CatAdjuster.org Forum Archives
 All Forums
 Community
 Community Center
 A ELECTION POLL
 Forum Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

khromas

USA
103 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2004 :  11:09:44  Show Profile
(Sorry about that - must have hit the wrong button on my keyboard!) ... the court interpreted the law to be that of EQUAL PROTECTIONS afforded to same-sex partners. There can be no arguement that the state of marriage in this country provides tangible benefits across a wide spectrum of categories. Social Security survivor benefits, family health plans, intestate provisions regarding property passage, etc.,etc. When 2 people agree to enter into a legal state of marriage, they should be allowed all of the benefits as well as the responsibities the law provides. In the event of a divorce, same-sex marriages will be required to follow the guidelines of the state just like any other marriage.

As to my statement regarding the infringement upon other people's lives, tell me where - UNDER THE LAW - you have a right to go to DisneyWorld to the mutual exclusion of a homosexual or lesbian? The infringement I spoke of was that of physical endangerment which may come about by a lifechoice.

Goose makes a good point in his simple statement "The majority is not always right". I don't remember who said it but the quote "Beware the tyranny of the majority vote!" is very appropriate for issues like this one that raise the level of debate to often hysterical heights.

I do think that the very act of debate is good. It forces us as people to look inward and ask ourselves what is important to us, what is worth taking a stand on. We need to do that more often if we wish to grow.

Take care and hug those children often!

(PS: I got out of politics after getting a few death threats! Hope your experiences were more positive!)

Kevin Hromas
Go to Top of Page

KileAnderson

USA
875 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2004 :  16:28:44  Show Profile
Goose is right. Our founding fathers believed that a pure democracy would simply devolve to mob rule. At the time they realized that most of their countrymen were illiterate and poorly educated and in many if not most cases the only way news of the world was spread was through word of mouth.

I believe that it was for these reasons that the framers of the constitution set up our government as a representative republic and included such peculiar rules, like the Electoral College. Today the vast majority of the population is literate and for the most part well informed. We all filter the information we get through our own preconcieved notions but the information is available to us. Perhaps it is time we make some changes to our constitution. I don't think we should tinker with it too much. Direct democracy can be a little unweildy at times. Just try to immagine if we all had to vote on everything. We wouldn't have time to get anything done. That is why we elect people to represent us.

Since Jim Lakes brought it up I will also weigh in on the same sex marriage issue. Just for the record I also vote Republican most of the time, but I don't think I could be classified as a hardline rightwinger. I'm pro-choice, anti-gun control. I think the drug war is an insane idea and we should stop wasting money and ruining lives by putting petty drug criminals in jail for hurting no one but themselves. I think prostitution should be legal, why is it against the law to charge for what you can legally give away for free? I'm pro-big business but I also believe we should be good stewards of our environment and that small businesses and family farms are essential to our country. I believe we should enforce our immigration laws and tighten up our borders. I believe we should be strong on defense and I don't give a damn what the French and the Germans say. I'm an extreme fiscal conservative and I don't think we should give away free money in the form of welfare. I strongly believe in work-fare. If we are going to give money away to people who don't have jobs, at least make them pick up some trash or sweep the sidewalk. We should all give to charities that we think are worthy and should not be forced under penalty of imprisonment to give more than 10% of our earnings to the government. If God only wants 10% that should be good enough for congress.

Now, with all of that said. I think any single human being who falls in love with another single human being should be allowed to go into a courthouse and register that private partnership with the state and receive the corresponding tax and survivorship benefits. Call it marriage, call it civil union, call it Gay-a-palooza, I don't care. What harm does it do to me if a couple of guys or ladies want to live together as husband and husband or wife and wife? If it makes them happy it does no harm to society and if there is one thing this world needs it is more happy people.
Go to Top of Page

