tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post4991941758057979406..comments2023-10-03T07:01:41.144-05:00Comments on Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans: Weekend Goal And Open ThreadAlways On Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-28528091319467312832015-06-16T08:02:29.797-05:002015-06-16T08:02:29.797-05:00ABORTED?
I don't think so. The word you were...ABORTED? <br /><br />I don't think so. The word you were looking for might be BETRAYED.<br /><br />But then it was UNIONS who truly betrayed and then destroyed the American working class, because they got too powerful, too greedy and too thuggish. They killed the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.<br /><br /> Business HAD to leave the American Field of Battle in order to survive.<br /><br />- Solomon Grundy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-16540258741035848422015-06-15T18:41:49.760-05:002015-06-15T18:41:49.760-05:00Oh, I'm well aware of the source [Frum, fair a...Oh, I'm well aware of the source [Frum, fair and balanced?]......I can't help it, I'm always entertained by irony.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-27519789092868139782015-06-15T18:11:21.398-05:002015-06-15T18:11:21.398-05:00CI: That article makes no pretense of being David...CI: That article makes no pretense of being David Frum fair and balanced.<br /><br />It's purpose is to shine a light on the leftwing rats and cockroached hiding in the shadows and perverting a legitimate rights issue to their own twisted agendas.<br /><br />Silverfiddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541652236676260219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-75991865723313822712015-06-15T15:29:59.802-05:002015-06-15T15:29:59.802-05:00It's an interesting article, though it wastes ...It's an interesting article, though it wastes no time in jumping to the left fringe.....while being seemingly ignorant of the right fringe. Both extreme positions engage in the same type of tactics....cals for criminalization of the opposition, social and market pressures, and a tone-deaf, one-sided rhetorical package of the 'true aims' the other side is allegedly in pursuit of.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-26259692625043208802015-06-15T15:22:25.580-05:002015-06-15T15:22:25.580-05:00SF,
Excellent article!
I have saved it to my comp...SF,<br />Excellent <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1" rel="nofollow">article</a>!<br /><br />I have saved it to my computer files -- and printed it as well. A lot to consider there, and I need to have a hard copy in hand so as to read the article more carefully as soon as I can find the time.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-77654788999837424992015-06-15T15:10:08.186-05:002015-06-15T15:10:08.186-05:00SF - I absolutely concur. There are those who are ...SF - I absolutely concur. There are those who <i>are</i> attempting to advance an agenda beyond just marriage equality; and I use marriage, because there is no trademark on the semantic definition. I simply don't possess the same deference for such, as my marriage is no less strong and secure if gays enter a contract of the same name.<br /><br />But, let's remember.....there is an enormous host of those who oppose this extension of civil liberty, based on no less an agenda. An agenda designed solely to maintain a special privilege, most often based on a religious faith. Attempting to legislate one's morality simply for it's own sake is no more noble trait than those on the other side.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-75255011146641772782015-06-15T15:08:14.161-05:002015-06-15T15:08:14.161-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-31238579201806755532015-06-15T13:29:56.506-05:002015-06-15T13:29:56.506-05:00" she can defeat anyone "
So that means..." she can defeat anyone "<br /><br />So that means that we have a preponderance of "useful idiots" in the electorate. For once I agree with you.JonBerghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01718776762194333398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-90575368337731195522015-06-15T13:21:37.932-05:002015-06-15T13:21:37.932-05:00Have more to post on this, but off to a meeting. ...Have more to post on this, but off to a meeting. I've long contended that for all the good death taxes do (nada, zippo!) they should have been abolished long ago. Leave what you want to whom you want. The government has no interest in it except greed. It doesn't break up the kingdoms of the uber-wealthy who hire buildings full of lawyers and attorneys to get around it. And it stops the only legit complaint homosexuals have about not being able to marry a friend of the same sex. As CI points out, this is an ultimate right to the fruits of your labor - to give it to anyone without penalty on anyone once you've paid your reasonable taxes. <br /><br />All the planning we did in the 90's is out the window now - and back to the drawing board cuz of bureaucratic meddlers. <br /><br />Prayers for Mr. AOW. Baysiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562129788572031587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-51985332608174790802015-06-15T13:18:36.552-05:002015-06-15T13:18:36.552-05:00CI: I understand and share your motives for defen...CI: I understand and share your motives for defending the rights of all to couple however they see fit.