Where Obama Would Have Us Go

on Dec 22, 2009

It's "pursuit of hapiness" meaning you have the right to make yourself happy not the right to be made happy.

I think the freudian slip on the author is telling. Liberals want the government to make them happy. talk about being unfulfilled, no wonder they are so vitriolic and mean spirited.

47

AldericJourdain

on Dec 22, 2009

I think the freudian slip on the author is telling. Liberals want the government to make them happy. talk about being unfulfilled, no wonder they are so vitriolic and mean spirited.

Whereas conservatives like things as they are...the same old shit, subjugation. \s

Seriously though Doc, come on. If we acted like you, we'd likely never be where we are in terms of our freedoms. It was conservative (traditional) people who supported things as they were at various points in times. It was liberals/progressives, and even some conservatives - who fought for progress (women's rights, black rights, etc.)

Liberalism serves a purpose, just as conservatism does - but you can't wholey

It's "pursuit of hapiness" meaning you have the right to make yourself happy not the right to be made happy. Let's get this straight please. This is the reason so many are ignorant and/or confused because they don't read things properly and don't make it their business to make sure what they hear from others is correct. Commenst like these can make people misunderstand. BTW, I wasn't calling you ignorant, just in case.

First off, I had a brain fart and forgot to type "pursuit of."

Secondly, Charles...HOW can you make yourself happy (i.e. pursue it), if you are gay and to pursue YOUR happiness via having a family with the person you love, yet...you cannot. That isn't your happiness, that isn't being free. Sometimes the majority is wrong due to its prejudices and ignorance, sometimes the minority has to step in, with the help of the government and say, for the betterment of our citizens - these people previously not completely free - must be free to live their lives as they see fit (to pursue THEIR american dream). Am I getting any of this across?

~AJ

48

CharlesCS

on Dec 23, 2009

First off, I had a brain fart and forgot to type "pursuit of."

I was advised many times when I first came here as to being careful what I wrote because of this same reason. Brain fart or not I am sure what you wrote is what you meant. I base that on your opinions on most political subjects, including the gay issue.

Secondly, Charles...HOW can you make yourself happy (i.e. pursue it), if you are gay and to pursue YOUR happiness via having a family with the person you love, yet...you cannot.

You move where it's allowed. Again, happiness is something you persue, not something you demand. It's your job to find this happiness and guess what? Sometimes this pursuit will take you far distances. You're problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the whole world on a silver plater but you don't want to have to work for it, earn it or even deserve it. You want it just because you believe you deserve it. And I am not simply talking about the gay issue. There are states that allow gay marriages, but no, it has to be in the state you are in. Who gives a damn about other peoples rights to be against it right? What about countries who allow marriages with more than one person, or marriage with underage children? Should we allow this because a group of people believe it's the god or non-god given right to do it? What about torture? Should we allow it? Some countries believe in it. My problem is not with the issue of gay marriages, I could care less whether you get married or not, whether it's legit or not. I have enough faith in God to allow him to be the judge, not me. My problem is with this whole "me, I and myself" attitude that follows these and every other issue. It's always about "my rights" but never about the rights of everyone. There is one thing that people like you will never except. You will never except that there are certain things in life you may never get. I accept that I may never own the computer of my dreams, be rich and/or have sex with Catherine

49

Dr Guy

on Dec 23, 2009

Brain fart or not I am sure what you wrote is what you meant.

I wonder if he even understands what he means. After all, Napoleon did not require the sheep to understand, just bleat what was told.

50

Daiwa

on Jan 09, 2010

That being said - the bias comes from not the facts per se, but the presentation of the story - which is essentially what each news report is.

While glancing through this again, it struck me what an admission this is & that I'd missed it the first time through. I've been saying this about the liberal media for at least a dozen years. Suddenly it dawns on them. Go figure.

51

Nitro Cruiser

on Jan 09, 2010

Suddenly it dawns on them.

...and equally as suddenly, to dismiss it.

