Well, so that Solar does not "derail" me, I should remind him that I addressed his post earlier here.   

Quote from: 9 on November 28, 2013, 12:27:23 PM
It changes the law, i.e., the social compact.

And how do you justify a law that regulates whom people can peacefully associate with in their private lives?

Quote
Indeed, the OT is part of God's word.  The NT, however, changes the covenant.  Again,  Christians do not enter into these kinds of oaths.  American Christians have never imposed their beliefs on other Americans.
I'm telling you gay marriage is a perversion of natural law,

What is "natural law" and where is your evidence that it conflicts with gay marriage?  I have the strangest feeling that this "natural law" is just a smokescreen for "my Christian beliefs", and you're just fooling yourself when you claim that "American Christians have never imposed their beliefs on other Americans".

That quote, by the way, is a blatant historical falsehood.  But I don't really feel like debating your side's past history.

QuoteOne of the pillars of republicanism is the public good.

How is the public good endangered by gay marriage, and how does the public good benefit from forbidding it?  I'm expecting an objective, tangible effect beyond some vague and evasive "natural law perversion" non-answer.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 12:55:09 PMAnd how do you justify a law that regulates whom people can peacefully associate with in their private lives?

Marriage laws don't regulate associations among gays.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 12:55:09 PMWhat is "natural law" and where is your evidence that it conflicts with gay marriage?  I have the strangest feeling that this "natural law" is just a smokescreen for "my Christian beliefs", and you're just fooling yourself when you claim that "American Christians have never imposed their beliefs on other Americans".

That quote, by the way, is a blatant historical falsehood.  But I don't really feel like debating your side's past history.

If you don't know these self-evident truths, these Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, then do you know enough about the American founding to debate American issues subsequent to it?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 12:55:09 PMHow is the public good endangered by gay marriage, and how does the public good benefit from forbidding it?  I'm expecting an objective, tangible effect beyond some vague and evasive "natural law perversion" non-answer.

Sorry, but the natural law is the answer.  The natural law is the basis of American republicanism.  Natural law, history, and the Scriptures are.

To make it easy, just think of the difference between republicanism and democracy as the difference between natural law and positive law, the former being derived from experience and reason and the latter being derived from arbitration.

Well Solar, when you come back I expect an answer.  Where do Obama's policies resemble Marxist ideals, or do you think "Marxism" is a convenient placeholder for "liberal policies"?

Quote from: 9 on November 28, 2013, 01:11:14 PM
Marriage laws don't regulate associations among gays.

They say gays cannot receive a marriage license.  On what grounds do you justify this prohibition beyond your own "common sense"?  What's your rational argument?

Quote
If you don't know these self-evident truths, these Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

Only people with no argument to provide handwave their position as "self evident".  I don't see anything "self evident" about forbidding gay marriage, and it seems to me that you can't actually come up with a logical justification for your personal prejudices. 

Quote
Sorry, but the natural law is the answer.  The natural law is the basis of American republicanism.  Natural law, history, and the Scriptures are.

So first you abuse the naturalistic fallacy again and fail to explain where in natural law you read "gay marriage is wrong".

Then you turn around and contradict your earlier insistence that Christians don't try to impose their beliefs on others, by pointing to the Scripture to justify a ban.  Just brilliant.

Quote
To make it easy, just think of the difference between republicanism and democracy as the difference between natural law and positive law, the former being derived from experience and reason and the latter being derived from arbitration.

Reason?  What reason?  I just asked you to name a single rational, objective manner in which gay marriage actually hurt anyone, and you came up short.  It's no more rational and forbidding interracial marriage or defending slavery as a part of "natural law"; indeed, that's exactly what their proponents argued!

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 01:20:26 PM
Well Solar, when you come back I expect an answer.  Where do Obama's policies resemble Marxist ideals, or do you think "Marxism" is a convenient placeholder for "liberal policies"?

They say gays cannot receive a marriage license.  On what grounds do you justify this prohibition beyond your own "common sense"?  What's your rational argument?

