AND ... the blatant, repeated and egregious violations of the rules continue.... and without consequence I might add.
And since this liberal from Wisconsin have violated both of Bill's rules of no politics and no regilious posts; I will respond with a response which contains both a political and religious content. Let's see how I am treated; which might restore my faith in Bill after all. First of all, various views should be tolerated if it does not violate the fundamentals on which this country was founded on. Let me zero in of one particular fundamental right - that of Private Property. As long as the debate does not center on violating this fundamental right, then it should be tolerated. But when the debate centers and calls for the violation of a fundamental right - the confiscation of your income - a violation of Private Property rights; then it should not be tolerated. By the same token that my religion must not be imposed on a godless liberal, his desire to steal my income via income redistribution should not be imposed on me. Both are fundamental rights. Liberals like to point out that Christians should not impose their religious views on them, but they turn around and violate our fundamental rights by stealing from us hard earned income for redistribution. We can debate any and tolerate anything as long as the sacrosanct rights are not negotiable. Everyone can agree on that. The moment the debate centers on violation of fundamental rights, it is no longer your right to do so. That is not what FREEDOM means. That is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But nowadays, our criminal-in-thief simply treats that fundamental law as toilet paper and libtards from Wisconsin rejoice over it. On the issue of gay marriage ... by redefining what "marriage" means, aren't you forcing your belief on me? Marriage is an Institution established by God. The authority of marriage by virtue of its origins and basis of authority is religious in nature. Marriage can only be defined within the context of religion. If two homos would like to cavort and slime all day long, they are free to do so; just don't call it "Marriage" as that cavorting can not derive its authority from God. Call it something else. Don't impose your definition of what you think it should be on me, as you are violating the same right of mine, of which you are complaining I am violating. On the same token, gays should not impose their personal belief on our impressionable young children in public schools. Gay, lesbian and bisexual are NOT the 3rd, 4th and 5th gender. There are 2 genders, male and female. NOT male, female, gay, lesbian and bisexual. Why are gays imposing their belief on us who believe otherwise. Schools would actually ask this question on their tests in public schools. "What are the 5 genders?". And if a student answers male and female, his answer is marked incorrect. Isn't that imposing your belief on us who belive otherwise. For why should a Christian child suffer the consequence of an incorect answer on his test for his belief? It's one thing to ask this question and mark both answers as correct; compared to marking "male and female" as incorrect while marking "male, female, gay, lesbian and bisexual" as correct. If you do not see the injustice here, you are blind. Though you are right on one thing. New "rights" will be first tolerated, then celebrated, then legalized and then imposed; as America continue its "Slouching towards Gommorah". No wonder God's hand of judgement is heavy on this nation. The re-election of a criminal is part of God's judgement on America as this criminal continues to ravage this nation until we are all slaves to commies and godless moon god worshippers. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:53 PM Subject: [Vo]:OT (but not entirely): The Evolution of Politics forces the redrawing of our Personal Boundaries As we make our way to the voting polls, and as we ponder the future of CF/LENR technology... first a brief word from a member of the Vort Collective <A Personal Essay> I suspect the impression many of us have these days is that we have become a nation entrapped by sharply divided opinions. It's easy to forget the fact that throughout our country's history we have had to weather through a diverse number of sharply divided political agendas. Aggravating matters, every four years presidential elections tend to add a dramatic flair to the entire situation. Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to say that we are a nation possessed with many diverse opinions trying to learn how to better tolerate the diversities of others for which we don't necessarily approve of. Throughout our nation's history there have been controversial issues that the population became polarized over. For example we fought a bloody civil war that nearly ripped us apart over the slavery issue. Later, we fought political battles that eventually gave women the right to vote. And then there was that damned temperance movement. In hindsight, we often seem to scratch our heads and wonder why certain issues, such as granting half of the adult population, the right to vote was considered such a terrify issue - at the time, that is. As we proceed head-first into the second decade of the 21st century it would appear that we are now gearing up to eventually give individuals who are of a different sexual orientation (gays and lesbians) the same legal and contractual rights that heterosexuals have always enjoyed. What's delaying the process? A number conservative organizations are pulling out all the stops to promote a belief that "marriage" must remain defined as practiced between a man and a woman. Many of them believe that marriage if practiced in any other permutation would not only be an