Is that you John Wayne?

Anouther wolf2 up above???

Get me no where?? Was a fucking joke settle down!!

Wow...settle down? Me? Mirror much?

It's okay Mikey D, no harm no foul. I just look like a n00b ;?)

Now that I think about it, I always did have a way of inadvertently ruffling feathers around here.

ovation1

Dig deep in your subconscious, Mikey-san.

michelle Hey CUTH, it's been a while.

slanshroom, Death Cube K, ovation1, cheese101, mikesb, Blue_Moon, Do The Stu, and, of course, michelle

Cube - it's about g.d. time I can say this to you ~ HAPPY FATHER'S DAY! I just hope the kid grows up to look like his mother ;-) j/k hon. lol!

I just happened to see that after my last post.

probably ;?)

Like coming home...

Cuth you swine bastage, where ya been?? What did you think of Joe's last 15 releases? Do you know about Chickenfoot?

mikesb, I presume?

Been around. I think I've only missed two (Satchafunkalis & Black Swans). I commented here about chickenfoot; I think you called it an open-faced sammich, which Joe hisseff posted directly after.

Darth Zinc

Life is good for you (and yours)?  

I don't remember seeing your E-mail, but I rarely check that account these days; I'll double check.

Donkey Hotay

While I am envious of her outdoor skills, I have been less than impressed on the political front. She has the potential to make some waves, but I don't know that she would make a good PotUS.

I'm still very impressed with this guy, snowball's chance in hell though he may have. He actually understands the core economic issues (which are the key to most of our other problems down here).

Bill Clinton (broken clock) was actually on the right track with "It's the economy stupid.". Unfortunately for him, and the rest of us, he understands economics no better than the common house cat.

Unfortunately, I think our choices in 2012 will probably be a quasi-socialist who doesn't understand economics and uses single issues to incite fear and loathing and a quasi-fascist who doesn't understand economics and uses single issues to incite fear and loathing. Hell of a choice :?(, but why change now?

Edit: Uh-oh...it's started again.

Congressional Ethics

Military Intelligence

Many other fine oxymorons can be found here

I think I will E-mail them to nominate an addition to the list, discovered right here on T2J, and sure to become a favorite of mine....

.....wait for it...

Evangelical Atheists!!!

michelle

I don't think gay marriage should be sanctioned by the state. That is because I don't believe any marriage should be sanctioned by the state.

The state sanctioning of marriage creates different/special classes of people through benefits, tax breaks (or increases, in some cases), and default contractual obligations/protections.

I have seen cited by several activists for gay marriage that it is not the pomp of the ceremony that they wish, but the state sanctioning and the resulting benefits thereof.

As a believer in free will and liberty, I believe that if you have a desire to enter into a contractually binding agreement with someone, assigning rights and or benefits, you should be able to do so without the state sitting in on what is and should be a religious ceremony.

While, as a Christian, I believe certain acts to be a sin, I also believe G_d loves everyone, and that we are all sinners. While we could debate for centuries on what ceremony G_d may or may not sanctify, if two people can find clergy to perform the ceremony why should the state have any say in the matter, regardless of the participants?

Furthermore, the state "profits" (state profits - another oxymoron for those keeping score) from many acts that are considered sinful or taboo by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism alike; why is the moral sanctity of marriage so holy to the state (note the small 's') in some cases? Is it because of the benefits that such sanctification implies, creating another form of dependency on the state? It seems that the nature of the state is to work to supplant G_d and become the faith of choice.

Removing the intrusion of the state in the marriage ceremony would be one more step toward true equality and liberty for all, even singles. I'm sure some enterprising lawyer would come up with a software package, much like those currently available for basic wills and estates, that could effectively handle most of the basics of the benefits currently offered by state approval of marriage for those who chose to enter into such arrangements.

michelle

water fountains => state intervenes in private matters of discrimination; mutual consent of parties not present

straight marriage => state grants state-created status and benefit to select group

gay marriage denied => state withholding state-created benefit and special status

gay marriage allowed => state grants state-created status and benefit to another group, decreasing the number outside the group, but still separating people and setting liberty at an imbalance.

any state involvment in marriage => state intervenes in private affairs of mutual consent

state uninvolved in marriage => no special status, benefit, or group created.

michelle

Would that more in power thought more and felt less when exercising that power; we'd have far less labarynthine laws and, likely, more liberty.

DCK

Also, that the state shouldn't create special classes of people, no matter how wide the circle of inclusion; it flies in the face of the concept of equality.

idealistic?

Absolutely. People can't understand the compromises (and what is lost/gained within) without first knowing the extremes, or ideals of a position.

Shoot for the stars, have a chance at the moon.

elsewhere?