Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

What are the "left/liberal" things you get?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Rabbi, Mar 7, 2013.

  1. Mrs.Cicero

    Mrs.Cicero Wayward Member

    Aug 13, 2004
    far from home
    Absolutely none.

    In fact, I think the gov't should have NO involvement in marriage whatsoever. If the gov't insists on a piece of the pie, it should be a civil union pie. Everyone can get a gov't approved and licensed civil union with whomever or whatever the hell they want. Or they can just shack up. Then if your church wants to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, or polygamists, fine. They can. if they don't, also fine. Mine won't, and you cannot make it. But there are many that will, and you can always start another one. Everyone gets what they want. Problem is solved. Why the heck is that so hard?

    I'm sick to death of GLBT "rights" issues. You HAVE all the same rights I do right now. If you want to staple your eyebrows and run a chain from your nose to your ear, tattoo your face, pierce your tongue, and wear clothing in public that is usually seen on the bodies of the opposite gender, fine. Do so. But don't complain to me that there are consequences for all these ACTIONS. Permanent physical characteristics deserve legal protections (race, gender, handicap), but voluntary actions do not. If I want to wear a dress and long nails, then I shouldn't be applying for work as a lineman. If I want to wear a hijab, then I shouldn't be applying for work at Hooters. I don't go seeking public approval for the things Mr.C&I entertain ourselves doing in private. It's self-defeating for the GLBT crowd to be so hung up and needy about getting everyone to approve of their peccadilloes. They'd get farther coming up with a rational, well-reasoned argument for why I should approve of their lifestyle, instead of saying, "Mommy Gov't says you have to play with me."

    Government is a poor excuse for God. The larger it gets, the more intrusive and evil it becomes, eventually stealing free will from citizens, and turning them into subjects, and ultimately into slaves. I neither need nor want the approval of the government for my actions, choices, possessions, or life. I accept that there are consequences to my actions, both public and private, and you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
  2. kiole


    Feb 16, 2008
    What about tax law? That's the only part I think that requires the "permission" of the federal government for marriage.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013

  3. GoBigOrange


    May 22, 2010
    East TN
    For the most part I don't care what people do so long as I'm not required to pay for it.

    If you dude want to get married so be it. They deserve to be miserable also.

    Legalize pot, it's somewhat harmless and impossible to eradicate.

    Protect the environment but do so reasonably.
  4. fnfalman

    fnfalman Chicks Dig It

    Oct 23, 2000
    California & New Mexico, US
    I am not sympathetic to the Lefties at all. Nor am I sympathetic to the Righties.

    I think that they both had ruined America enough already and that they need to be gone.
  5. I'm on board with abortion. I also don't think government should have any role in adult relationships which means no hand in or otherwise.
  6. Short Cut

    Short Cut PatrioticMember CLM

    Apr 28, 2002
    Above ground
    I agree with helping the less fortunate. The blind, crippled, mentally unstable and poor etc.. The way to go about helping is where I differ from current protocol. The best kind of help is getting people jobs. The Government can't seem to do anything efficiently. Too much of the dollar collected goes to the collecting and administering and not enough to those who need it.
  7. ray9898


    May 29, 2001

    In other words they wanted to be treated like other adults independent of their sexuality?
  8. MaxxAction


    Feb 26, 2005

    and futhermore, quit telling specific groups that it is all someone else's fault, all the while holding them as slaves to the entitlements that the politicians promise to pass out in exchange for a faithful vote.
  9. Clusterfrack


    Apr 26, 2012
    Pacific NW
    I usually avoid these discussions because they're so predicable. This time, I have to say that I am encouraged by how varied the responses are. Our nation has never been so polarized, and it's clear to me that this is a political strategy common to both parties. Guns are just the latest play in their book.

    Just for now, can we set aside our differences and ALL write to our legislators to say that while we support/oppose gay rights, choice, leash laws, etc. WE OPPOSE NEW GUN REGULATIONS and will vote against any candidate who supports them?
  10. GLWyandotte

    GLWyandotte Señor Member

    I also agree with their supposed stance on the poor and their compassion. I just never see them actually putting their money where their mouth is.
  11. Lone Wolf8634

    Lone Wolf8634 :):

    Dec 23, 2007
    Under the bus
    Gay Rights. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to come to terms with the fact that they have as much right to the happiness and/or misery of marriage as I do. And all the "legal" benefits and/or heartaches that go along with it. Now If we could just get them to be quiet about their lifestyle.

    Be proud, be gay, but for Petes sake.........BE QUIET!

    Abortion. Again, I do not agree with it in principle, its a piss poor form of birth control. I would never advise any woman to have one unless it was a case of rape, or the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother. But I came to my opinion about it using my own morals and ethics. Everyone else should be allowed to do the same.

    Religion. I do not care about religion insomuch as it exists and people are into it. But it does not belong in schools, government or in my face. It's kinda like being gay....Fine, whatever, but please, not everyone agrees with you or wants to hear about it all the time. If ya wanna say "God bless you" when I sneeze, or "Merry Christmas" during the holidays, I'll return the sentiment. But I don't need you to pray for me and I don't want your religious values informing laws that I must adhere to.

    Environment. The all or nothing attitude about tree huggers pisses me off. I think we can protect the environment and get the resources we need to sustain ourselves. Responsible stewardship and a common sense approach to logging, oil and gas exploration, and other needs can go a long way without saying "You may never use this land for anything ever". On the other hand, destroying forests, eradicating entire species of animals and destroying wildlife habitats seems incredibly short sight, selfish and foolish to me. There has to be a way to accomplish both goals.

