Obama...Executive Action...GUN CONTROL!

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I have to admit, Bob. This kind of thinking is very troubling and dangerous.

but you're a gun nut (I don't mean that as a personal attack), so the fact that you find it troubling actually makes me feel good about it.

I've never even owned a gun, Bob. I haven't even shot one since I was 12 in Boy Scouts (city boy problems). But if finding the thought process that "*any action* that can lead to saving lives from gun violence is a good thing" is a dangerous precedent to set makes me a gun nut... Then I'm the head of the NRA.

I support your right not to own a gun just as tenaciously as I support someone else's right to own a gun, Bob. I wouldn't want anyone telling you what tools you need to keep in your home and that you need to get permission from a group of people. The same group of people that will send guys with guns to your house if they find out you're not getting their permission from them. There's no inconsistencies there, of course.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:but you're a gun nut (I don't mean that as a personal attack), so the fact that you find it troubling actually makes me feel good about it.

I've never even owned a gun, Bob. I haven't even shot one since I was 12 in Boy Scouts (city boy problems). But if finding the thought process that "*any action* that can lead to saving lives from gun violence is a good thing" is a dangerous precedent to set makes me a gun nut... Then I'm the head of the NRA.

I support your right not to own a gun just as tenaciously as I support someone else's right to own a gun, Bob. I wouldn't want anyone telling you what tools you need to keep in your home and that you need to get permission from a group of people. The same group of people that will send guys with guns to your house if they find out you're not getting their permission from them. There's no inconsistencies there, of course.

and the same group of people who think anyone and everyone should own guns are the same group of people who try to limit someone's right to vote, demand what women can do and not do with their own bodies, advocate for/against certain marital freedoms, decide who can and who can't enter the country, want to mandate what religion should be promoted within our schools, etc.

it all boils down to what aspects of freedom can be sacrificed in the name of the greater good. Some people think that our freedom is threatened when someone has the right to marry someone else. I happen to think our freedom is threatened when someone walks into an elementary school and murders 21 first graders.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I've never even owned a gun, Bob. I haven't even shot one since I was 12 in Boy Scouts (city boy problems). But if finding the thought process that "*any action* that can lead to saving lives from gun violence is a good thing" is a dangerous precedent to set makes me a gun nut... Then I'm the head of the NRA.

I support your right not to own a gun just as tenaciously as I support someone else's right to own a gun, Bob. I wouldn't want anyone telling you what tools you need to keep in your home and that you need to get permission from a group of people. The same group of people that will send guys with guns to your house if they find out you're not getting their permission from them. There's no inconsistencies there, of course.

and the same group of people who think anyone and everyone should own guns are the same group of people who try to limit someone's right to vote, demand what women can do and not do with their own bodies, advocate for/against certain marital freedoms, decide who can and who can't enter the country, want to mandate what religion should be promoted within our schools, etc.

it all boils down to what aspects of freedom can be sacrificed in the name of the greater good. Some people think that our freedom is threatened when someone has the right to marry someone else. I happen to think our freedom is threatened when someone walks into an elementary school and murders 21 first graders.

I'm sure there are many people who believe those things... But I'm just not sure what that has to do with the philosophical argument we're having with regards to initiating the threat of violence against everyone in a bid to try and stop a small number of people from initiating violence on others.

As for your second part... I'm not sure that's an intellectually honest assessment of the beliefs of those who harbor them. I've never heard someone who wants to limit the marriage options of others do so on the basis that a gay couples ability to marry inhibits the freedoms of others... I've seen religious and political justifications trying to be made.

Yes, people who are killed by others whether it be a gun or knife or bomb or whatever are having their freedom's curtailed in a very permanent way. But what does that have to do with me or anyone else that isn't doing the killing? Why do you want to initiate force and the threat of violence on me because of the violent actions of someone else?

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:and the same group of people who think anyone and everyone should own guns are the same group of people who try to limit someone's right to vote, demand what women can do and not do with their own bodies, advocate for/against certain marital freedoms, decide who can and who can't enter the country, want to mandate what religion should be promoted within our schools, etc.

it all boils down to what aspects of freedom can be sacrificed in the name of the greater good. Some people think that our freedom is threatened when someone has the right to marry someone else. I happen to think our freedom is threatened when someone walks into an elementary school and murders 21 first graders.

