patrick.net

Bap33 says

hey have full access to each of these if they marry correctly. It's their choice. Are you not pro-choice?

Exactly how does one marry "correctly?" I hope it's without those pesky Chris Brown dances down the aisle.

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, it merely allows people who love one another to be recognized as a legit couple in the eyes of the law. Larry Craig is married, but sucks men's dicks in bathroom stalls. I guess that's okay, 'cause he married "correctly?"

Asinine conversation - if you aren't gay, don't have sex with someone who is your same gender. But don't for a moment believe that your opinion is anything more than a bigoted response based in fear over someone who is different than you.

Everyone is different.

By the way, living with your spouse before marriage is considered to be as sinful as homosexuality in some religions. You still did it - it was okay with you and you weren't hurting anyone. Yet you were still a deviant from the norm. If you're not having sex purely for procreational purposes, you're a deviant.

And yet, somehow, you still walk among us and judge other people as though you're not going to hell someday. Go figure.

I'm done with this convo, don't bother to spew out an answer.

Bap33 says

Nope. Conservative Christian Americans out give anyone on the American left by a mile. You know this. Why the word play? You have made it a habit to not fib, so I figure there is some type of game in play here, especially since a simple google search proves my point in spades.

True, I was wrong on this point. Conservatives are always calling for the poor to be left to die rather than be "given a handout", so it's not surprising that conservatives have a very bad reputation for generosity, especially the Wall Street Conservatives Gordon Gecko types.

However, much to my shock, when I did some research on this, it does appear that conservatives do donate more to charity. I checked non-conservative sites just to make sure this wasn't a conservative talking point misinformation. However, even the New York Times has confirmed this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

This does bring up a good question. If conservatives give more to charity than liberals, then why are conservatives against structural safety nets and liberals are for them?

Structural safety nets allow for economies of scale and wider distribution of resources, and so would be more effective than smaller scale charities.

Bap33 says

es, tax payers are forced to support these actions, just as they are forced to light a Christmas tree in the town square and keep a cross on the hill lit up and maybe, just maybe, keep a Ten Commandments statue near the Judges Palace.

Tax money should not be used for:

1. Parades
2. Santas
3. Easter Bunnies
4. Sports Stadiums
5. Christmas Trees

Tax money should be used for: sanitation, regardless of what political group OWS or Tea Party or any other group that stages a protest. Protesting is a right. Sanitation is a public need, but the right to protest should not be infringed upon because there will be sanitation costs later.

And as for the Ten Commandments in a state court, how about some Sharia Law tablets in those courts? Still non-offensive? How about copies of the Egyptian scrolls showing that all those Jesus myths from walking on water to having 12 apostles to raising Lazarus from the dead were ripped off from older Egyptian myths? Would such scrolls and hieroglyphs belong in a court?

Bap33 says

in reaction to the post that decryed the use of tax dollars for anything Christian related

The ACLU's position is that tax dollars should not be used for any religion. The ACLU does not single out Christianity. It's that Christianity is currently the majority religion, and so it's followers are breaking all the laws. In 50 years, we'll be having this same discussion about Islam.

Small, fringe religions tend not to get the ability to influence city hall.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Rights like access to a shared health insurance plan, life insurance benefits, veteran spouse benefits, joint tax filing, etc.

They have full access to each of these if they marry correctly. It's their choice. Are you not pro-choice?

Again I don't follow.

First, gay marriage must be legal and recognized at the Federal level in order for a gay man to get veteran spouse benefits from his active duty husband.

Second, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the gay couple could not have the marriage benefit because it would be "telling" the soldier's sexual orientation. This was one of the biggest problems with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

As for the process of "marrying correctly", it should be the same for intrasexual couples as intersexual couples.

elliemae says

Exactly how does one marry "correctly?"

Yeah, I was wondering what he meant by that, too.

Dan8267 says

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

This does bring up a good question. If conservatives give more to charity than liberals, then why are conservatives against structural safety nets and liberals are for them?