Jim Lakes

USA
37 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2004 :  16:59:49  Show Profile
Goose,
I am really going to shock you. I agree with everything you said.
However, letís take a look at what you said.
The slavery issue was as cruel as Sadamm Husseinís reign in that he suppressed the people, treated them inhumane and murdered them.
Like you said though, we changed that and I agree that we have a long way to go, HOWEVER, how did we change it. The people of the land voted to change it by a constitutional amendment. In other words they did exactly as I am saying. The majority of people saw that this was an injustice and made it right by voting on it. Some judge who answers to no one did not make that decision for us.
I know that it took a civil war to make it happen, but the ultimate issue was decided by the vote of the people. After the war a constitutional amendment was voted on and ratified by the states. The PEOPLE. This is the way it was designed to be. And I might add, the right decision was made.
I also agree that each branch of the government is separate, as it was designed to be, however my point throughout this thread is that the process is being circumvented by judges who are making laws instead of interpreting them on their own, without the voice of the people being heard. They are dictating laws with no one being able to question them, (checks and balances.) Just like the judge in AL whereby he put up the Ten Commandments and was ordered to remove them and lost his judgeship by the Supreme Court. Yet the Supreme Court has on its entrance a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Is that right?
There is issue after issue just like this that I believe the people of the land have the right to decide. This is exactly why I said that we should be more aware of who is in congress than who the president is. They are supposed to be our checks and balances and it is not happening. And as you stated, and I agree, it doesnít matter which side of the isle you may sit. Both sides are no longer looking out for our interest. Once they are elected many of them are looking out for only one person, THEMSELVES.
Please donít misinterpret what I am trying to say here. It is not the individual issue as much as it is the process that I feel is being circumvented.
Thanks,
Jim Lakes

Go to Top of Page

KileAnderson

USA
875 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2004 :  20:29:21  Show Profile
Jim, I understand what you were saying and I in no way am attacking you. I agree that the judiciary of our land has become entirely to active and is way to eager to legislate from the bench. Their job is not to make law but to interpret the laws that are made. We are also in desperate need of tort reform. A perfect storm of liberal judges, conscienceless attorneys and ignorant juries is destroying our country. Nothing short of comprehensive tort reform and loser pays rules will fix it.

As an aside, if all the Democrats can come up with against Bush is his National Guard record his re-election bid will be a cake walk. As anyone who has ever served in the Guard or reserves knows it is perfectly normal to miss monthly training drills when you have personal conflicts. You just make them up later. If anyone in the liberal news media had ever served his or her country they would know this. Apparently veterans are not well represented in amongst journalists.
Go to Top of Page

Jim Lakes

USA
37 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2004 :  22:18:16  Show Profile
Kile,
Thank you. And I never thought anyone was attacking me. As I posted earlier I would hope that we are all adult enough to discuss, not sling mud. I did that to many years ago to remember.
I even called the "Old Left Wing Liberal, The Baldheaded Great One," Jim Flynt to ask him if he understood what I was trying to say.
I am glad that you understand that I am not trying to discuss the issues but how the process is working.
I feel that the last 20 years or so the courts have become more and more law makers than what they were appointed to be. And this includes both conservative and liberal.
As far as your second paragraph is concerned I will only give you a site to go to that shows some facts about what I found on the net. If you are a big John Kerry supporter, don't go there, that includes you Jim Flynt, you will only get mad. If anyone has any facts to refute this site I would be happy to look at it also. There has been many times that someone sent me a site that was purported to be fact and my old buddy would show me a site that proved it wrong. But here this one is and I remember most of all of this one.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Iím not going to post any more on politics because it is way to volatle and I would much rather discuss insurance coverageís any way.

Jim Lakes
Go to Top of Page

C Bond

32 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2004 :  23:08:01  Show Profile
Here! Here! For the loser pays rules. But how would little ol' consumer with a legitimate case hope to win a case against a battalion of lawyers and endless money that big business can throw at a case. There would have to be some kind of determination as to the validity of a suit prior to trial. Oh Wait, Isnít that what they call a "Palimonary Hearing", and isn't that were the presiding judge determines if the case shows merit worthy enough to proceed to trial. So the question follows as to why are our Judges continuing to hear cases, which are ludicrous at best. There's only one answer. Our judicial system has evolved into constitutionally protected big business. No longer does this branch serve solely as a check and balance, but instead has become a haven for those that would use it maliciously for personal gain. Perhaps those posters, which are better versed in law, could shed some light on the feasibility of the ďLoser Pays RulesĒ. I hold no law degree and have only tried to apply common sense, but that doest seem to go far in a court of Law. Doesnít Europe use these rules now?

Previous posts have approached the relationship between our judiciary system and cultural morals. In a country with the cultural diversity such as ours, it is impossible to provide for a one size fits all system. Our man made law, by its very nature, will never be capable of administering justice as defined by ANY divine being. The law of the land is of men, not God and thus will be imperfect. Perhaps the architects of our constitution recognized this limitation, and provided, in part, for the separation of church and state, to prevent confusion of perfect and imperfect law. I retch at what I see taking place in our legal system because I can see where it will lead; however, I donít believe it is humanly possible to stop this progression. Greed will prevent it.

If you will notice, I have intentionally tried to remain anonymous as to my personal religious beliefs. The incident in AL comes as no surprise to those that keep a watchful eye. As the world shrinks, each of us will be unable to shield ourselves from the degradation that will progressively grow. All we can do is recognize the changing tide for what it is and try to be IN the world without being OF the world.
Go to Top of Page

Ghostbuster

476 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2004 :  23:11:29  Show Profile
Personal memo to Kile.