I'm sure there are many people who believe those things... But I'm just not sure what that has to do with the philosophical argument we're having with regards to initiating the threat of violence against everyone in a bid to try and stop a small number of people from initiating violence on others.

As for your second part... I'm not sure that's an intellectually honest assessment of the beliefs of those who harbor them. I've never heard someone who wants to limit the marriage options of others do so on the basis that a gay couples ability to marry inhibits the freedoms of others... I've seen religious and political justifications trying to be made.

Yes, people who are killed by others whether it be a gun or knife or bomb or whatever are having their freedom's curtailed in a very permanent way. But what does that have to do with me or anyone else that isn't doing the killing? Why do you want to initiate force and the threat of violence on me because of the violent actions of someone else?

we can see it differently.. it's cool with me.

and, no offense, obviously - because I know you mean well - but nobody will ever convince me of the idea that making guns easier to obtain is the answer to gun violence.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'm sure there are many people who believe those things... But I'm just not sure what that has to do with the philosophical argument we're having with regards to initiating the threat of violence against everyone in a bid to try and stop a small number of people from initiating violence on others.

As for your second part... I'm not sure that's an intellectually honest assessment of the beliefs of those who harbor them. I've never heard someone who wants to limit the marriage options of others do so on the basis that a gay couples ability to marry inhibits the freedoms of others... I've seen religious and political justifications trying to be made.

Yes, people who are killed by others whether it be a gun or knife or bomb or whatever are having their freedom's curtailed in a very permanent way. But what does that have to do with me or anyone else that isn't doing the killing? Why do you want to initiate force and the threat of violence on me because of the violent actions of someone else?

we can see it differently.. it's cool with me.

and, no offense, obviously - because I know you mean well - but nobody will ever convince me of the idea that making guns easier to obtain is the answer to gun violence.

I don't think making guns easier to obtain is the answer to gun violence, Bob. That's not my argument. My opinion on rights is a reaction stemming from efforts of a group of people trying to initiate force on everyone else.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:we can see it differently.. it's cool with me.

and, no offense, obviously - because I know you mean well - but nobody will ever convince me of the idea that making guns easier to obtain is the answer to gun violence.

I don't think making guns easier to obtain is the answer to gun violence, Bob. That's not my argument. My opinion on rights is a reaction stemming from efforts of a group of people trying to initiate force on everyone else.

meh.. I have no problem with establishing limitations on who should and should not own a gun.

I don't really know how else to put it.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Were the tears real?

he needs to stop crying for murdered children and start crying for our freedoms that are being taken away.

So are you cool with limiting all "freedoms" that kill children, or just those related to guns?  It may be kinda important to me....

Sincerely,

Son of Sparta wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
he needs to stop crying for murdered children and start crying for our freedoms that are being taken away.

So are you cool with limiting all "freedoms" that kill children, or just those related to guns?  It may be kinda important to me....

Sincerely,

agree completely. Which is why I'm pro-life.

sickeningly consistent, right?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I don't think making guns easier to obtain is the answer to gun violence, Bob. That's not my argument. My opinion on rights is a reaction stemming from efforts of a group of people trying to initiate force on everyone else.

meh.. I have no problem with establishing limitations on who should and should not own a gun.

I don't really know how else to put it.

Bob, I understand your position completely. No misunderstands... We disagree based on some philosophical differences, not a misunderstanding of each other's positions.. I just like to argue with people and you're fun to argue with because you don't get pissy like a lot of people do and you engage in a humorous manner. I appreciate that about you and I wish more people were like that. I tend to gravitate towards individuals I disagree with (to a point). It's boring when you agree with someone about nearly everything.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:meh.. I have no problem with establishing limitations on who should and should not own a gun.

I don't really know how else to put it.

Bob, I understand your position completely. No misunderstands... We disagree based on some philosophical differences, not a misunderstanding of each other's positions.. I just like to argue with people and you're fun to argue with because you don't get pissy like a lot of people do and you engage in a humorous manner. I appreciate that about you and I wish more people were like that. I tend to gravitate towards individuals I disagree with (to a point). It's boring when you agree with someone about nearly everything.

thanks, man.. I feel the same way about you.