52

AldericJourdain

on Jan 09, 2010

You move where it's allowed. Again, happiness is something you persue, not something you demand. It's your job to find this happiness and guess what? Sometimes this pursuit will take you far distances. You're problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the whole world on a silver plater but you don't want to have to work for it, earn it or even deserve it. You want it just because you believe you deserve it. And I am not simply talking about the gay issue. There are states that allow gay marriages, but no, it has to be in the state you are in. Who gives a damn about other peoples rights to be against it right? What about countries who allow marriages with more than one person, or marriage with underage children? Should we allow this because a group of people believe it's the god or non-god given right to do it? What about torture? Should we allow it? Some countries believe in it. My problem is not with the issue of gay marriages, I could care less whether you get married or not, whether it's legit or not. I have enough faith in God to allow him to be the judge, not me. My problem is with this whole "me, I and myself" attitude that follows these and every other issue. It's always about "my rights" but never about the rights of everyone. There is one thing that people like you will never except. You will never except that there are certain things in life you may never get. I accept that I may never own the computer of my dreams, be rich and/or have sex with Catherine

I can't agree to that because it violates so many founding principles.

While glancing through this again, it struck me what an admission this is & that I'd missed it the first time through. I've been saying this about the liberal media for at least a dozen years. Suddenly it dawns on them. Go figure.

Personally, I've always known this - but seldom did anyone ever listen when I've said it - 99% of the time I hear bullshit about how Fox isn't biased, but MSNBC, etc. is. (No shit sherlock, msnbc, a news company, is biased? How about fox? Good grief) The bias doesn't come in explicit liberal/conservative form, per se. The fact is that they are companies...and every company has a product to sell. Hence, they cater to the people who will buy their product.

53

Nitro Cruiser

on Jan 09, 2010

Again, happiness is something you persue, not something you demand. It's your job to find this happiness and guess what? Sometimes this pursuit will take you far distances.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's funny how some liberal interpretations of the statement above from the Declaration of Independence remove the part I have in bold and substitute "Creator" with "Government" or just conveniently leave that part out to twist it to their benefit. Of course I suppose for some their god is Obama.

54

Dr Guy

on Jan 09, 2010

Of course I suppose for some their god is Obama.

No, he is the Messiah. God is the government.

55

AldericJourdain

on Jan 09, 2010

Nitro, conveniently, brings up a good point:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Bingo - all are created equal, unalienable rights, life - liberty- pursuit of happiness.

You move where it's allowed. Again, happiness is something you persue, not something you demand. It's your job to find this happiness and guess what? Sometimes this pursuit will take you far distances.[/quote]

Granted, but the point of the matter is that enacting laws that go against our basic principles is just wrong. The majority may have control, but it is expected that the majority would pay attention to what we are founded on, not attempt to circumvent them.

I think stevendadelious (sp?) said it perfectly (i think it was him) - that we all should be able to pursue our lives as we see fit without the fear of others stomping on it, or denying us life.

Frankly Charles, I feel you're making excuses for people to push their views on others. So be it if so. I, as a bisexual man, support your right to believe what you want and live your life as you see fit. (As do many, many LGBTQA people do.)

All I, and many many others want, is to be able to do the same - as we see firt. (i.e. free will)

Who gives a damn about other peoples rights to be against it right? What about countries who allow marriages with more than one person, or marriage with underage children? Should we allow this because a group of people believe it's the god or non-god given right to do it?[/quote]

Of course people have the right to be against it. I and I'm sure many others are not saying that. What our issue ultimately entails, is - what about us too? By your own argument, you claim "what about my right?", what about "group A, B,C,D,E and F's right?"

Charles, what about our rights? We do not have the same rights, because we're not straight.

The laws (and constiution) were written largely from a heterosexual perspective, but that doesn't mean that bias, ignorance, and narrow minded views should dictate our founding principles. The founders were brilliant men, and they were right ALL people are created equal - but they were also human, just as much as we are.

Our laws are not equal; they're drawn from the minds and written through the eyes of human agenda and bias. An orthodox Christian politician will not necessarily step up and promote something that is against HIS values, even if it is something that promotes our founding principles. Hence, bias and agenda.