This is still bugging me because it doesn't add up. After thinking about it a bit more, I'm incline to believe that liberals expect their "money for the poor" to be handled by the state via taxation and state spending. Conservatives expect their "money for the poor" to be handled by the church. If you add up what liberals are willing to pay in taxes for social services to the poor, I suspect it matches what conservatives are willing to give to their church-ran charities.

I.e., the real difference is due to liberals wanting charity to be a state function and conservatives wanting it to be a church function.

Of course we could get into an argument about which entity would be better at running a charity, but that's another issue.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Um, yeah I did. Santa Clause isn't a religious figure. Jesus is.

religous only matters to those who believe in it. Or, atheism is just full of crap. You can't have it both ways.

WTF quote of the day.

No, religion clearly has no effect on us atheists. No wars have ever been fought over it, no government policy has harmed any group because of it, and nobody has ever been ostracized from their community for not belonging to a particular one.

Dan8267 says

Second, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the gay couple could not have the marriage benefit because it would be "telling" the soldier's sexual orientation. This was one of the biggest problems with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Under DADT, gay people were allowed to be gay (ugh!) as long as they didn't tell anyone, have a relationship or even acknowledge they were gay. It was "keep it to yourself," which is complete bullshit. The military code is to tell the truth, yet the policy showed that we couldn't handle the truth.

Wikipedia says

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military from December 21, 1993 to September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The restrictions were mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."[1] The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces".

Yea, that sounds fair. Kevin says

No, religion clearly has no effect on us atheists.

:) WTF indeed.

elliemae says

It was "keep it to yourself," which is complete bullshit.

I don't see what's wrong with people keeping their private lives to themselves. It's nobody else's business what people do in private.

wthrfrk80 says

I don't see what's wrong with people keeping their private lives to themselves. It's nobody else's business what people do in private.

It took it about a million steps further. Being gay isn't about sex - if it were, then it could be hidden if the people involved were so inclined. If a person lived with another of the same sex, they were asked if they were gay. They weren't allowed to have dates because that would "out" them. It wasn't about personal lives, it was about tortuously hiding identity.

Imagine if you're at work and everyone is talking about what they did over the weekend. If you went shopping at walmart for house stuff, you'd have to be careful about what you said - lest it be construed as you being gay.

If you went to a party, you couldn't sit with your partner. If you got a library card, you couldn't get it with your partner. You couldn't do or say anything that might make you appear gay. All the things that heterosexuals do everyday, from paying bills (joint accounts) to shopping to doing yard work... if you have a partner you involve them in intimate and not-so-intimate ways.

Don't ask, Don't tell required that you buried all signs of your relationships and friendships. Even if you were hetero, if you had an openly gay friend it could lead to prison. seriously.

I once had a patient whose partner was in a very prominent position in the community. The patient died and his partner wasn't able to arrange a funeral or even publicly acknowledge the death. He had someone call me to make sure I wouldn't "out" him - he would have lost his job and standing in the community. What a horrible thing to have to go through.

elliemae says

Don't ask, Don't tell required that you buried all signs of your relationships and friendships.

So what? Let "gayness" be a private thing. It's none of the public's business. If the public suspects two people are gay just because they happen to live, garden, and shop together, that seems kind of silly to me. Hence the "don't ask" part of the equation.

wthrfrk80 says

I don't see what's wrong with people keeping their private lives to themselves. It's nobody else's business what people do in private.

Dan8267 says

Protesting is a right. Sanitation is a public need, but the right to protest should not be infringed upon because there will be sanitation costs later

and this is the difference between left and right. Personal accountability. Simple building blocks of society, like standing in line, waiting your turn, picking up your trash, being polite, not cursing in public, these things are not displayed by the liberal left progressive.
Selfish, disruptive, unproductive, and blaming every bad choice they make on someone else.
If they are hooked on illegal drugs it is not their fault.
It they catch AIDS having unprotected sodomite activity it is not their fault.
If they fail to learn in school it is not their fault.
If they get prego as a teen it is not their fault.
If they have multiple kids out of wedlock from multiple men it is not their fault.
If they get shot by the police while robbing a 7-11 it is not their fault.
If they get stopped for speeding and are found to have drugs and weapons it is not their fault.
If they choose lie instead of truth it is not their fault.
If they can't speak the language of the country they invade it is not their fault.
If they can't follow a conversation well enough to see the obvious lies of the mass media it is not their fault.
If they buy an over-priced stucco-wrapped POS house with an illegal loan built on lies and greed - for a price they could never payback it is not their fault.
Anyone willing to kneel at the alter of the ProgressiveLeftLiberal Monster will not be held accountable. So be it.