(I think, that if we lived in Kentucky, that this public display of admiration might mean we're married.. or at least engaged... just don't tell Kim Davis)

I'm just glad Michigan is a little more friendly towards people like us who were "born this way."

xsanguine wrote:I'm just glad Michigan is a little more friendly towards people like us who were "born this way."

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Son of Sparta wrote:

So are you cool with limiting all "freedoms" that kill children, or just those related to guns?  It may be kinda important to me....

Sincerely,

agree completely. Which is why I'm pro-life.

sickeningly consistent, right?

Awesome sauce!  

So who is/are the pro-life candidate(s) that you support that help you stay sickeningly consistent?

Son of Sparta wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
agree completely. Which is why I'm pro-life.

sickeningly consistent, right?

Awesome sauce!  

So who is/are the pro-life candidate(s) that you support that help you stay sickeningly consistent?

Having a candidate that aligns with your own views 100% is impossible, unless you're a sheep who just listens to whatever a certain party tells you. You have to prioritize. I'm going to guess that abortion rights falls down the list of important priorities for a mid to late 40s guy who is unlikely to be put into a situation like that anyway.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Son of Sparta wrote:

Awesome sauce!  

So who is/are the pro-life candidate(s) that you support that help you stay sickeningly consistent?

Having a candidate that aligns with your own views 100% is impossible, unless you're a sheep who just listens to whatever a certain party tells you. You have to prioritize. I'm going to guess that abortion rights falls down the list of important priorities for a mid to late 40s guy who is unlikely to be put into a situation like that anyway.

Perhaps..

But if one is sickeningly consistent in one's views, so much so that limiting freedoms that kill children is a high priority, one would think that one would prioritize and side with candidates that avoid the killing of as many children as possible. I am fairly certain that child gun deaths are vastly outstripped by incidents of abortion.. for instance, in 2010, there were 31,076 total gun deaths for all ages vs 765,761 abortions in the same year.

So yeah, I agree with your idea of prioritizing.

You know, to stay sickeningly consistent..

Son of Sparta wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Having a candidate that aligns with your own views 100% is impossible, unless you're a sheep who just listens to whatever a certain party tells you. You have to prioritize. I'm going to guess that abortion rights falls down the list of important priorities for a mid to late 40s guy who is unlikely to be put into a situation like that anyway.

Perhaps..

But if one is sickeningly consistent in one's views, so much so that limiting freedoms that kill children is a high priority, one would think that one would prioritize and side with candidates that avoid the killing of as many children as possible. I am fairly certain that child gun deaths are vastly outstripped by incidents of abortion.. for instance, in 2010, there were 31,076 total gun deaths for all ages vs 765,761 abortions in the same year.

So yeah, I agree with your idea of prioritizing.

You know, to stay sickeningly consistent..

And which candidate (which was your question) is going to support his stance on both of those issues? and a whole bevy of like 50 other issues?

None of them. But maybe he can hit on like 40 of them but not that one. Most people don't make abortion their number one priority. Some do. Most don't.

Son of Sparta wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Having a candidate that aligns with your own views 100% is impossible, unless you're a sheep who just listens to whatever a certain party tells you. You have to prioritize. I'm going to guess that abortion rights falls down the list of important priorities for a mid to late 40s guy who is unlikely to be put into a situation like that anyway.

Perhaps..

But if one is sickeningly consistent in one's views, so much so that limiting freedoms that kill children is a high priority, one would think that one would prioritize and side with candidates that avoid the killing of as many children as possible. I am fairly certain that child gun deaths are vastly outstripped by incidents of abortion.. for instance, in 2010, there were 31,076 total gun deaths for all ages vs 765,761 abortions in the same year.

So yeah, I agree with your idea of prioritizing.

You know, to stay sickeningly consistent..

Not to mention one is very deliberate in its aims to end the life of an infant with pre-meditation and the other is just a byproduct of its existence.

At least we know now that he won't be voting for Hillary or Bernie. They're infanticidal maniacs!