How can we hold to our principles, when human eyes and minds are subject to bias, hate, ignorance, etc.? Only when we explore our nation's values (life, liberty, justice, fairness, equality, equal access to the law, fair and equal treatment by the law, et al.), look at them clearly and concisely with logic, AND, look with our hearts - because that ultimately is where our principles stem from (We all know our founders could have logically came to a diferent conclusion, but were driven by passion and heart against the British government's trampling of their (minority) rights).

The constitution embodies some of our deepest most treasured values, including justice and equality, for which veterans/soldiers across the ages have fought and died for. They fought and died for those principles; they knew that this nation is great, and that in our nation people can live their lives.

Back to an earlier point: What about group G's right to live? What about their lack of means (legally) to live their lives, via their own free will (win or lose)? A straight man can go and marry his girl and raise a family. A gay man cannot. A lesbian cannot.

This is our national government we're talking about, not holding up its part of the deal - viewing everyone as equal, regardless of who they are.

***

Another point - There comes a point in time when someone's rights to do or believe whatever, infringe on others lives. (ie. it causes them harm) I believe you said once that sometimes people have to just deal with others dissent and/or actions.

Why don't those Christians who push their view points simply just deal with it? No one, aside from a few fringe people, is saying that Christians (or muslims, etc.) cannot believe what they want. (Many whom I've talked to would like to be treated with dignity, respect, etc. and not be called faggots, but I digress, apparently manners are lacking these days)

Example:

I am doing some research for a Journalism 205/206 project currently, and because of that I talked at length with an elderly gay couple. Something one of them said struck me, and I mean it struck me hard.

Recent-ish, Oregon allowed same sex marriage, but that was eventually struck down by...politics. This couple had stood in line, anticipation at hand, and waited to get married. They wanted to validate, through their beliefs, their relationship. (They've been together for 43 years)

They didn't get to.

One of them said to me, "In all my life, I never thought I'd see people be ruthlessly selfish in their beliefs. I fought two wars so these people could go on living how they want, believe what they want, and say what they want about me and my joe. I had hoped they would afford me the same - not as veteran, but as an American."

Just as many of ous afford others the

***

*sighs*

Btw, Your comment about children and marriage is a straw man charles, because we're talking about our rights through LAW and those granted by the constitution. By both, no child can give legal consent. Thus, they cannot EVER get married. Only someone who is of sound mind, and legal age - can give consent (as per the fact that marriage, according to the government, is a contract. Btw, I think those are the qualifiers, I could be wrong - been a while ).

And if someone wants to marry more than one person, then so be it. Where does it say in our constitution that I (or anyone else) am allowed to tell others how to live their lives? The government's job is to set the rules up so that everyone can pursue their (legal) american dream, then work within them. It's job is not to cater to one groups religious beliefs and view of what is moral.

The government, nor the majority (See: British government, and majority opinion) constitutes our principles, the constitution is. Our founding fathers fought against the majority and the government telling them what they could and could not do, and allowing some people to do things while others couldn't.

That's not right, and that's not what our nation is about.

The system of laws we have were established so that people could live their lives as seen fit. They are supposed to reflect our principles, yet we do not live by those principles. Would you really want the majority to tell you that you couldn't marry the person you wanted?

Where's the liberty in that? Where's the pursuit of happiness? Where's life in that?

What about torture? Should we allow it? Some countries believe in it.

I don't believe in it, and believe that capital punishment is wrong. But, again, that is only my opinion.

My problem is not with the issue of gay marriages, I could care less whether you get married or not, whether it's legit or not. I have enough faith in God to allow him to be the judge, not me. My problem is with this whole "me, I and myself" attitude that follows these and every other issue. It's always about "my rights" but never about the rights of everyone.

I understand why you would say that, charles; you're comfy and most likely perfectly happy sitting where you are, you have nothing to worry about. You can go and visit your wife in the hospital should she get sick, you can take care of your children as seen fit or even adopt some. You can go and take care of the legal paperwork for things like insurance, wills, and so on - no hassle there.

