemusement as to why you're so concerned about legalization, as if it's somehow going to affect YOUR marriage or YOUR sexuality. Again, it goes all the way back to live and let live, dude. I get the feeling you're concerned there's going to be some sort of massive explosion of homosexuality should gays be allowed to wed. If so, that's absurd. A law does not make people turn gay. They'll still be a minority of the population, and your traditional marriage will still be just fine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71061801924677270442007-12-04T01:00:00.000-06:002007-12-04T01:00:00.000-06:00So, is your dictionary of recent printing, or a pr...So, is your dictionary of recent printing, or a pre-1970 edition? Should I be surprised if the newest books off the presses includes a more liberal (per)version of the word? Honest people KNOW what the definition of marriage is. Liberals tend to ignore reality in favor of THEIR truths. There's a little rant for ya.<BR/><BR/>Now really, Les. In all the many discussions of this issue, have I ever suggested you might be a homo BECAUSE of your POV? And we just covered the part where one doesn't have to be a part of an issue to support it, but apparently, I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose it. How does THAT make any sense? Wassup? No buds?<BR/><BR/>The concern stems from seeing plainly the progression from the late 50's/early 60's of relaxing standards of sexuality to the current day. Those days of Hef pretending he's sophisticated to add alure to his titty mags set the stage for what we see now. This is only another stage of the downwardly defined deviancy of our culture. Though there have always been pockets of promiscuity of all sorts, it never had any public support of any kind, and was publicly considered wicked, unhealthy, and of low character and reputation. So the 50s & 60s really opened it up to what our culture now is, which is one that doesn't blink an eye over pre-marital sex, even when participants are getting younger all the time. As things opened up and loosened up, the pro-homo factions found a prime opportunity to seek legitimacy. <BR/><BR/>Now, with so many liberals giving homo representatives the time of day, they like to think that this will be the end of the progression and Rick Santorum didn't know what he was talking about. Yet, there are supporters of polygamy beginning to "stand up for their rights" and are watching to see how it works out for the homos. And since the same arguments are valid for the polygamists as they allegedly are for the homo community, they too must be accomodated. What other groups do you suppose might feel the same way about their own situation? <BR/><BR/>And this may be the best argument for granting some exclusivity to traditional marriage: there's no way to deny ANY arrangement the same status if it is granted to the homosexual community. And to anyone not chugging huge frosty draughts of the pro-homo KoolAid, this also marks the first downside.<BR/><BR/>More to come. I just have to figure out how to lay it out concisely, if possible. Might have to finally learn how to use links.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-39616992543759465332007-12-02T12:17:00.000-06:002007-12-02T12:17:00.000-06:00I lied. I'm not done with this."Right now, that li...I lied. I'm not done with this.<BR/><BR/>"Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman, the very definition of marriage."<BR/><BR/>Whose definition?<BR/><BR/>http://m-w.com/dictionary/marriage<BR/><BR/>Is marriage between a man and a woman the traditional norm? Yes, of course it is. No argument here. And guess what? It will continue to be the norm, IRREGARDLESS of any legalization of same sex marriage. Why? Because homosexuals are, indeed, the minority of our population. Does the legalization of something automatically mean it's going to spread like wildfire? What a crock! When you're gay, you're gay. I guess that's what I'm not getting here - how does legalizing gay marriage affect you, your marriage, or your sexuality? Are you afraid c**k is suddenly going to be appealing to you if gay marriage is legal? Will women somehow be less attractive to straight people? I just don't understand the concern here.<BR/><BR/>"...homo couples are indeed allowed if they conform to the parameters of the state licensing obligations. Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman..."<BR/><BR/>How are you missing the significance of the gigantic "if" you included in the text of that statement, Art? You're right - RIGHT NOW gay marriage isn't a legal option almost everywhere. Legal and social environments are always changing. At one point in our history, the 15th Amendment came along to ensure former slaves had the right to vote. I'm sure that didn't sit too well with alot of people when it happened. Today, most Americans could care less, because we take such rights as a given.<BR/><BR/>"...the downside of the homo agenda..."<BR/><BR/>Prove to me this downside even exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-53652757510272829802007-12-01T12:30:00.000-06:002007-12-01T12:30:00.000-06:00Les,First of all, WHAT security features? If you'...Les,<BR/><BR/>First of all, WHAT security features? If you're talking about those two big dudes by the front door, they've always been there. But they're just mannequins, part of the decor here at Marshall Art's.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that the happiness of the couple seeking a marriage license has anything to do with the legal process. And homo couples are indeed allowed if they conform to the parameters of the state licensing obligations. Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman, the very definition of marriage. They seek something different, something not now sanctioned by the state or the its people. Yet, that doesn't interfere with their pursuit, if their pursuit means being a couple. If we concede, if not agree, that Lawrence v Texas was decided properly, or that its result is proper, then they really have little over which they can rightly complain. Their pursuit is unfetterred. If they force the majority, through activist judges, to accept their illicit coupling as normal, acceptable, equal to lawful marriage, they have then begun to interfere with the live's of everyone with whom they come into contact. So-called hate speech and hate crimes are already including their deviancy within the legal umbrella. <BR/><BR/>""...as far as I can see."<BR/><BR/>That's YOUR golly danged opinion, and you're entitled to it, Marshall Art."<BR/><BR/>("golly danged"---I'll thank you not to use that kind of language here, youngish man.) The opinion is shared by the majority of society and that's a salient point. There is no discrimination here, there is only a desire to keep traditional standards high. That the downside of the homo agenda is ignored is far more dangerous to society as a whole than any perceived slight against a tiny minority who hope to legitmize deviant behavior.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-26292236627930337812007-11-30T17:28:00.000-06:002007-11-30T17:28:00.000-06:00First of all, what's with the new security feature...First of all, what's with the new security features? I hate those.<BR/><BR/>"The right to pursue happiness does not require the state to guarantee happiness for everyone or even anyone. Why can't you grasp THAT?"<BR/><BR/>Lame. Of course it doesn't guarantee happiness - merely the pursuit of it. I agree completely. That said, is every hetero married couple happy? Not a chance. Were they allowed the opportunity to PURSUE the happiness they thought could be found in marriage? Sure. Are gay couples allowed that same PURSUIT? Nope. Why? Because of statements like this:<BR/><BR/>"...as far as I can see."<BR/><BR/>That's YOUR golly danged opinion, and you're entitled to it, Marshall Art. What you are failing to acknowledge is that when you support laws being written to ban behaviors you despise, you are NOT "doing it on your own time". You've made it EVERYONE'S time.<BR/><BR/>I'm done with this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-3439242878717221922007-11-29T19:31:00.000-06:002007-11-29T19:31:00.000-06:00"Then do it on your own time."I do. I ain't knock..."Then do it on your own time."<BR/><BR/>I do. I ain't knockin' on no one's door. Any public forum (or my own blog) IS my time.<BR/><BR/>And we now have a gazillion laws on the books that deprive someone of something. That's freakin' life. Should an ideal be supported, and by supporting that ideal a few are prevented from getting every little thing they want that is outside that ideal, too freakin' bad. The right to pursue happiness does not require the state to guarantee happiness for everyone or even anyone. Why can't you grasp THAT? There are no amount of benefits in sanctioning what you support that outweighs the disadvantages to society as far as I can see. Thus, it is right and just that only the traditional marriage receive the support of the state now demanded by those who've deviated from the norm. They can go play house on their own time, but society has yet to agree that such is equal and beneficial as is traditional marriage.<BR/><BR/>On the side, I don't know about banning smoking, but I'm in favor of banning tobacco. Who doesn't believe it's extremely harmful that is in a position to make public policy proposals? No one, I don't believe. I say, ban the crap and anyone who has taken up the habit in the last, say, twenty years, is on their own health care-wise. If it has been proven to be so dangerous, I can't see that non-smokers should be paying higher premiums to cover the smokers.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-53811940754311239582007-11-29T13:09:00.000-06:002007-11-29T13:09:00.000-06:00"Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacc..."Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacco is bad for you?"<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you brought that up. So are you saying that smoking tobacco should be illegal? Again, it's about BANNING SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH, ART!!!!!! Why are you not grasping this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-12058256853745158152007-11-29T13:07:00.000-06:002007-11-29T13:07:00.000-06:00"It's not in the least bit playing God to point ou..."It's not in the least bit playing God to point out the error of the ways of others."<BR/><BR/>Then do it on your own time. We've already debated the ridiculousness of the "higher costs for me" argument, so I don't even want to go there again. Not all our tax dollars go where we want them, dude. That's part of the deal. How many billions have we spent on this war in Iraq?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-40483541384590081152007-11-29T00:38:00.000-06:002007-11-29T00:38:00.000-06:00It's not in the least bit playing God to point out...It's not in the least bit playing God to point out the error of the ways of others. Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacco is bad for you? Am I playing God to point out that certain sexual practices are physically harmful and that the more people engage in such the more our medical costs will rise? Is this playing God or simply pointing out the obvious? Either way, since it is obvious, I would be remiss if I didn't, on behalf of society, who's costs will be affected, insist that such behaviors shouldn't be encouraged, particularly in any official way.