Dan8267 says

elliemae says

Exactly how does one marry "correctly?"

Yeah, I was wondering what he meant by that, too.

if you do not know what a correct, normal, accepted, useful, healthy, non-disruptive way to marry is, then I can't really help. If the issue at hand is access to benifits, then a person should do what they need to do to acess those benifits. That now will show that the issue is not access, it is a desire to have the avenue of access paved espicially for a self-proclaimed group .. and that is BS ... and in my post above you will note that I tied this issue to the horrible un-American actions of the ACLU, and how they will take up a cause for a self-proclaimed group that has no legal way to show the basis for their claim. Same as atheism. Nobody can prove they are atheist, but they DEMAND cash and the ability to dictate public activity in America thru the ACLU sue machine.

Bap33 says

If they are hooked on illegal drugs it is not their fault.
It they catch AIDS having unprotected sodomite activity it is not their fault.
If they fail to learn in school it is not their fault.
If they get prego as a teen it is not their fault.
If they have multiple kids out of wedlock from multiple men it is not their fault.
If they get shot by the police while robbing a 7-11 it is not their fault.
If they get stopped for speeding and are found to have drugs and weapons it is not their fault.
If they choose lie instead of truth it is not their fault.
If they can't speak the language of the country they invade it is not their fault.
If they can't follow a conversation well enough to see the obvious lies of the mass media it is not their fault.
If they buy an over-priced stucco-wrapped POS house with an illegal loan built on lies and greed - for a price they could never payback it is not their fault.

Pretty amazing.
Conservatives have never been hooked on drugs (Rush Limbaugh, it's not my fault).
No conservatives have Aids (bloom, breindal, etc,etct. not my fault I didn't really have aids).
Didn't learn at school, got shot, so forth (to many to count).
All conservatives are multilingual (Really???)
Conservatives have never lied (Really???)
No conservative at all bought an overprices POS house in Nevada with a liar loan then tried to weasel out. I find that pretty hard to believe.

Do you ever touch base with reality?

Wasn't this thread originally about the Birthers?

Dan8267 says

Tax money should not be used for:
1. Parades
2. Santas
3. Easter Bunnies
4. Sports Stadiums
5. Christmas Trees

welfare to invaders
welfare for drug addicts
welfare for teen moms
Section 8 housing used in non-public housing
EBT cash-in-hand cards
Public K-12 Education without access to private school vouchers for those willing to follow the rules found in private schools.
High Speed Rail
Any higher education at all
National Endowment for the Arts
PBS
Planned Parenthood
All political campaigns
All forein aide
General Motors
You name a few more.
I agree with you. That is not what taxes are for. Taxes are only for secure border defense, public safety and facilities, and protection of AMerican Allies, and safe roads and bridges.

by the way, public sanatation is a fee-for-service part of a city's enterprize fund and those who impact the system are to pay for their impact directly. So, the gay parades and occupy scum should be made to pay for their impact.

@bob, you're not reading the words I wrote. Please give it another shot, Tiger!

Tax money should only be used for bank bailouts. Government exists to benefit the rich and powerful.

Bap33 says

and this is the difference between left and right. Personal accountability. Simple building blocks of society, like standing in line, waiting your turn, picking up your trash, being polite, not cursing in public, these things are not displayed by the liberal left progressive.

I wait my turn in line, clean my trash, am polite to anyone who isn't a belligerent asshole, have never cursed someone (I don't believe in any mysticism). As for personal responsibility, I paid my way through college and have been debt free since four months after completing undergraduate work. But that doesn't mean I want to outlaw homosexuality. Personal responsibility has nothing to do with homophobia. As for profanity, it has its purpose which is why it exists.