    Liberals and conservatives both have some good ideas, they both have some ideas that don't work out so well in practice, and they both have hare brained ideas that should have been squashed before they were uttered aloud.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
  12. Will Beararms

    Will Beararms Millennium Member

    Oct 12, 1999
    Parts Unknown
    I do not support Gay Marriage. I do however, support treating all people fairly and I believe some arrangement could be made to ensure that civil unions are available to those who are Gay for benefits, etc.

    I support forging a path to citizenship for the 12 million Mexican illegal aliens who are not going back with the caveats of real border security and the requirement that all of these 12 million pass an English language proficiency test.
  13. harlenm

    harlenm Millennium Member

    Jul 20, 1999
    This is the most important aspect of this argument. Even if you don't support gay marriage, it isn't your place to tell them they can't get married. Just like if they don't like guns, it isn't their place to tell you that you can't have them.

    Government needs to stay out of our lives, and let us make the decisions we want, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.
  14. Will Beararms

    Will Beararms Millennium Member

    Oct 12, 1999
    Parts Unknown
    Marriage for some Christians and Jews goes beyond Government. It is thought of to be ordained by God Almighty as a relationship between one man and one woman. Suddenly, after 10,000 years we learn we have been wrong? I don't think so.

    The ideal compromise is to give Gay people the benefits and rights via a Civil union. If we chose to do away with God's interpretation of Marriage then it is only fitting that we eliminate Christmas and Easter holidays---that we end the practice some U.S. companies engage in whereby 5 personal days are granted for things such as observances as the high holy days in the Judaism or the sacred events of Islam. We should also end the practice of the Christmas Bonus, end any government entities receipt of taxes for goods sold in observance of Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan or Bar Mitzvahs or Bah Mitzvahs. Anything that is remotely tied to religion should be hands off to the Government.

    Again, I do not mistreat Gay people. I refuse to. I do not put up with jokes or disparaging comments. I ask that they honor my beliefs as well. I teach my children that marriage is between one man and one woman but that we are to keep our opinions to ourselves. I teach then that the public speech Obama gave last year was wrong and that we are test anything anyone in authority tells us against our own values but that we are to be kind in so doing.
  15. janice6

    janice6 Silver Member

    Apr 4, 2006
    Fear. This is what I think is behind most liberal complaints with society. I believe they are afraid of others that seem more confident and see this as personally threatening. I believe they are afraid of "not being right" and must force others to agree with them to believe they are right, both in living their lives and in their decisions.

    Liberals seem to let fear be the central controlling factor in their lives. I can see how this can be, but I cannot understand how you can let it consume you. Conservatives, for the most part, appear to have taken the reins from fear and try to control their own destiny,with the self confidence that they can make their own lives better by being in control of themselves and their fears. Conservatives have fears but have learned to control them.

    I can understand fear. The fear that all of us develop during our lives comes from various sources. Fear is a natural defense against something we perceive that may seriously injure or kill us, emotionally or physically.

    It starts out being a learned protection, unless it is learned from fearful parents. Then their emotionally crippling fears are transferred to their children. This starts a chain of increasingly fearful generations that eventually cannot function within society since everything is feared and threatening to them, until they feel society must be changed to ally their fears.

    Fear is something we should have learned about during our emotional development. We should have learned that we are individually in control of it and no one else can assume that responsibility for us. It is within each of us at our beginning, to learn how to properly deal with it. This seems to have escaped many of us.

    What I don't understand is the additional fear of confronting it, and adjusting your own life to minimize the effects it has on individual behaviors. You don't have to be a superman to control or face your fears; you just have to believe you can do something about it/them. The belief that you can control somethingis key to being in control.

    But to turn to government to ban or control everything that we are afraid of, is absurd. Each of us have fears of some things. If we all try to eliminate each of our individual fears by controlling others we perceive as potential threats to us, we may pretty soon have nothing to be afraid of, but no freedom of action and no real life. Anything we do will be viewed as threatening by someone else and we will be stopped from doing it. This is serfdom.

    Government panders to these fears because it imparts more power to the government, and governments will never believe they ever have enough power. The progression of government is to control everything, thereby achieving ultimate power to do to us what it thinks is right, or at least what it thinks we must do. Liberals are now driving this government machinery towards the cliff.

    Most all laws are based on minimizing fear in the populace. Some of this is for the general good. But most of it is for the advantage of the most affluent,vocal, or largest most fearful group. It is an emotional burden being placed on us all, by some.
  16. Mrs.Cicero

    Mrs.Cicero Wayward Member

    Aug 13, 2004
    far from home
    Chuck the income tax entirely and go to sales tax only. Then the people with the most money, buying the most stuff, are paying the most taxes, and the people with the least, buying the least, pay the least. No benefit, no penalty for marriage. And we can get rid of most of the IRS at the same time. :supergrin:
  17. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    We've perverted the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" beyond all recognition.

    Being in favor of liberty = liberal. That's what the word used to mean. We use it differently now, but this idea we have now that Republican = conservative and Democrat = liberal is mind-bogglingly stupid. There are lots of very, very stupid things that the Republican party stands for and many of them are not "conservative" things. No one can be opposed to gay marriage and still honestly claim to be a true conservative.
  18. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    That's simply not true.

    You or I have the right to visit our spouse in the hospital even if that person is unconscious and unable to consent. It's an implied part of the marriage agreement.

    A gay person has no such right to visit their partner.

    There are a multitude of other examples, large and small. I totally agree with the person who said "you're not Rosa Parks and this is nothing like the CRA in the 60's" but to deny it entirely is wrong.
  19. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    "Helping the less fortunate" always ends up meaning taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who do not.
  20. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    If government chooses to redefine the word "marriage" in the context of government, it affects religious people not a bit.

    So "separate but equal"? We've tried that before as a nation, didn't work out so well.