Son of Sparta wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
agree completely. Which is why I'm pro-life.

sickeningly consistent, right?

Awesome sauce!  

So who is/are the pro-life candidate(s) that you support that help you stay sickeningly consistent?

I know of no politician that is pro-life. If you know of one, let me know.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Son of Sparta wrote:

Awesome sauce!  

So who is/are the pro-life candidate(s) that you support that help you stay sickeningly consistent?

I know of no politician that is pro-life. If you know of one, let me know.

Maybe our sticking point is definitional....how are you defining "pro-life"?

Son of Sparta wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I know of no politician that is pro-life. If you know of one, let me know.

Maybe our sticking point is definitional....how are you defining "pro-life"?

I applaud your persistence but I fear the effort will prove futile. Been trying to nail this guy down to an intellectually honest answer for years now... the guy is like Bill Clinton and is married to a lawyer. He's skill level 120 in evasive answering.

Still love you, though, Bob. Long thyme.

Son of Sparta wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I know of no politician that is pro-life. If you know of one, let me know.

Maybe our sticking point is definitional....how are you defining "pro-life"?

I define someone who isn't in favor of killing someone as "pro life".

xsanguine wrote:Still love you, though, Bob. Long thyme.

right back at ya, bro..

xsanguine wrote:

Son of Sparta wrote:

Maybe our sticking point is definitional....how are you defining "pro-life"?

I applaud your persistence but I fear the effort will prove futile. Been trying to nail this guy down to an intellectually honest answer for years now... the guy is like Bill Clinton and is married to a lawyer. He's skill level 120 in evasive answering.

Bob is for gun control and against abortions. I don't see how much more honest he can be. He scales them on the same level, which is why he jokes about being morally consistent. I'm with him on this.

msugolfguy wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I applaud your persistence but I fear the effort will prove futile. Been trying to nail this guy down to an intellectually honest answer for years now... the guy is like Bill Clinton and is married to a lawyer. He's skill level 120 in evasive answering.

Bob is for gun control and against abortions. I don't see how much more honest he can be. He scales them on the same level, which is why he jokes about being morally consistent. I'm with him on this.

It's all consistent, honestly. I just like to give Bob a hard time often... even when I agree with him I have to play devil's advocate.

People are for or against gun control and abortion for reasons that don't have much to do with one another so trying to compare them was probably a bit ambitious.

msugolfguy wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I applaud your persistence but I fear the effort will prove futile. Been trying to nail this guy down to an intellectually honest answer for years now... the guy is like Bill Clinton and is married to a lawyer. He's skill level 120 in evasive answering.

Bob is for gun control and against abortions. I don't see how much more honest he can be. He scales them on the same level, which is why he jokes about being morally consistent. I'm with him on this.

thanks, man.. you're a great American.

it's difficult sometimes to value life.. every life has value no matter what a politician or a special interest group might make you believe otherwise.

xsanguine wrote:

msugolfguy wrote:

Bob is for gun control and against abortions. I don't see how much more honest he can be. He scales them on the same level, which is why he jokes about being morally consistent. I'm with him on this.

It's all consistent, honestly. I just like to give Bob a hard time often... even when I agree with him I have to play devil's advocate.

People are for or against gun control and abortion for reasons that don't have much to do with one another so trying to compare them was probably a bit ambitious.

as I mentioned, I think every life has value.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

It's all consistent, honestly. I just like to give Bob a hard time often... even when I agree with him I have to play devil's advocate.

People are for or against gun control and abortion for reasons that don't have much to do with one another so trying to compare them was probably a bit ambitious.

as I mentioned, I think every life has value.

I'm closer to where you are, Bob, with regards to abortion. I am pro-choice in what I believe the truest sense of what that phrase means; Barring extreme circumstances I'm probably not going to give my blessing to an abortion (in the event my opinion matters) but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for someone else and the option should be legally available for those who do feel that is their best option.

I guess that means I'm pro-kill-em-all.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:as I mentioned, I think every life has value.