The bottom line is that fiscal conservativeness is responsible, but social conservativeness is code for bigotry. A person who truly believes in small government and rugged individualism -- like I do -- has no problem with two consenting men having all the butt sex they want in their home.

Bap33 says

If they are hooked on illegal drugs it is not their fault.

I'm socially liberal, but I don't believe that statement. I'll go one further. If a person thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, it's his own damn fault for being an idiot. Willful ignorance is also a bad decision.

The only objection I have to your statement is the use of the term "illegal", as if that matters for jack. Rush got hooked on legal drugs. All of the illegal drugs were at one time legal. Alcohol is a legal drug. It's your damn fault for getting hooked on that if you do. The legality of a drug has nothing to do with medical or chemical properties and everything to do with lobbying. Therefore, it makes no sense to use legality as a moral barometer. Hell, the side effects of the legal drugs are worse than many of the illegal ones.

And this is coming from someone who has never smoked marijuana or tobacco.

Bap33 says

It they catch AIDS having unprotected sodomite activity it is not their fault.

I've never said that. Catching a STD from not using protection is certainly one's own fault. However, whether a person caught AIDS from homosexual ass sex or heterosexual missionary sex is irrelevant. It is a medical problem, not a moral problem.

Let's say within four hundred years mankind eliminates all sexually transmitted diseases -- given the rate of medical progress, this is a very conservative estimate. Once all STDs have been eliminated, Bap, are you willing to say that there is nothing wrong with man on man butt sex? Somehow, I think you'll still have objections.

The fact is that your moral objections to homosexual anal sex are not based on medical needs. You're just using that as an excuse to condemn homosexuals. Furthermore, prohibition of anal sex is every bit as arbitrary and nonsensical as the prohibition of eating animals with hooves or the prohibition of drinking alcohol on Sundays. It's arbitrary and baseless.

Bap33 says

If they fail to learn in school it is not their fault.

School is 90% bullshit. If you fail to learn, it's your fault. If you fail to learn at school, it could by your fault of the fault of our crappy education system.

I didn't learn how to write software in college. I taught myself from the age of seven up. That said, I know what a good educational system looks like and the American school system from first grade to college is not a good system. But that's another story.

Bap33 says

If they get prego as a teen it is not their fault.

I have never heard anyone say this. What liberals say is that teenagers should have access to birth control in order to responsibly avoid pregnancy. As for the abortion issue, that's not a personal responsibility issue, it's a question of when personhood is achieved.

Bap33 says

If they have multiple kids out of wedlock from multiple men it is not their fault.

What is the color of the sky in your world? Nobody says that. And by the way, isn't that a red state cliché?

Bap33 says

If they get shot by the police while robbing a 7-11 it is not their fault.

No liberal has ever stated that an armed robber being shot is police brutality. You're just making this stuff up. I've watched liberals watching TV. They always root for the bad guy getting shot on the news. Christ, your perception of liberals is totally wacked.

What liberals don't like is
1. Police beating unarmed, nonviolent persons like many were during OWS. (Dare me to post videos, go on…)
2. Police rape-sodomizing people with plungers. Yes, that did happen.
3. Police arresting or threatening people who video record the police. This is a Constitutional right that protects all innocent parties.

In other words, liberals don't like the police acting like criminals and breaking the law.

Bap33 says

If they get stopped for speeding and are found to have drugs and weapons it is not their fault.

No one has ever said that. Now some of us do believe in the Constitution and the prohibition of unreasonable searches. But hell, don't you gun toters also believe that?

Bap33 says

If they choose lie instead of truth it is not their fault.

Everyone lies. Anyone who says he doesn't is a liar and a hypocrite. The question is why do you lie. Is it to protect the innocent or to attack someone. I'd lie to save Ann Frank from the Nazis. I'd lie to help a slave get to the underground railroad. I'd lie to protect a Japanese American family from being interned by the evil U.S. government. Those kinds of lies are moral. The police lie all the time. They call it going undercover.