<br /><br />Like you, I see it as equality under the law completely divorced from any morality. I am a Christian so I believe gay marriage is wrong, but our state operates under the constitution, not the Bible.<br /><br />My main disagreement with you is that the state should not call it marriage.<br /><br />However, you cannot discount these arguments of those who disagree with you.<br /><br />Yes, there are sincere gay people who just want to be married and be left alone, but there is a whole parade of people who are using this cause to advance other agendas:<br /><br />http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1<br /><br />Yes, the article is from a conservative site, but the author provides links to liberal writers to substantiate his point of view.Silverfiddlehttp://westernhero.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-12482322127496111822015-06-15T06:47:34.548-05:002015-06-15T06:47:34.548-05:00CI,
There was a time that there was a death tax on...CI,<br />There was a time that there was a death tax on a deceased spouse's passing to the surviving spouse. This happened to my mother-in-law in 1979; there was also <b>no</b> exemption from death tax at that time -- that is, the first x-amount of dollars for exemption did not exist. Whether property was held in separate names or not, all of father-in-law's estate was subject to a tax of 55%.<br /><br />At the time of my father's passing in 1998 (Mom had predeceased him in 1987 and left him everything with zero death tax), the death-tax exemption for estates was the first $600,000. I don't know what the exemption figures are now.<br /><br />There is also the matter of Social Security benefits for surviving spouses. Yes, spouses plural. See the Social Security web site for further information on that topic. There is no reduction of benefits for each of the surviving spouses -- provided that the marriage survived 10 or 11 years before dissolution.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-40611517736200253212015-06-15T06:01:15.136-05:002015-06-15T06:01:15.136-05:00Aside from marriage already being a legal contract...Aside from marriage already being a legal contract, in the eyes of the State and the law......I understand that it's speculation, but I'm having trouble connecting your dots, as to how <i>expanding</i> the civil liberties and social privileges of marriage to homosexuals would bring about the disappearance of spousal protections and benefits.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-52990011563226192672015-06-15T05:52:13.052-05:002015-06-15T05:52:13.052-05:00CI,
What would said merit look like, and how would...CI,<br /><i>What would said merit look like, and how would you know? </i><br /><br />I don't <b>know</b> what it would look like. That's one of my points. <br /><br />But I'll speculate a bit:<br /><br />1. I think that all spouse/partner benefits for entitlements and retirements would disappear. In that case, many more wives who are mothers would have to work outside the home. Goodbye to the homeschool option then.<br /><br />2. No longer would a spouse be able to will the deceased's estate to the surviving spouse without the government exacting death taxes. In that case, more surviving spouses would end up on the government teat. This topic is on our minds here in the household because Mr. AOW has a sudden, acute problem which may well end in death in just a short time.<br /><br />3. The end of the marriage contract <i>per se</i>. All relationships would become legal contracts (business contracts). I don't know how such a change might affect the children of those who have entered into several contracts; children might feel unmoored and "act out."<br /><br />I will not disagree with you that there has been decline in the institution of marriage -- particularly since the 1960's. Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-71550116953474684532015-06-15T05:41:07.400-05:002015-06-15T05:41:07.400-05:00"If merit is seen at that point, then what?&q..."If merit is seen at that point, then what?"<br /><br />What would said merit look like, and how would you know? Heterosexuals have damaged the "institution" of marriage steadily for decades now......more so, I contend.....than gays could.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-84072170181780085502015-06-15T04:08:44.310-05:002015-06-15T04:08:44.310-05:00CI,
In order for contractual access and protection...CI,<br /><i>In order for contractual access and protections to be denied to an American citizen, there must be a substantial reason for doing so [the burden], or the prohibition has no merit. </i><br /><br />I contend that we'll find out if <i>the prohibition has no merit</i> once the prohibition is gone for a while. If merit is seen at that point, then what? Perhaps the nullification of all marriage contracts.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-14658442880048961322015-06-15T03:49:08.523-05:002015-06-15T03:49:08.523-05:00Baysider,