I'd like to ask you a favor or two. First, I ask that you read this one or two times and then leave it be for a day or two. Then, by all means, come back and comment. Second, I ask that during the time between that you take a second and stand in our shoes, if you would. I'm not saying to look at this in a total emotional bleeding heart way - I'm simply saying - if you were like me and others - how would you feel?

We can't. We're treated as separate but "equal".

Ultimately, it isn't just a economic, political, founding matter - it's about the principles of the matter. Our nation was founded on the belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Not some, not the christian or muslim, not the straight - ALL.

There is one thing that people like you will never except. You will never except that there are certain things in life you may never get. I accept that I may never own the computer of my dreams, be rich and/or have sex with Catherine

But a nation that was founded on people who rarely got what they fought for, would it not be right to let people get what they've strived for?

~AJ

56

AldericJourdain

on Jan 09, 2010

It's funny how some liberal interpretations of the statement above from the Declaration of Independence remove the part I have in bold and substitute "Creator" with "Government" or just conveniently leave that part out to twist it to their benefit. Of course I suppose for some their god is Obama.

Some people don't believe in God, others may just believe in God as being the government. To each their own right?

~AJ

57

AldericJourdain

on Jan 09, 2010

Could someone explain to me why the quoting I did is so funky? I was hoping my points would be clearer than they are.

~AJ

58

Nitro Cruiser

on Jan 09, 2010

Nitro, conveniently, brings up a good point:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Bingo - all are created equal, unalienable rights, life - liberty- pursuit of happiness.

And again "endowed by their creator" is left out.

Some people don't believe in God, others may just believe in God as being the government. To each their own right?

I guess if you don't have a creator- no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness for you. If you want to assume (I have no problem with this, as it is a biological fact) your parents are your creator, I guess it's their responsibility to provide this. I don't see government listed here.

59

AldericJourdain

on Jan 09, 2010

And again "endowed by their creator" is left out.

1. Not all believe in a creator, but that doesn't imply that they should be withheld their natural rights.

2. It's implied, and is actually in what I quoted.

3. Getting nit picky now, eh?

guess if you don't have a creator- no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness for you. If you want to assume (I have no problem with this, as it is a biological fact) your parents are your creator, I guess it's their responsibility to provide this. I don't see government listed here.

Your first comment comes off as tongue in cheek, but I'll take a swipe at it none-the-less.

On the contrary, natural rights existed outside of government. That time period really necessitated a reference to a creator since many, if not all americans were religious/faith based.

Additionally, given that the founder fathers were people of faith (not necesarily christian, theist, etc.) - I don't know if they really had a grasp of atheism. It seems like it would be a foreign concept in society at that time. Perhaps that is why they didn't put "or noncreator" in it.

On that same note though, if in fact there is no god and we're simply random - we still have a source of creation. Thus, our rights are derived from it - in essence: society/reasoning/though/etc. Hence "by their creator," whatever that creator (or source) is.

60

Nitro Cruiser

on Jan 09, 2010

1. Not all believe in a creator, but that doesn't imply that they should be withheld their natural rights.

And where can I find a copy of these "Natural Rights"? Who wrote them and when were they enacted? Frankly, it sounds made-up to me.

2. It's implied, and is actually in what I quoted.

No...it isn't "actually" what you quoted, you captured my quote then this is what you said:

Bingo - all are created equal, unalienable rights, life - liberty- pursuit of happiness.

No mention of the "Creator" just that we were "created"...like I said a word quickly omitted to suit a purpose.

On the contrary, natural rights existed outside of government.

Again these secret "Natural Rights". I didn't get a copy.

Additionally, given that the founder fathers were people of faith (not necesarily christian, theist, etc.) - I don't know if they really had a grasp of atheism. It seems like it would be a foreign concept in society at that time. Perhaps that is why they didn't put "or noncreator" in it.

They were well aware of atheism. Missionary's went to convert the "godless" heathens long before the discovery of America. The founding fathers put exactly what was needed in the document. Revisionists are busy attempting to circumvent it by implying it need interpretation.