However, if you look at the most evil lies told over the past century, you'll find that it's typically a social conservative: from Hitler to Stalin to Bush. And yes, lefty Stalin was an economic leftist, but he was socially on the right. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job -- which he didn't, he answered the question they asked not the one they implied -- but that had no consequences. Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and a million people died and now Iran is determined to get WMD before some U.S. president accuses it of having them.

Funny how the important and destructive lies uttered by conservative politicians don't seem to bother you. What about the constant lying on Fox News? The whole Obama secret Muslim lie, the Obama Kenyan birth lie, etc. And this is coming from someone who would impeach Obama if he could. But I don't have to make up lies to impeach him.

Bap33 says

If they can't speak the language of the country they invade it is not their fault.

The liberals in this country are not calling for dual language. English is the defacto international language of business. You don't have to worry about learning another language.

Nevertheless, all countries need to have procedures for dealing with foreign speakers in legal proceedings. Tourism alone makes this a necessity.

Bap33 says

If they can't follow a conversation well enough to see the obvious lies of the mass media it is not their fault.

The mainstream media in the U.S. is poor. However, Fox News is the worst by far. This is hardly a problem with liberals.

Bap33 says

If they buy an over-priced stucco-wrapped POS house with an illegal loan built on lies and greed - for a price they could never payback it is not their fault.

None of the loans were illegal. They were fraudulent, yes, but the banks were in on the fraud and were trying to sell the loans to unsuspecting investment and retirement funds. And bankers are almost always conservative and Republican. Hell, the banking industry is the poster-boy of conservatism.

As for the fool speculators, they are gaming the system as much as they can. But this is not a conservative/liberal issue. It's a Keynesian/Austrian issue. And that has nothing to do with social conservatism. I have always criticized the Keynesians and the bailouts.

The only difference between a liberal Keynesian and a conservative Keynesian is that the liberal Keynesian wants the "stimulus" tax-and-spend money to go to social services to the poor and the conservative Keynesian wants the "stimulus" borrow-and-spend (and tax via inflation) money to go to killing brown children. They are both wrong, but the conservative Keynesian is more evil.

Bap33 says

Anyone willing to kneel at the alter of the ProgressiveLeftLiberal Monster will not be held accountable. So be it.

So the Progressive Movement was also evil in your mind? Do you want to bring back child labor, unsafe working conditions, the 80-hour work-week, and no minimum wage?

Bap33 says

if you do not know what a correct, normal, accepted, useful, healthy, non-disruptive way to marry is, then I can't really help.

Um, no that's not our problem.

You can help by giving us examples of incorrect, non-useful, unhealthy, and disruptive ways to marry. You see, we're having trouble imagining what kind of weddings you've gone to.

Bap33 says

welfare to invaders
welfare for drug addicts
welfare for teen moms
Section 8 housing used in non-public housing
EBT cash-in-hand cards
Public K-12 Education
etc.

Like Ron Paul, I'd cut spending on many of these programs, although some I believe are useful and saves money for society in the long run by preventing poverty and crime. However, I have no problem with the National Endowment of the Arts getting no public funding. I don't believe in using tax payer dollars to advocate some cultural preferences over others. I like Shakespeare more than Spider Man, but that's not for the state to decide.

However, every single thing you mentioned, when summed up together, counts for a tiny fraction of the money we spend on the military. If you are truly a fiscal conservative like I am, you would first cut 90% of the military's budget before even touching the small potatoes you mentioned. And after cutting the military spending, a fiscal conservative would eliminate all farm subsides.

I strongly suspect that your objections have more to do with the content of the programs than wasteful spending.

Bap33 says

Taxes are only for secure border defense

Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5485917

The problem isn't a lack of border security. It's our economic system. It's built on low-wage labor.

You don't want Mexicans in America? Here's the one and only fix that will work. Move all our agricultural production to Mexico and offer descent living wages. Then the Mexicans will gladly stay in Mexico and pick our crops there. You'll be able to have cheap food and you won't have to see Mexicans.