When you say soon enough, I'm not su...Baysider,<br />When you say <i>soon enough</i>, I'm not sure what you mean. <br /><br />Take this to an email discussion if you're willing to elaborate.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-67696788686432719512015-06-15T02:21:21.376-05:002015-06-15T02:21:21.376-05:00"Many people"? That number pales compare..."Many people"? That number pales compared to the number persecuted throughout even our modern history, for their sexual orientation. I stand firm that a citizen should have a right to his own labor, regardless of any factor of a prospective customer. But your premise connotes by it's framing, that gays have always to now, been "forced to approve" their own persecution. The small number of instances where a right to one's labor has been unfairly infringed does not statistically support the notion that a larger conspiracy is at play.<br /><br /><i>There is no reason to privilege these alignments as if they were.</i><br /><br />There is no reason not to. Liberty should be the default state.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-64794814633085678752015-06-14T22:51:58.452-05:002015-06-14T22:51:58.452-05:00Well Berg, look at it this way ... she can defeat...Well Berg, look at it this way ... she can defeat anyone currently riding in the right wing clown car so either field a sane candidate or swallow.Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-89671450680381183962015-06-14T20:23:37.425-05:002015-06-14T20:23:37.425-05:00"You, and like-minded citizens, are not requi..."You, and like-minded citizens, are not required to approve..."<br /><br />Oh, but we are - and that is <i>precisely the point</i>. Many people have lost their jobs or livelihoods over this issue. And since these 'victims' are by and large tolerant of others' behavior, that shows acceptance or tolerance isn't enough for a certain group. Much like the Catholic church in medieval England, they will make sure these people suffer and go out of business UNLESS THEY RECANT. Now THAT is FORCE. So is putting legal obstacles in the way of helping young people try to escape from the unhappiness of these relationships. Some don't want to. Others do, but aren't allowed. THAT is California law! And that is force. <br /><br />We fundamentally disagree on whether a homosexual union can be a 'marriage.' There is no reason to privilege these alignments as if they were. It’s not a majority-vs-minority issue. It’s apples vs. teacups. You won't agree. I understand that. But that's the crux of the argument, and likely one of many that are devolving from our shift from natural rights protected by government to “new” ones created/imposed by government. Baysiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562129788572031587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-45451228047618771002015-06-14T20:05:57.461-05:002015-06-14T20:05:57.461-05:00AOW, Pray to St Anthony, the Saint of lost article...AOW, Pray to St Anthony, the Saint of lost articles.Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05287399775879832602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-78983139946769841442015-06-14T19:57:18.772-05:002015-06-14T19:57:18.772-05:00You're welcome, AOW. Sooo sorry about the chec...You're welcome, AOW. Sooo sorry about the checkbook. We just went through that a month ago. We have several, so it didn't manifest itself soon enough. Best for your surgery Monday. Ugh!Baysiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562129788572031587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-59020150018414222032015-06-14T17:32:56.987-05:002015-06-14T17:32:56.987-05:00Redefining marriage seems like a strange step to m...<i>Redefining marriage seems like a strange step to me.</i><br /><br />But it doesn't to me. I understand that most people consider it differently than I do. Marriage is a solemn, religious rite for many.....but ultimately, under our legal system, it is a contract. Though marriage has, to present, been a contract restricted by opposite gender.....it has also been at various and lengthy periods.....a non-consensual and unequal contract. "Something <i>is</i>" doesn't necessarily equal "something <i>just</i>".<br /><br />In order for contractual access and protections to be denied to an American citizen, there must be a substantial reason for doing so [the burden], or the prohibition has no merit. This has been shown to be the case under varying levels of legal scrutiny.<br /><br />Likewise, I don't really have an issue with consensual polygamy. It's not for me [one wife is plenty, thank you], but it doesn't harm me, steal from me nor restrict my liberty.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-5361277720243705202015-06-14T17:21:18.999-05:002015-06-14T17:21:18.999-05:00CI,
Redefining marriage seems like a strange step ...CI,<br />Redefining marriage seems like a strange step to me. How many centuries has marriage been defined as a union between one man and one woman. In the West, I mean.<br /><br />What is your opinion of the legal recognition of bigamy and/or polygamy? Yes, I do think we are headed in that direction within the next few years.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-80445305698113153432015-06-14T17:11:09.483-05:002015-06-14T17:11:09.483-05:00AOW - I think that there is the element of force i...AOW - <i>I think that there is the element of force involved</i><br /><br />Not without being able to define the burden. Prohibiting same sex couples from enjoying the same legal, contractual protections and social privileges DID constitute force...because there was a burden.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-25767614441772056632015-06-14T17:06:46.098-05:002015-06-14T17:06:46.098-05:00Baysider,
Allow me to take this moment to thank yo...Baysider,<br />Allow me to take this moment to thank you for something else. You know what I mean, I'm sure.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.com