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-89724574188844394402007-11-28T22:00:00.000-06:002007-11-28T22:00:00.000-06:00Oh, to see the zeal for saving the lives of the un...Oh, to see the zeal for saving the lives of the unborn that we see for the promotion of same sex marriage.mom2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04208262522800271423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-39366830641066460262007-11-28T10:00:00.000-06:002007-11-28T10:00:00.000-06:00"Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they quali..."Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they qualify. If they've been contributing during their working years. Yes. Yes. If they can."<BR/><BR/>I'm confused - so you're saying that despite the fact that they're gay people and they will continue to live their lives as gay people do, they can still reap the tax-funded rewards our government provides to all of our citizens? Why, then, should they be prohibited from enjoying the same marriage benefits as the rest of us? Marriage is a normal part of adulthood, so it's reasonable to assume alot of gay folks are going to want to wed at some point in their lives, right? The fact that they're getting married doesn't change who they are, so if you want to ban them from enjoying that particular benefit, why don't you take it a step further and attack ALL their civic benefits? It doesn't diminish YOUR marriage in the least. That's such a ridiculous argument to begin with - does the fact that a gay person gets social security upon retirement mean YOUR social security is less significant? Please.<BR/><BR/>"I mean, must I only be FOR something that doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of, or can I also be AGAINST something as well?"<BR/><BR/>Of course you can be against it, Art, but the disconnect between you and I is that we're approaching the issue differently. You seem to think that legal equal marriage rights for gays is somehow a personal endorsement of the lifestyle. It's not. You have every right to teach your kids about the evil gay lifestyle all you want. That, however, shouldn't mean that your belief on the subject should be LAW. You're a religious man, so consider this - if, in fact, homosexuality is a sin, then wouldn't God be the judge when the day of reckoning comes? At the same time, if our eternal destiny is determined by our choices, then who gives you the right to play God and arbitrarily REMOVE that choice from gay folks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-58292964684066837572007-11-27T22:19:00.000-06:002007-11-27T22:19:00.000-06:00"How does it hurt you, Art?"Does it have to? I me..."How does it hurt you, Art?"<BR/><BR/>Does it have to? I mean, must I only be FOR something that doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of, or can I also be AGAINST something as well? Seems a double standard if I can't. <BR/><BR/>It can also be said that what hurts my community hurts me as well. I don't see that sex outside of traditional marriage benefits society, be it hetero or homo or group or any other kind. I think it hurts, and badly so, as evidenced by the the plethora of sex related negatives plagueing us now. These would be STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc, etc, etc. My kids have to grow up in this culture and I'd prefer it be a better one than it is now. <BR/><BR/>As to your last group of questions:<BR/><BR/>Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they qualify. If they've been contributing during their working years. Yes. Yes. If they can.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-32997711090025139252007-11-27T20:02:00.000-06:002007-11-27T20:02:00.000-06:00Should gay people be allowed to vote? Should they ...Should gay people be allowed to vote? Should they qualify for government health care programs? Should they get tax returns? Should they be entitled to fair trials? Should they be allowed welfare and unemployment benefits? Should they receive social security when they retire? Should they be allowed to run for public office? Should they be allowed to drive on our roads, cross our bridges, and attend our public schools? Should they qualify for student loans?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-13310818712603885122007-11-27T19:38:00.000-06:002007-11-27T19:38:00.000-06:00"I just don't see the sense of it."How does it hur..."I just don't see the sense of it."<BR/><BR/>How does it hurt you, Art?Leshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693296268696106148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-76741140419289518142007-11-26T22:04:00.000-06:002007-11-26T22:04:00.000-06:00Almost. What I'm really hoping for is codifying a...Almost. What I'm really hoping for is codifying a traditional notion of marriage based on the moral views of a majority of people. As to who loses out on the deal, yeah, it will be those who seek to pretend there's no difference between what the majority now says and what they want us to believe. After they're done, they WILL be followed by other variations of marital arrangements that we're then to believe are also no different or no less worthy of the name or state sanctions. If you actually believe it will stop with the poor homosexual lobby, you're a dreamer. And yes, I see it as a bad thing for society, the culture, the nation and mankind in general. <BR/><BR/>One man, one woman, that's the way it's meant to be, and that's the way that works best for society. If you want to point to problems that occur under this arrangement, address the problems, don't use them as excuses or reasons to justify a bad idea. If you think this minority of people are being dealt unfairly because they can't have hospital visitation or whatever, then address those concerns. But they are NOT being discriminated against. They are muscling into every area of our culture that which THEY insist is morally equal to the traditional institution. How do the moral views of such a small minority outweigh the views of the majority? It is perfectly appropriate for the majority to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior. And just to show I'm consistent, I don't believe in civil unions for heterosexual couples either.