| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2009 01:19:24 AM · #76 |
Ah yes, Executive Orders. Those I know! A lot of them govern what I do for a living. And treat me to an extra day off at Christmas time (yes, there's an Executive Order which gives us an extra day off at Christmas). I recall one that went into effect rather quickly which completely screwed up a contract we were working at the time.
As for the bailout, I do wonder what the alternative was/is. By capitalist standards, one should let those businesses fail. I kinda like that, except when you take into account how many lives that would affect, and how many of those people may not have been able to do anything about the situation. It's a sticky wicket, that's for sure. (Though to be fair I have no idea what a sticky wicket is.)
Interesting. In an article from October of 2008 about the financial bailout package for AIG and other financial institutions: President Bush praised the Senate for passing the package, calling the bill ﾃ｢彳ssential to the financial security of every American.ﾃ｢ |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 08:06:56 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So it is just for same sex couples? Not for couples that may be living together, but not married? (since my original question wasn't answered, and I'm still wondering?) |
I think the original idea of extending rights to same sex couples enjoyed by married couples was based on the idea that they are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry. Co-habitating opposite sex partners can get married so if they wish to have the rights of marriage, they can easily get them. In many states, opposite sex partners can still cohabitate for a length of time and present themselves as husband and wife to gain all the benefits of marriage without having to enter a marriage contract. List of states
It all boils down to the advantages obtained when one engages in a marriage contract. Opposite sex partners are free to do so and in some places aren't even required to do so; same sex partners are not. |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 08:20:53 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Please explain for us non-Americans how what he did was wrong. |
I repeat... |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 08:55:52 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Please explain for us non-Americans how what he did was wrong. |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I repeat... |
Don't hold your breath......the OP doesn't seem to be interested in supporting his ravings with intelligent discourse.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2009 10:28:31 AM · #80 |
Well we do have this-
Amendment 14ﾃつ- Citizenship Rights.ﾃつRatified 7/9/1868.ﾃつ
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to theﾃつjurisdictionﾃつthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Stateﾃつdepriveﾃつany person of life, liberty, or property, withoutﾃつdue processﾃつof law; nor deny to any person within itsﾃつjurisdictionﾃつthe equal protection of the laws.
But as with almost all Amendments we also have this-
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Which translates into- Ehh, maybe.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2009 12:49:03 PM · #81 |
I find it interesting, though not surprising in the least, that no one debating President Obama's Executive Memorandum regarding the extension of federal benefits to same-sex partners seems to have actually taken the time or effort to find and read the Memorandum itself.
I am also amused that so many are so eager to debate what they THINK the President did, but aren't so eager to take the time to verify what he really DID do, before they post their arguments, either for or against.
In case anyone is actually interested in debating the issue based on the FACTS, here is a link to the actual Executive Memorandum. If you read it, you will see that the President hasn't broken any laws, nor has he violated the Constitution ( or Constitutional authority ) in any way.
I do find it interesting, however, that the President's Memorandum specifically addresses same-sex partners, and thus, by that very wording, excludes non-married heterosexual partners. If I were such a non-married heterosexual partner, and was excluded from any benefits extended as a result of the Memorandum, I think that I would be inclined to sue for "equal rights".
Ron |
|
|
|
06/25/2009 12:55:04 PM · #82 |
| we rarely agree, Ron, but here I agree with you that if heterosexual partners who weren't married could not get the same benefits via the common law marriage laws, then it would be actionable in court. |
|
|
|
06/25/2009 01:09:02 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by frisca:
your post is meaningless, David Ey. You've failed to actually support your argument and make bald assertions like "Obama is a dictator" and "what he did is unconstitutional" and yet, fail to make reference to the political science definition of dictator and relate to us what actions of Obama's meet this criteria, AND you fail to engage any constitutional analysis of the laws or policies passed that are contrary to a named and specific section or sections of the US Constitution.
Your bigotry is showing. You might want to cover it up lest a gay black person happens upon you. |
Ouch! Good reply. |
No, not a good reply.
A good reply would be: I respect your right to have a different viewpoint than I do.
What happened to tolerance?
|
|
|
|
06/25/2009 01:39:01 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Balko:
No, not a good reply.
A good reply would be: I respect your right to have a different viewpoint than I do.
What happened to tolerance? |
If a statement of fact is made (i.e. "Mr.Obama broke the law") then viewpoint and tolerance is not in question. A fact has been promulgated that is either true or untrue, points of evidence and chains if reason are required to support a factual assertion.
On the other hand, should one state an opinion (i.e. "I don't like Mr. Obama") then while one might bat around the reasons you came to that opinion, it is a viewpoint (however divergent from your own) that ought to be tolerated.
When you start with an opinion and then start conflating that feeling with accusation that you have no proof for, then you have become a fount of disinformation and then tolerance has no place. Only when differing versions of the truth are argued out using facts which are indisputable can reality be discerned from some people's media sponsored fantasies, and no, I don't believe that allowing deluded people to shout out their misunderstanding is alway polite, it is the patronizing tolerance of the babysitter for her ward. Truth is not a fungible commodity. If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, then it is your duty as a citizen to not shrug off an argument because it would be easier if what you hear is both damaging and factually wrong. |
|
|
|
06/25/2009 01:44:26 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by frisca:
we rarely agree, Ron, but here I agree with you that if heterosexual partners who weren't married could not get the same benefits via the common law marriage laws, then it would be actionable in court. |
That IS sorta interesting in the way it's worded. Either the same-sex couples are already being afforded benefits (for being domestic partners) or only same-sex domestic partners are being given these benefits. Perhaps there is some previous exclusion that says heterosexual domestic partners have rights to benefits while same-sex partners do not?
At the end of the day Barack is trying to walk a line between camps and I think he's done a decent job of it.
Message edited by author 2009-06-25 13:46:29. |
|
|
|
06/25/2009 01:47:03 PM · #86 |
| bravo, BrennanOB! I could not have stated this point better myself. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 09:41:37 AM EDT.