immoral act; but to redefine the institution would be detrimental to the very moral fiber of the nation. An example of a conservative religious organization that disapproves of one particular public official with an openly gay life-style, Wisconsin representative, Tammy Baldwin, a lesbian U.S. house member, who is currently running against former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thomson for a U. S. Wisconsin senate seat, is the religious organization called: Pilgrims Covenant Church: http://www.pccmonroe.org/Homosexuality/tammybaldwin.htm IMO, the adherents of beliefs such as those expressed by Pilgrims Covenant Church will eventually lose the battle to prevent same-sex marriage from being legalized. They will lose for the same reasons as those who fought to uphold slavery, or to prevent women the right to vote, or to stop troubled individuals who needed our help from getting stinking-rotten drunk, lost similar battles. They will eventually lose because a majority of the voting population will realize the simple fact that what many believe must remain enshrined and sacredly protected, for better or for worse, ends up infringing on the personal rights of those they disapprove of. The blatant hypocrisy that ensues eventually becomes evident - perhaps because as a nation we were born from the sons and daughters of immigrants. I think we cannot help but sympathize with the underdog - their plight. Eventually we take action and correct such injustices. In the current same-sex marriage struggle I don't think it's so much about fighting against a certain group's desire to acquire the same personal rights that heterosexuals enjoy. It has instead become a desperate need for certain individuals (of a conservative persuasion) to defend a contrived definition of where their own personal boundaries reside. Conservative organizations have successfully inculcated into their membership the definition of a particular belief as if it had been introduced into the host in the form of a seemingly benign virus. That "virus" has managed to attach itself to the personal boundaries of many individuals. The result of such an "attachment" means they must now defend and protect what they perceive to be a threat to their personal boundaries - a belief that marriage should only be practiced between a man and a woman. This was done, I suspect, because many conservative organizations realized the fact that it wouldn't be all that effective to try to rally a conservative oriented membership around a belief that gays and lesbians shouldn't simply be prevented from acquiring the same rights that they have always enjoyed. The point being: how does allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry each other affect their own personal rights or well-being. The truth trying to be obscured here is the simple fact that it doesn't! Therefore, in order to obscure the actual truth a new and much more personally felt danger had to be manufactured: The need to protect the sanctity of one's own personal boundaries. That personal boundary must include marriage as defined between a man and a woman. When you think of it, it turns out to be a pretty ingenious way of keeping the "flock" in line, particularly when it comes time to shepherd them into the voting booths. Eventually however, the majority of the population begins to catch wind. They begin to perceive all the manipulation and hypocrisy being played out. Eventually, new rights will be voted into existence because the majority of the population will realize the fact that the perceived personal boundary needs expressed by a certain group of conservative individuals ends up needlessly trampling over the rights of another group of individuals. Granted, such a simple realization may take a decade. or two. or three, to set foot. But eventually we'll work out the fiddle-de-bits. And what will the consequences be when the nation eventually allows cats and dogs to live together - legally that is? We become a much stronger and more resilient nation through increased diversity and tolerance for all of its citizens. Of course, the Vort Collective is not an appropriate place in which to debate the pros and cons of same-sex marriage. I nevertheless brought up the on-going battle over same-sex marriage primarily to explore what I perceive to be an obscure observation - that the continued redefinition of personal rights cannot effectively evolve without the continued redefinition of our personal boundaries. Both go hand-in-hand. </A Personal Essay> And now, with that "message from our sponsor" out of the way, I suspect the Vort Collective is far more interested in debating which presidential candidate is more likely to help facilitate CF/LENR technology. I personally don't think it will matter who wins the prize even though I suspect it's obvious to most Vorts whom I'm likely to vote for. But to be clear on this point, I won't be voting for that individual because I think he would better facilitate the introduction of CF/LENR technology. I get the impression that that CF/LENR technology, which at present remains commercially unproven, is more likely to be guided by mysterious and unpredictable emergent economic behavior. It will be dictated by the rules of collective economic forces influenced by the independent self-serving actions of millions and billions of individuals and the companies they either run or work for. I suspect there will be very little any particular administration, either pro or con, can do other than rubberstamp a couple of policy changes here and there in futile ceremonial attempts to give the impression that they are guiding an impending avalanche. In the meantime get out and perform your civic duty. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