I'm closer to where you are, Bob, with regards to abortion. I am pro-choice in what I believe the truest sense of what that phrase means; Barring extreme circumstances I'm probably not going to give my blessing to an abortion (in the event my opinion matters) but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for someone else and the option should be legally available for those who do feel that is their best option.

I guess that means I'm pro-kill-em-all.

I'm pro-life.. but I'm not arrogant enough to promote legislation that would make people agree with me. I support everyone's right to have their opinion on a subject, regardless of what I believe.

I know it's naive and unrealistic, but I don't want the religious-inspired government to tell people what to think - whether it's in the area of abortion or the death penalty. I want people to support politicians who are consistently pro-life because it's what is in their heart. More of a culture shift versus a government mandate.

I realize it won't happen - but that doesn't mean I can't live in my bubble of hope.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'm closer to where you are, Bob, with regards to abortion. I am pro-choice in what I believe the truest sense of what that phrase means; Barring extreme circumstances I'm probably not going to give my blessing to an abortion (in the event my opinion matters) but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for someone else and the option should be legally available for those who do feel that is their best option.

I guess that means I'm pro-kill-em-all.

I'm pro-life.. but I'm not arrogant enough to promote legislation that would make people agree with me. I support everyone's right to have their opinion on a subject, regardless of what I believe.

I know it's naive and unrealistic, but I don't want the religious-inspired government to tell people what to think - whether it's in the area of abortion or the death penalty. I want people to support politicians who are consistently pro-life because it's what is in their heart. More of a culture shift versus a government mandate.

I realize it won't happen - but that doesn't mean I can't live in my bubble of hope.

Hey they took away butt sex this week, so we have that going for us.

msugolfguy wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I'm pro-life.. but I'm not arrogant enough to promote legislation that would make people agree with me. I support everyone's right to have their opinion on a subject, regardless of what I believe.

I know it's naive and unrealistic, but I don't want the religious-inspired government to tell people what to think - whether it's in the area of abortion or the death penalty. I want people to support politicians who are consistently pro-life because it's what is in their heart. More of a culture shift versus a government mandate.

I realize it won't happen - but that doesn't mean I can't live in my bubble of hope.

Hey they took away butt sex this week, so we have that going for us.

I just want government out of my life.. which is why I vote republican.. and, of course, republicans promptly pass legislation imposing government on my life.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

msugolfguy wrote:

Hey they took away butt sex this week, so we have that going for us.

I just want government out of my life.. which is why I vote republican.. and, of course, republicans promptly pass legislation imposing government on my life.

Couldn't make this stuff up anymore if I tried. I was talking to a friend of mine and we tried to think of the most reasonable yet ridiculous law we could pass. We couldn't come close to anything that silly. We just laughed.

Clearly this one was probably thought their own. No special interest group would waste time on this.

msugolfguy wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

I just want government out of my life.. which is why I vote republican.. and, of course, republicans promptly pass legislation imposing government on my life.

Couldn't make this stuff up anymore if I tried. I was talking to a friend of mine and we tried to think of the most reasonable yet ridiculous law we could pass. We couldn't come close to anything that silly. We just laughed.

Clearly this one was probably thought their own. No special interest group would waste time on this.

can you imagine all of these uptight white dudes sittin' around in a committee talking about this stuff.. then deciding what should and shouldn't be illegal based on their own homoerotic tendencies that neither their wife nor mistress knows about?

I bet they prayed beforehand..  

You guys, the statute of limitations has expired on believing and pushing the media narrative (unless you're a #BlackLivesMatter person then just shout down people trying to present facts, works every time). Everyone has gotten the correct information (albeit a day later). Republicans are pretty dumb but unfortunately they didn't introduce a bill banning sodomy like HuffPo, Jezebel, and Salon have sold.

It's sad because it's believable... But it's just not true in this particular case. I'm sorry because I want to be the bearer of good news, not bad.

xsanguine wrote:You guys, the statute of limitations has expired on believing and pushing the media narrative (unless you're a #BlackLivesMatter person then just shout down people trying to present facts, works every time). Everyone has gotten the correct information (albeit a day later). Republicans are pretty dumb but unfortunately they didn't introduce a bill banning sodomy like HuffPo, Jezebel, and Salon have sold.