Only people with no argument to provide handwave their position as "self evident".  I don't see anything "self evident" about forbidding gay marriage, and it seems to me that you can't actually come up with a logical justification for your personal prejudices. 

So first you abuse the naturalistic fallacy again and fail to explain where in natural law you read "gay marriage is wrong".

Then you turn around and contradict your earlier insistence that Christians don't try to impose their beliefs on others, by pointing to the Scripture to justify a ban.  Just brilliant.

Reason?  What reason?  I just asked you to name a single rational, objective manner in which gay marriage actually hurt anyone, and you came up short.  It's no more rational and forbidding interracial marriage or defending slavery as a part of "natural law"; indeed, that's exactly what their proponents argued!

I'll start a thread on the Marxist connection to Hussein when I get time, but it's Thanks Giving dumb ass.
Also have you completely forgotten that Hussein used to be a member of the New party, or how the communist party endorsed the Fabian?

But what would you care, you align in many ways with the Marxists.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 01:49:40 PM
I'll start a thread on the Marxist connection to Hussein when I get time, but it's Thanks Giving dumb ass.
Also have you completely forgotten that Hussein used to be a member of the New party, or how the communist party endorsed the Fabian?

But what would you care, you align in many ways with the Marxists.

That wasn't my question.  My question was how any of Obama's policies are Marxist.  The affordable care act doesn't even introduce a single payer system.  Social welfare is actually discouraged by traditional Marxism.  And I don't think the communist regimes you love to point towards would agree with the Left over its disapproval of the Patriot Act and overseas military occupations. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 02:27:17 PM
That wasn't my question.  My question was how any of Obama's policies are Marxist.  The affordable care act doesn't even introduce a single payer system.  Social welfare is actually discouraged by traditional Marxism.  And I don't think the communist regimes you love to point towards would agree with the Left over its disapproval of the Patriot Act and overseas military occupations.

If you believe for a NY minute that the Kenyans policies are not Marxist you are either delusional, or simply a troll.  On numerous occasions Barry has made the point that were it not for the "other party" standing in his way, he could do so  much more... the fact that he does not have complete control would be enough to make me believe in God.  Your statement "the affordable care act doesn't even introduce a single payer system" is suppose to make us think he wouldn't institute that tomorrow if he could?...give me a fucking break!  About the only thing I want this Marxist ideologue involved with from now until December 2016 is pardoning turkeys and helping Michelle weed the garden.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 08:14:23 AM
There you go again, ignoring counterarguments in favor of just restating your contention like an automated voice messaging system.  You didn't even attempt to address any of my points.

You have no points, or "counter-argument." I don't debate ethical ghouls.

55 million future American taxpayers were willfully murdered by the same people wanting to bring in illegal aliens to fill their places.

How many blue state populations would equal that amount?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 02:27:17 PM
That wasn't my question.  My question was how any of Obama's policies are Marxist.  The affordable care act doesn't even introduce a single payer system.  Social welfare is actually discouraged by traditional Marxism.  And I don't think the communist regimes you love to point towards would agree with the Left over its disapproval of the Patriot Act and overseas military occupations.

To attain Marxist ideals, one needs to take incremental steps, to claim what he's doing isn't Marxist is either blind partisanship, or pure ignorance.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 03:04:07 PM
To attain Marxist ideals, one needs to take incremental steps

So, you're a new world order, Illuminati conspiracy theorist in all but name.  Your various fantasies about Obama and the Left are just as convoluted and ridiculous, you just haven't bothered to think of a catch-name beyond "Marxist" and "fabian socialist".

So we're back to the question of how this thread is not a massive strawman attacking an imaginary dragon that exists only in your delusional fantasies.  We're a center right nation; Obama is, at most, a center left politician.  There is no Order and there is no Grand Liberal Plan.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 03:21:24 PM
So, you're a new world order, Illuminati conspiracy theorist in all but name.  Your various fantasies about Obama and the Left are just as convoluted and ridiculous, you just haven't bothered to think of a catch-name beyond "Marxist" and "fabian socialist".

