[mgoetze]

Codo, on 2012-December-23, 05:05, said:

But it is okay to make such claims about mass murder etc opposite Christians and other religions?
I mean, shall I search for Mikes post where he made statements about the crusades, inquisitation etc?

[...]

But still you and Stephanie took Gonzalo as an example, not Mike, despite the fact that he posted his offences here right in front of your eyes...

Mike is serious and prepared to back up his statements with facts. Gonzalo seemed serious and is now passing off his post as a joke instead. In my book, this is not the sort of thing to make jokes about.

[Scarabin]

mikeh, on 2012-December-22, 11:29, said:

I appreciated your courtesy on the other thread, but am not the least bit sure of what you mean.

I tried to clarify my original Topic in a post on Dec 23.

However your post deserves a specific acknowledgment. I won't say reply because although you have been patient in previous debate, I am sure you don't want anymore feedback from my addled brain

[kenberg]

Scarabin, on 2012-December-23, 03:19, said:

Ken has said, with his usual folksy charm, that he is happy with the current state but I do not think Ken has ever given offence to anyone (wives always excepted!).

Hey, buddy, watch who you are calling folksy. I am very offended.

[Scarabin]

kenberg, on 2012-December-27, 07:41, said:

Hey, buddy, watch who you are calling folksy. I am very offended.

Heartfelt apology. Mine was meant as a compliment, and yours,of course, as a joke. .LOL

[kenberg]

Early in the development of e-mail I had the following experience.

I was on the faculty Senate at a university, and the subject matter was the extension of medical benefits to live-in couples, includiong, gasp, same sex couples. This was quite a few years back and the the idea was very controversial. We met on a Thursday, the matter was not settled, there was a special meeting called for the following week. E-mails were flying during the week-end. It was a discussion to rival the Global Warming thread in intensity. A message was sent from a return address of Penguin and the author went on at length about the Campus Cod, a (repeated) typo for Campus Code. I sent a reply to all saying the discussion is getting out of hand, we now have penguins complaining about the cod. I got a very heated response that I was elitist, exclusionary, and God knows what else. He had a right to his opinion yesireee.

So you see, I can be as offensive as anyone.

Fwiw, I was initially cool to the proposal because of what I saw as legal difficulties in defining when it applied. It seemed like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The proponents were very well prepared and convinced me that this could work, so I supported it. It passed the Senate but the state legislature would have to approve it. Fat chance. That was then. Last November the voters approved same sex marriage. Times change.

One argument for the proposal that many then found quite convincing ran like this: Hey guys, you say we can't get married because the law says we can't. Then you say we cannot include our partners on health insurance because we aren't married. Something is wrong here.
Quite a few conventional unexciting people found this persuasive.

[Scarabin]

kenberg, on 2012-December-28, 05:53, said:

Early in the development of e-mail I had the following experience.

I was on the faculty Senate at a university, and the subject matter was the extension of medical benefits to live-in couples, includiong, gasp, same sex couples. This was quite a few years back and the the idea was very controversial. We met on a Thursday, the matter was not settled, there was a special meeting called for the following week. E-mails were flying during the week-end. It was a discussion to rival the Global Warming thread in intensity. A message was sent from a return address of Penguin and the author went on at length about the Campus Cod, a (repeated) typo for Campus Code. I sent a reply to all saying the discussion is getting out of hand, we now have penguins complaining about the cod. I got a very heated response that I was elitist, exclusionary, and God knows what else. He had a right to his opinion yesireee.

So you see, I can be as offensive as anyone.

Fwiw, I was initially cool to the proposal because of what I saw as legal difficulties in defining when it applied. It seemed like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The proponents were very well prepared and convinced me that this could work, so I supported it. It passed the Senate but the state legislature would have to approve it. Fat chance. That was then. Last November the voters approved same sex marriage. Times change.

One argument for the proposal that many then found quite convincing ran like this: Hey guys, you say we can't get married because the law says we can't. Then you say we cannot include our partners on health insurance because we aren't married. Something is wrong here.
Quite a few conventional unexciting people found this persuasive.

Ken, I do not consider you were at all offensive, and I surely wish all posters would leaven their posts with an occasional flash of humour.

[mike777]

One argument for the proposal that many then found quite convincing ran like this: Hey guys, you say we can't get married because the law says we can't. Then you say we cannot include our partners on health insurance because we aren't married. Something is wrong here.
Quite a few conventional unexciting people found this persuasive.


----



As a matter of law decades ago...unpersuaive
..as a matter of morality ....unpersusaive
.....as a matter of politics...the Amercian way....decades ago....a decent start.....
.........I find this an example of what makes America exceptional.....not perfect...

[Scarabin]

mike777, on 2012-December-28, 23:46, said:

.........I find this an example of what makes America exceptional.....not perfect...