It's sad because it's believable... But it's just not true in this particular case. I'm sorry because I want to be the bearer of good news, not bad.

"Sec. 158. (1) Any A person who shall commit COMMITS the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be IS guilty of a felony , punishable by imprisonment in the state prison FOR not more than 15 years, or if such person THE DEFENDANT was A SEXUALLY DELINQUENT PERSON at the time of the said offense, a sexually delinquent person, may be A FELONY punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life."

was introduced January 28th, 2016..

these anti-government republicans threw "mankind" along in there with other carbon-based lifeforms you can't participate in abominable and destestable crimes against nature with.  

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:You guys, the statute of limitations has expired on believing and pushing the media narrative (unless you're a #BlackLivesMatter person then just shout down people trying to present facts, works every time). Everyone has gotten the correct information (albeit a day later). Republicans are pretty dumb but unfortunately they didn't introduce a bill banning sodomy like HuffPo, Jezebel, and Salon have sold.

It's sad because it's believable... But it's just not true in this particular case. I'm sorry because I want to be the bearer of good news, not bad.

"Sec. 158. (1) Any A person who shall commit COMMITS the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be IS guilty of a felony , punishable by imprisonment in the state prison FOR not more than 15 years, or if such person THE DEFENDANT was A SEXUALLY DELINQUENT PERSON at the time of the said offense, a sexually delinquent person, may be A FELONY punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life."

was introduced January 28th, 2016..

these anti-government republicans threw "mankind" along in there with other carbon-based lifeforms you can't participate in abominable and destestable crimes against nature with.  

That language has been there since at least 1890. What was amended was the animal abuse stuff.

You could make a case that they should be fighting to take it out... but you could be making that case for the last 130 years. That's a lot of people to be upset with.

It's not new.

Claim: The state of Michigan has passed a law banning oral and anal sex: mostly false

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:


was introduced January 28th, 2016..

these anti-government republicans threw "mankind" along in there with other carbon-based lifeforms you can't participate in abominable and destestable crimes against nature with.  

That language has been there since at least 1890. What was amended was the animal abuse stuff.

You could make a case that they should be fighting to take it out... but you could be making that case for the last 130 years. That's a lot of people to be upset with.

It's not new.

Claim: The state of Michigan has passed a law banning oral and anal sex: mostly false

meh - regardless of semantics, the over-arching principle remains true: Republicans are a party of big government.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That language has been there since at least 1890. What was amended was the animal abuse stuff.

You could make a case that they should be fighting to take it out... but you could be making that case for the last 130 years. That's a lot of people to be upset with.

It's not new.

Claim: The state of Michigan has passed a law banning oral and anal sex: mostly false

meh - regardless of semantics, the over-arching principle remains true: Republicans are a party of big government.

I think we should hold both of the parties of big government responsible for not amending it at some point over the last 15 years as a symbolic gensture.

It doesn't really matter, though, because of Lawrence v Texas 539 US 558. Probably why no one does the leg work to get it done because it's a moot point.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
meh - regardless of semantics, the over-arching principle remains true: Republicans are a party of big government.

I think we should hold both of the parties of big government responsible for not amending it at some point over the last 15 years as a symbolic gensture.

It doesn't really matter, though, because of Lawrence v Texas 539 US 558. Probably why no one does the leg work to get it done because it's a moot point.

yep - both political parties love big government. No doubt about it.

it's just that republicans have somehow managed to convince their intellectually vapid followers that they should want government out of their lives.. all while increasing the size of government.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I think we should hold both of the parties of big government responsible for not amending it at some point over the last 15 years as a symbolic gensture.

It doesn't really matter, though, because of Lawrence v Texas 539 US 558. Probably why no one does the leg work to get it done because it's a moot point.

yep - both political parties love big government. No doubt about it.

it's just that republicans have somehow managed to convince their intellectually vapid followers that they should want government out of their lives.. all while increasing the size of government.

I'd appreciate government out of life, also. That's why I don't vote... Because every candidate and every political party, by definition, wants their brand of control in your life somehow.

There's no such thing as a political party that wants to be smaller or less involved. It's an oxymoron. Like fucking for virginity... Or something.