By the way Mexicans are the descendants of Native Americans, you know, the people we stole this land from.

Bap33 says

So, the gay parades and occupy scum should be made to pay for their impact.

I'd rather the bankers pay for the trillions of dollars of wealth they cost us than gay parades and OWS protestors paying for the thousands of dollars of cleanup they require.

Btw, from the term "occupy scum", I gather your objection has less to do with the miniscule cost of cleanup (which is a stimulus package, btw) and more to do with Occupy Wall Street's political message. Which surprises me because I didn't know they had one.

wthrfrk80 says

Wasn't this thread originally about the Birthers

No. The topic was forged birth certificate file presented on the White House web site.

Dan8267 says

Everyone lies. Anyone who says he doesn't is a liar and a hypocrite. The question is why do you lie. Is it to protect the innocent or to attack someone. I'd lie to save Ann Frank from the Nazis. I'd lie to help a slave get to the underground railroad. I'd lie to protect a Japanese American family from being interned by the evil U.S. government. Those kinds of lies are moral. The police lie all the time. They call it going undercover

Would you "go undercover" to protect Obama and his birthplace narrative?

nosf41 says

Would you "go undercover" to protect Obama and his birthplace narrative?

I don't think Hawaii needs protection. Obama's a shit president, but he was born in the U.S.A. If conservatives want to oust Obama, they are going to have to do it with charges that apply to Bush as well. Obama and Bush are the same person. It's just that one's black and the other's retarded.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WDvJyGRpozY

Dan8267 says

Btw, from the term "occupy scum", I gather your objection has less to do with the miniscule cost of cleanup (which is a stimulus package, btw) and more to do with Occupy Wall Street's political message. Which surprises me because I didn't know they had one.

nope. I have no issue with the dirt bags. I pointed it out when someone said ACLU taking Jesus from the public areas was ok due to it being a tax payer issue --- or something like that. Just pointing to the double standard that the left enjoys with the ACLU.

It's not a double standard to support public cleanups after demonstrations, whether you agree with them or not, and not support using tax payer dollars or the authority of the state to endorse some religions over others and none.

I'd support the right of the Tea Party to protest even though they seem to be complete idiots. I support the right of OWS to protest even though they seem disorganized and useless. I support the right of the KKK to protest even though they are advocating evil. To obstruct freedom of speech to penny pinch is ridiculous.

However, state officials do not get to use their state resources to promote their religious culture. They can use their personal resources, but not state resources. This is an entirely different issue. I believe the ACLU is quite consistent in making this distinction.

lool .. so it is obstuction to expect people to pay for their cleanup?? Really?
The occupy scum and the militant deviants have the freedom and right to gather, and march, and whatever else is legal. They do not have a right to cost taxpayers a dime in doing so. Not one dime. Including police activity. If you disagree, then please find a way to force the police to wave their fees for walking around our non-profit hotrod car show events at the lake. We get charged for police and for clean-up. You must find that to be an outrage, right?

Bap33 says

The occupy scum

Uhhh Bap,...they're no more scum than you are. With the exception of those that are in it just because they were homeless and on drugs anyway ( partyyy!).

Bap33 says

They do not have a right to cost taxpayers a dime in doing so.

Freedom to assemble is a guaranteed right. Yeah, some cost to the rest of us goes with this. I can deal with that. It's several orders of magnitude lower than the costs to all of us that they are protesting.

I have counted at least 4 instances on this thread of Bap33 openly stating that he does not support specific aspects of the U.S. constitution.

I ask, again, why do you hate freedom? Move to China. They hate "liberals" there too.

Kevin says

I have counted at least 4 instances on this thread of Bap33 openly stating that he does not support specific aspects of the U.S. constitution.

I ask, again, why do you hate freedom? Move to China. They hate "liberals" there too.

The bapster lost his tenuous grasp on reality long ago.

Bap33 says

nope. I have no issue with the dirt bags.

