 jmatts78 says: This small article compares Fascism and Communism. Both terms are being used to describe the current government elected American government by our friends on the right, however neither of these terms actually apply in reality. Relatedly, have you seen this image? I love it!  Communism and Fascism: Both are totalitarian American Right is libertarian: Anti-totalitarian Fascism is a government focused, statist society American Right supports individual sovereignty and liberty. Fascsim/Soicialism have cultivated war-socialism, state control of media, and compulsory service to the state. American Right traditionally cultivates a resistance to meddle in the affairs of other nations. Fascism/Socialism pushes for nationalist or protectionist strategies. Libertarianism/Right pushes for free trade. Fascism/Socialist/Progressivism is a top to bottom system of power.( Federal>state>local>individual) Libertarianism is a bottom up system of power ( individual>local>state... I can see what you're getting at, but the thing of it is, the right wing hasn't been very libertarian at all for a very long time. If they were gay rights wouldn't even be an issue, they would already be seen as equal in all things, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That's just one example. If theyGay rights are not an issue. Every gay person has the same exact rights that I have as a straight person. There are no laws preventing gays from getting married. If there were, I would stand with you to change that. There are no laws preventing people from being gay. The marriage issue is different, though. Marriage is not founded on a sexual relationship. It is founded on the procreational cell. One man, One woman. That is marriage. Simple. Anything else is not marriage. It has absolutely ZERO to do with liberty. I can see what you're getting at, but the thing of it is, the right I can see what you're getting at, but the thing of it is, the right wing hasn't been very libertarian at all for a very long timeI think what you actually mean is the republican party hasn't been very right wing or libertarian lately. Their last peak was the Gingrich revolution, but it didn't take them long to continue the leftward slide towards big government leaving true conservatives with a choice between big government and really freakin' huge government. "Marriage is not founded on a sexual relationship. It is founded on the procreational cell. One man, One woman. That is marriage. Simple. Anything else is not marriage. It has absolutely ZERO to do with liberty." Just the fact that men and women who are infertile can still marry each other renders that argument null and void. And it has everything to do with liberty, because a true libertarian wouldn't see the problem with it. I think what you actually mean is the republican party hasn't been veryThere's that, but there's also that the right wing seems very intent on controlling other people's lives, going so far as to seek to deny people the same rights they take for granted while using the same government they claim they don't want interfering. If the right wing is about liberty then they're way the hell off the mark now. But really... The procreational cell has nothing to do with the physical limitations of the man-woman union. A libertarian wouldn't see a problem with what? I don't have a problem with homosexuals having a relationship. Marriage is not founded on a sexual relationship. It is one MAN and one WOMAN. Period. That is what it is. Your argument that a libertarian wouldn't have a problem with it is absurd. I don't have a problem with any 2 adults having whatever relationship they want to have. I support their ability to have whatever legal benefits married couples have as partners. In fact, I believe the government should have nothing period to do with marriages. I would just as soon support government not re... Marriage... is one MAN and one WOMAN. Period.No, it's not, and it never has been. There is no procreational cell for an infertile couple... they're infertile, meaning, as you know, that procreation can't take place. That turns it into a purely sexual relationship by the logic you've put forth. Nevermind that people also get married because they LOVE each other. But if you're going to support that two people can have the same rights as married couples why NOT just call it what it is, marriage. Because after that it's just semantics and THAT is just pussyfooting around. No, it's not, and it never has been.It has been as long as the United States has existed and before. Of course, while gays clamoring for the 'equal rights' of marriage, most only want the definition changed just enough to include themselves while not extending it to those whose lifestyle doesn't meet their approval. I'm still baffled as to why they want to fight the redefining marriage fight instead of going after some other type of contracted union that has no basis in religion and could be extended not only to homosexuals, but any two people with a long term relationship which involves cohabitation even if it is nonsexual and/or nonreligious. jmatts, you are just being ridiculous. Nevermind that people also get married because they LOVE each other.That is another lie. Marriage IS NOT contingent on love. See? You are just blathering. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. — Comment removed by clipper — Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was contingent, just one of the reasons people get married. And in this day and age it's the most important reason. jmatts, can you edit this clip and put in fascism as a tag for me please? (not sure i'll remember fantasy land...) Thx. Hey, didn't we used to be able to add our own tags when we saved another Clipper's clip to our folders? Am I remembering correctly? When did we lose that? There are zero constitutional grounds for the state to deny the privlege and benefits of same sex marriage. Regardless of anyone's sexual orientation, they have the same rights as all other Americans and cannot be treated as second-class citizens. Justification of discrimination on religious or traditional grounds is simply wrong. It has been as long as the United States has existed and before.First of all, the United States is neither eternal nor the center of the universe. That said, two men or two women may enter into a marriage in 5 states, as well as in several countries. Same-sex marriage was also practiced in the ancient world, including in Rome and parts of modern-day China. Polygamy, and to a lesser extent, polyandry, have been around for thousands and thousands of years. So, no, marriage is not just "one man and one woman"; and it never has been. — Comment removed by clipper — Willy's comment removed for being utterly without merit and dignity. And because I'm sick of his bullshit. Well, it was absolutely true. You removed it because it was a damn good comment. Nope. Excellent clip and your comments are right on target for the way the clip veered way off the whole meaning of the original meaning of the clip. How can people take the difference between two forms of government and turn it into something entirely different. Oh right, Willhelm put his 2cents in. n2sooners said:Because entering into "marriage" entitles the parties involved to 1,400 legal rights that are difficult if not impossible to ensure otherwise. These include
Just an insanely ridiculous level of thinking demonstrated. If anything, Lexica demonstrates the unrelenting illogic involved. Comparing A and B on the basis of C, then saying that because A=C, then that supports the idea that B=C. When the fact is that C has nothing whatsoever to do with A. This is the second time on one clip we have seen this atrocious level of logic applied. Quite silly. The same as with Dulios example, but with different errors, you can see how the argument can only be made by applying some level of deconstruction, but clearly no thinking was involved in the deconstruction of the concept of marriage, then the concept is replaced by a fallacious absurdity. Because entering into "marriage" entitles the parties involved to 1,400 legal rights that are difficult if not impossible to ensure otherwise.As could some other contract NOT called marriage which would meet with less resistance than redefining marriage. It is called tolerance. The Left typically is not tolerant and the Right typically is tolerant. The left is intolerant of the traditional roles of marriage and family, so there can be no compromise on the matters of law. Two alternatives have been proposed many times at clipmarks and we have seen conservatives on this clip express both 1. the idea that government recognize NO marriage because it is not the role of government and/or 2. that adjustments are made to the laws that recognize the relationships of same sex couples who want to have access to the benefits offered to married couples. n2sooners said:If you're talking about trying to ensure the same rights under this "don't call it marriage" contract you seem to support as under actual marriage, using the current US legal system and available resources, I refer you again to the list of 1,400 rights: Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for.If the only difference between your suggested "don't call it marriage" contract and marriage is the name, they're the same thing and having differen... And having different names is pointlessOh, I think there is a point to it Lexi, the point being it feels morally superior to some people. Separate is not equal. |
View the Top Clips from September 25, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