<BR/><BR/>If you're serious about fairness, wouldn't it make more sense to insist on some kind of verifiable evidence to support their notion that they are otherwise normal and unchangable? I just can't see breaking hundreds of years of tradition because of how some people want to get their jollies. I just don't see the sense of it. So much of their argument is plain hooey designed to legitimize the illegitimate. The best plan here is to leave this issue alone for two or three generations and see it's effect on the Netherlands. It truly boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people would see this as no big deal.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-2690562575636572522007-11-26T18:52:00.000-06:002007-11-26T18:52:00.000-06:00Art, your entire argument stems from this core bel...Art, your entire argument stems from this core belief:<BR/><BR/>"...it won't make it right..."<BR/><BR/>How can you not see that that is only YOUR opinion? You're advocating the legal outlawing of a behavior based on YOUR version of morality. Now THAT ain't right, my man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-72959643273356265422007-11-26T08:25:00.000-06:002007-11-26T08:25:00.000-06:00A pity I didn't see your challenge until this morn...A pity I didn't see your challenge until this morning. I would then have been able to tell you that I don't trust my team to keep their heads from burrowing up their own backsides. Thus, I would have had to humbly and ashamedly step back from the wager. It's a sorry time for Chicago sports. All I want for Christmas is a respectable effort.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-58787922400249649102007-11-26T08:21:00.000-06:002007-11-26T08:21:00.000-06:00"Except gays, right?"Frankly, I think it does bene..."Except gays, right?"<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I think it does benefit them as well, though not as they'd like it to. But as I suggested, laws aren't meant to necessarily satisfy or please absolutely everyone, and that's not the same as benefitting everyone. Kinda like eating your veggies.<BR/><BR/>"... you're selectively singling out gays here,"<BR/><BR/>Not so much as supporting the ideal, which is traditional marriage. That one group up and says they are seeking the same, doesn't make it so, and it doesn't here. So to say that I'm singling them out isn't accurate, particularly since they aren't the only group looking for legitimacy, only the group who opened their mouth (no pun intended). I'm far more interested in supporting the ideal than I am any poor variation of it.<BR/><BR/>" I choose to be part of a progressive society, which you obviously don't."<BR/><BR/>I don't see crafting law based on such desires as progressive in the least. I have a problem with other "legal" forms of debauchery as well, such as porn and sex all over everything. Progressive in this instance would be resisting every little tingle of the loins in favor of a more lofty and transcendent goal for our society. We are definitely heading in the wrong direction as far as our societal character where sexuality is concerned.<BR/><BR/>"I'm sorry you don't."<BR/><BR/>But I insist I do. I simply don't believe every claim for equality is legitimate and worthy of state sanction. This is what we can and have decided at the polls. Should the majority swing your way, it won't make it right or beneficial, only legal. Then, I, and others like me, will have to strengthen our argument to swing it back our way. It would suck, but it would be the proper way, and I'd begrudgingly accept the result, at least until we could swing it back.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-79813176196270616722007-11-25T15:43:00.000-06:002007-11-25T15:43:00.000-06:00Completely unrelated topic:I used to live in Monta...Completely unrelated topic:<BR/><BR/>I used to live in Montana during the formative years of my NFL allegiance, and although I'm thoroughly enjoying the resurgence of one Brett Favre this year since I live here in Wisconsin, I can't ignore the orange and blue that flows through my blood. In Big Sky country, you have two choices when it comes to football - the Broncos and, like, trees. I chose the Broncos. Today, my boys are playin' your boys. I've got five bucks on Bowlen's Broncos. You in?Leshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693296268696106148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-52948881872981001542007-11-25T14:49:00.000-06:002007-11-25T14:49:00.000-06:00"...especially if the application benefits everyon..."...especially if the application benefits everyone."<BR/><BR/>Except gays, right?<BR/><BR/>Next topic:<BR/><BR/>Here's what you said -<BR/><BR/>"...because I don't agree on the homo thing..."<BR/><BR/>And here's what I said -<BR/><BR/>"I don't have to live like they live in order to support their right to live as such, and neither do you. Why on earth can't you support that notion?"<BR/><BR/>So, yes - because, by your own admission, you're selectively singling out gays here, you're saying you don't agree with the notion that they can live equally among us. That's called discrimination, Art.<BR/><BR/>"Maybe at some point that will change..."<BR/><BR/>Exactly. I choose to be part of a progressive society, which you obviously don't. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything going on around me, but I'm certainly happy knowing I support letting people freely make their own decisions and pursue the same opportunities as I can. I'm sorry you don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com