New Word:
Bapism: The property of a sentence explicitly stating on thing while implying it's opposite. For example, I have no issue with the dirt bags. Second example, I have the utmost respect for that slimy weasel.

Kevin,
You do realize that your last post suggests that I should not be American because you dislike my speech - right? Do you happen to know the 1st ammendment to the US Const.? Is there a chance that you feel the rights under the US Const are not for conservatives Christians like me? You know, kinda like the 2nd Ammendment, you feel that only those deemed worthy by the twisted progessive liberal left should be armed, and not silly 'ol citizens. What other parts of the US Const do you want to toss away? I bet that limit on Prez terms is bugging you right now. It will be gone soon. You should be proud Kev, because Lord Barry has blown out the rule of law in favor of dictatorship and is well outside of the US Const ... right where you want him to be! From his birth cert to his college transcrips to Lybia to his pro-islamuslamic faith to his anti-Jew and anti-Chirstian and anti-stupid white cops position .... stand proud Kev, Lord Barry views the US Const just as you do ... a tool for the progressive left to dismantle America. Cheers!

@ellie,
et tu Brute?

Bap33 says

They do not have a right to cost taxpayers a dime in doing so. Not one dime. Including police activity.

Then no protest or public gathering could be allowed in public areas including Tea Party protests, anti-abortion protests, pro-gun rights protests, etc.

Protesters, for the most part do not want the police present because police tend to intimidate protesters and infringe upon their rights. The state decides that it wants a large police presence at every protest. Are you really offended that the police are being paid with tax payer dollars to keep protesters in line? This hardly constitutes state sponsorship of the protests. If anything, it is state opposition to protests, which is the opposite of what happens when a state official uses his position to support a particular family of religions.

I believe your opposition to Occupy Wall Street is that you don't like the politics of the protesters rather than you don't like tax payer dollars being spent as the result of protests. Now come on, be honest. Isn't that what it's really about? Would you have such opposition to a Tea Party protest or an NRA rally?

Now, we can talk about the politics of OWS, but that discussion is completely irrelevant to the issue of the separation of church and state, which is also quite a tangent from the topic of this thread, whether or not Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. [Btw, the whole forgery conjecture seems a bit wacked even by Jesse Ventura standards.]

Bap33 says

If you disagree, then please find a way to force the police to wave their fees for walking around our non-profit hotrod car show events at the lake.

I'll do you one better. Let's get rid of the gestapo-like presence of police at protests. They are there to control and disperse the crowd rather than protect the people. Most injuries at protests are caused by the police. And you don't even have to be participating in the protest to be caught in the police crossfire and injured.

marcus says

It's several orders of magnitude lower than the costs to all of us that they are protesting.

I agree 100%.

I disagree with public costs from private activity. It seems like opublic impact is only supported when the mighty ACLU is ready to sue, if anything negative is done to the mess makers. If the Catholics held a month long celebration in Times Square and left poop all over the place, I bet the city would send a bill to V.C., Italy. ANd the ACLU would not make a peep.

marcus says

Uhhh Bap,...they're no more scum than you are. With the exception of those that are in it just because they were homeless and on drugs anyway ( partyyy!).

There certainly are some scumbags in the OWS crowds, but they are an unrepresentative minority.

The Tea Party is composed of a single group of likeminded individuals. The Tea Party is the vocal, minority of extreme right evangelical Republicans. They all think alike, have the same culture, and the same political agendas.

In contrast, OWS is a loose conglomeration of groups with opposing political and social beliefs, but with one common thread: they are pissed off at big banks and big corporations rigging the system and destroying the middle class.

OWS is composed of many groups including left-thinking intellectuals; simpleminded hippies; lazy, pot smoking college students with no ambitions; hard-working, college students with lots of ambitions but no jobs and massive debt; anarchists who hate all authority; leftist protest groupies (the left equivalent of Jesus freaks); fed-up, moderate, middle class parents who are scared that they will be ejected from the middle class if they have one financial emergency.

So you see, talking about OWS as if it is one political ideology is basically flawed. It's a third-order collation based on a vague understanding that big business is causing many of the most severe problems faced by the middle class.