So we're back to the question of how this thread is not a massive strawman attacking an imaginary dragon that exists only in your delusional fantasies.  We're a center right nation; Obama is, at most, a center left politician.  There is no Order and there is no Grand Liberal Plan.

So are you saying he wasn't a member of the New party?
I say the Dim party lied.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 04:36:08 PM
So are you saying he wasn't a member of the New party?
I say the Dim party lied.

Your own graphic says precisely the opposite of what you're trying to put forth. 

Present your evidence, then.  Give records of Obama's secret socialist past, because every time I search for information on a site that is not labeled some variant of gobacktokenya.org I get the impression that your conspiracies are taken about as seriously as 911 truthers or JFK questioners.

Quote from: cjsgoodnykman49 on November 28, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
             the commanding principle behind the liberals wanting the money of those who have earned it is no more complex than this.....COVETOUSNESS.... as in "thou shalt not....COVET. "

Especially thy neighbor's ass.

Lets see. What is at the root of Marxism? The struggle between the workers and the owners.  Class warfare. Marx advocated a classless society as the only way the workers  could benefit from their labor, In a social and economic system such as ours the only way to achieve the classless society is through the transfer of wealth which is masked by entitlements. And even then there are limitations to what a president can do.

So is Obama a Marxist? Well we cannot say he is based on the definition because he governs in a worker/nonworker society. He is The President in a society built around class and so he is not a Marxist. Obama could never be a classical Marxist because classical Marxism was born in a European society.

But it is not that easy. Looking at his policies the argument can be made that he is in fact a Marxist at heart. The majority of his policies and initiatives are rooted in redistribution.  The stimulus, taxes, entitlement expansion and of course Obamacare. Obama has spent his entire presidency pitting the worker against the owner. The wealthy against the poor. He has during his few unscripted moments admitted his desire for a more classless society. "Spread the wealth around" "You didn't build that" and his NPR interview where he lamented the supreme court didn't go far enough in regards to redistribution.

However where Obama and like minded American Progressive/Marxist politicians differ from classical Marxism is they see the owner as a means to gaining, maintaining and expanding their power/control. In a pure Marxist state there would be no millionaire/billionaire to bankroll political campaigns.

So because the US has been such a powerful and stable country for so long we have maintained the same socioeconomic and political system for it's entire existence. Therefore it has been impossible for any president to change it en masse. In that regard Obama is not a classical Marxist.  However all of his words, most of his policies, his mentors, and his associates give him away as being  one but having to govern like one in a society he cannot abruptly change.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 28, 2013, 06:56:38 PM
The majority of his policies and initiatives are rooted in redistribution. 

There underlies the problem with your argument, or two specifically:

1. Your assumption that only Marxists espouse "wealth redistribution".
2. Your assumption that social welfare seeks create a permanently empowered worker class and depowered management, rather than Obama's explicitly stated goal to help people give educations to themselves and their prosperity to move up the social ladder, maybe even to become management themselves.

If Obama were a Marxist he would not be declaring a goal to send everyone to college, but rather advocating the disenfranchisement of college graduates.  There's an important distinction here.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 07:11:11 PM
There underlies the problem with your argument, or two specifically:

1. Your assumption that only Marxists espouse "wealth redistribution".

I have stated nowhere that redistribution exists only in Marxism.

Quote2. Your assumption that social welfare seeks create a permanently empowered worker class and depowered management, rather than Obama's explicitly stated goal to help people give educations to themselves and their prosperity to move up the social ladder, maybe even to become management themselves.

Wrong again on so many levels. There is no point in an occasionally empowered worker class and a depowered management class does not exist in classical Marxism because there is no management class.  "Management" class would be considered part of the worker class. The conflict resides between what Marx referred to as the nonworker (owner) and the worker (labor).

QuoteIf Obama were a Marxist he would not be declaring a goal to send everyone to college, but rather advocating the disenfranchisement of college graduates.  There's an important distinction here.

No there isn't. There would be if this was a discussion of classical Marxism however it is not. I have already explained how modern Marxists need the owner class. The educated class under modern version of Marxism in America become part of the owner/nonworker class and the state itself.