Imo what makes America exceptional is that it is the most successful country in the world and it is run under a constitution which ensures the government is dysfunctional.

[mike777]

Scarabin, on 2012-December-29, 02:02, said:

Imo what makes America exceptional is that it is the most successful country in the world and it is run under a constitution which ensures the government is dysfunctional.

ok to follow your logic dysfunctional makes a country great...your logic\
my only point is follow your own logic.

btw pls quote me in full or not all ty

[blackshoe]

Not dysfunctional, but of limited power. The current dysfunctionality of Congress and the Administration is not due to the Constitution.

[blackshoe]

When taxes are too high,
people go hungry.
When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit.

Act for the people's benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.

-- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 75

Our (US) government seems to have strayed from the Way.

[Scarabin]

mike777, on 2012-December-29, 02:35, said:

ok to follow your logic dysfunctional makes a country great...your logic\
my only point is follow your own logic.

btw pls quote me in full or not all ty

I used exceptional in its main sense of "unusual, atypical" not its subsense of "exceptionally good". My logic is that it is unusual for a country to be successful while led by a lame-duck government. (Unusual not unique, my own country is in a similar position.)

My practise is to quote only the relevant portion of a post, it seems unreasonable to expect readers to wade through a pond of dross for a single nugget of relevance. However I am happy to ignore your posts if you so wish.

[Scarabin]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 08:49, said:

Not dysfunctional, but of limited power. The current dysfunctionality of Congress and the Administration is not due to the Constitution.

I bow to your greater knowledge since you live in the country. My thought is that the constitution set up the system of checks and balances which has rendered the US government chronically dysfunctional

[kenberg]

As I was growing up, I did not hear a lot of talk about dysfunctionality. We produced an enormous number of tanks, fighters and bombers. General Eisenhower had successfully conducted the re-invasion of Europe, General MacArthur has successfully prosecuted the war in the Pacific. The Manhattan Project had produced a weapon that eliminated the need for landing troops in Japan. The Marshall Plan was instrumental in Europe's recovery, including that of former adversaries. American support played a pivotal role in the creation of the United Nations and in the founding of Israel. The GI Bill sent ex-servicemen to college and helped them buy a home.

Times have changed.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our Constitution but in ourselves.

[blackshoe]

Indeed.

[Scarabin]

kenberg, on 2012-December-30, 09:24, said:

As I was growing up, I did not hear a lot of talk about dysfunctionality. We produced an enormous number of tanks, fighters and bombers. General Eisenhower had successfully conducted the re-invasion of Europe, General MacArthur has successfully prosecuted the war in the Pacific. The Manhattan Project had produced a weapon that eliminated the need for landing troops in Japan. The Marshall Plan was instrumental in Europe's recovery, including that of former adversaries. American support played a pivotal role in the creation of the United Nations and in the founding of Israel. The GI Bill sent ex-servicemen to college and helped them buy a home.

Times have changed.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our Constitution but in ourselves.

I agree America is a great & amazingly generous country, and I have only admiration for its people, (Except in games like soccer & when they accuse successful foreign teams of cheating.) America played a major part in WW2, perhaps the major part, and never had to choose between "guns and butter"; it financed the reconstruction of Europe, and it has since conducted several foreign adventures without seeking to acquire new territory in compensation.

That said, you still have a constitution which encourages stalemate (gridiron?) rather than decision. I understand that you yourselves consider that you have had many ineffectual presidents since WW2: e.g Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and now I venture to predict Obama.

Most progress seems to require breaking the rules/laws, e.g. mandates, or patronage.

Perhaps these suggest the fault may lie in the constitution.

I am not trying to offend anyone, I thought this is generally agreed among your political historians, not so?

[blackshoe]

The US Constitution encourages leaving most things up to the States. The problem is that Federal level politicians and bureaucrats don't see that as a plus. They're wrong.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 23:26, said:

The US Constitution encourages leaving most things up to the States. The problem is that Federal level politicians and bureaucrats don't see that as a plus. They're wrong.

The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to provide a legal check on the majority in order to guarantee the rights of the minority. No matter how badly the majority of people in the state of Kansas want to install the King James version of Genesis as the textbook for biology in the public school science classrooms, the Constitution says the one lone atheist in that school is protected from that majority decision.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2012-December-31, 06:45, said:

The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to provide a legal check on the majority in order to guarantee the rights of the minority. No matter how badly the majority of people in the state of Kansas want to install the King James version of Genesis as the textbook for biology in the public school science classrooms, the Constitution says the one lone atheist in that school is protected from that majority decision.

True enough, but I expect most high school students would prefer to be protected from having to learn the quadratic formula.

[mgoetze]

kenberg, on 2012-December-31, 07:37, said:

True enough, but I expect most high school students would prefer to be protected from having to learn the quadratic formula.

I'm in favour of that. Quadratic completion is a vastly superior method.