It is considered unlawful to be a curmudgeon until one has in ones possesion a valid membership card in AARP and the NRA. One must also be attired in plaid, polyester, bell bottom slacks and a mismatched plaid shirt. A wide white belt and shoes to match are also derigure. Only then is it permissible to rant and rave on all matters of politics, religion, morality, how it was in the 'good ol' days', and how badly you are nagged on the domestic front.

Membership in this particular society is open to everyone except for self centered, egotistical boobs named Rush Limbaugh.
Go to Top of Page

KileAnderson

USA
875 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2004 :  08:43:41  Show Profile
Cbond, most countries in the civilized world, including most of Europe use the loser pays rule. Among tort lawyers it is derisively known as the "English Rule". I think England is pretty civilized and don't believe that English consumers are being victimized by "evil" big corporations.

Ghost, As far as the above mentioned membership requirements, I have my NRA membership card but I can't find a white belt here in Paducah, I found a leather one with my name on it, will that do?

Edited by - KileAnderson on 02/12/2004 08:45:12
Go to Top of Page

Ghostbuster

476 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2004 :  08:52:37  Show Profile
Memo to Kile.

Welcome, valued member!

Go to Top of Page

khromas

USA
103 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2004 :  12:02:52  Show Profile
It is interesting to see how what TomS started as a simple poll turned into 'The Great Debate' on a variety of social issues. Just goes to show what happens when you give a bunch of strong-willed, independent-minded 'curmudgeons' too much time on their hands and a computer modem!

Ahh... for a good storm season to keep us out of trouble here! (But don't we feel guilty hoping for that?)

Kevin Hromas
Go to Top of Page

C Bond

32 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2004 :  08:27:57  Show Profile
Kile, I wasn't trying to paint corp.america with an "evil" brush but was instead trying to illustrate how some individuals may decide not to proceed with litigation when all they can bring to the fight is a few thousand dollars a one attorney. How do the English Rule provide for the underdog that has a legit case but can't properly stand up for themselves?
Go to Top of Page

KileAnderson

USA
875 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2004 :  09:08:15  Show Profile
That's exactly the point. If you bring a suit, you better be damn sure you have a rock solid case. It better be more than "your coffee is too hot". The problem is our litigious society costs all of us tons of money and it actually takes away our freedom. I can't get my coffee as hot as it used to be at the drive through because of some clumsy old lady. Now when I get to the office my coffee is cold. Ladders are more expensive because people do stupid things on them and hurt themselves and then sue the company that made the ladder just because the ladder functioned as designed. Personal responsibility no longer exists and our country is worse off for it.
Go to Top of Page

olderthendirt

USA
370 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2004 :  10:47:14  Show Profile
What happens is that lawyers actually look at the case before suing everyone and their grandmothers. Is it likely that someone who has a real case will get missed, but now we all pay big dollars for stupid lawsuits. Maybe the poor trial lawyers might loss a few of their 40 to 50% cuts, but I can live with that. I also under stand that in Canada most trials do not have a jury. Can you imagine a judge giving someone 1.6 billion in damages. Complex trials in front of a jury mostly are not about the facts but about the personalities of the lawyers.
Go to Top of Page

Jim Lakes

USA
37 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2004 :  17:51:33  Show Profile
Hey People,
This is also a good discussion and I agree with most of what is being said. Funny, that was some of the exact points that I was trying to put across at the begining that I couldn't get anyone to understand. OUR COURT SYSTEM IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. If anyone doesn't think that it has not changed in the last 20 years they have got their head in the sand.
And Kevin, I don't think any of us are getting into trouble. This is friendly discussion on a very important issue. As long as we are talking about it that means that we are interested in it, unlike the majority of people. Ha Ha. There is not a thing wrong with good debate as long as it stays civil.
Have a Great Valentines Day.
Jim Lakes

Go to Top of Page

Steve H

Switzerland
30 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2004 :  23:43:19  Show Profile
There is much too much confusion between choice and freedom to even say we are individually for one candidate over another. They come to the fore via some back room selection method and we are left to freely choose between tweedle dee and dum. But that's what we have settled for because we've been slaving away at jobs and raising kids; too busy to board a bus to Washington every time something comes up. The same Door Number Three guy picks the judges. Is it any better behind the maple leaf?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 Forum Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
CatAdjuster.org Forum Archives © 2000-04 CatAdjuster.org - Adjuster to Adjuster Go To Top Of Page
From CADO to you in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000