Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, what don't you get? Robert nor I made the call for the vote to be a HUMAN RIGHTS (your wording) issue voted on by the public!! It doesn't matter what we think about how or why this human rights (your wording) vote was presented as it was. I'm not a member of the N.C. Legislature and neither is Robert, so why do you think we owe you an eplanation about how laws are enacted in our state?? I told you I thought equal rights depending on race should have been passed in the 60's. I suggest you go to Raleigh and have a sit down with the people that decided how and why this Amendment would be voted on in the manner it was. It's a done deal Arnold and grilling me about what I think about how a law should be enacted isn't going to change squat.

Now it is your turn to the defend the Republican party. This is the party that sanctioed authorization for an Amendment vote on the basic rights of gays to legally marry. Are you and Robert supporing their decision to bring this to a vote of the people in North Carolina? Was this the right way to proceed with a human rights issue?

And Bacon, I have emailed my State Representative and State Senator several times on the issue. They are Republicans. How many guesses do to need to guess if they returned a response on this question? They are so far up the Republican Party's ass they would need a GPS to find their way out, and then, that would still be doubtful.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

And Bacon, I have emailed my State Representative and State Senator several times on the issue. They are Republicans. How many guesses do to need to guess if they returned a response on this question? They are so far up the Republican Party's ass they would need a GPS to find their way out, and then, that would still be doubtful.

Up in an ass. Just the way I like it.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Now it is your turn to the defend the Republican party. This is the party that sanctioed authorization for an Amendment vote on the basic rights of gays to legally marry. Are you and Robert supporing their decision to bring this to a vote of the people in North Carolina? Was this the right way to proceed with a human rights issue?

There's nothing to defend. The Democrats didn't hold their seats in the last election, even though the state voted in a Dem Governor and Dem President and the Republicans took control of the legislature. Voting for civil unions by gays is not a human rights issue. Civil unions by gays is a state by state vote. After looking at the N.C. Supreme Court Justices, I don't think the outcome would have been any different.

After reading, I don't think this is a human rights issue:

1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship.

2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual.

3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.

4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right.

5. While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another.

6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country’s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.

Human rights...dont vary from country to country...how does that fit in with executing all the prisoners at Guantanamo...

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
There's nothing to defend. The Democrats didn't hold their seats in the last election, even though the state voted in a Dem Governor and Dem President and the Republicans took control of the legislature. Voting for civil unions by gays is not a human rights issue. Civil unions by gays is a state by state vote. After looking at the N.C. Supreme Court Justices, I don't think the outcome would have been any different.
After reading, I don't think this is a human rights issue:
1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship.
2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual.
3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.
4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right.
5. While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another.
6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country’s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.

The opportunity to fall in love with the person of your own free will and individual choice, and to have a committed relationship with that person by vestage of marriage is a human right. According to Thomas Jefferson, it fall in the category of inailenable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and he wrote "endowded by their creator" with these rights. So, how can it be possible that because they do not like homosexuals, a legislature in NC can deny them these rights. This is definitely a human rights issue. Do you feel that government has the authority to take away ones right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happines" which every free thinker knows just happened in NC and 30 other states? I thought you and other Republicans complained about government interferance in your private lives. Haven't you just allowed them to interfere into the lives of gay people's right to make their own decision of who to have a committed relationship with? You Republicans are unbelievable in your double standards and infringements into private lives....a thing that you preach against when it only involves you and your interest, but not when it is an infringgment on the rights of others, especially groups of people that you personally do not like. And no 'good' Christian Republican likes gay people. Unbelievable oppressors!

waco1954 wrote:

Human rights...dont vary from country to country...how does that fit in with executing all the prisoners at Guantanamo...

Oh well Waco, we do have to give Gitmo detainees a trial because there is a clause in the human rights that states it's against "summary execution without a trial". Looks like some Gitmo detainees are finally getting their "trial" and I hope after the verdict, if guilty, there is an execution quick, fast and in a hurry.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
The opportunity to fall in love with the person of your own free will and individual choice, and to have a committed relationship with that person by vestage of marriage is a human right. According to Thomas Jefferson, it fall in the category of inailenable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and he wrote "endowded by their creator" with these rights. So, how can it be possible that because they do not like homosexuals, a legislature in NC can deny them these rights. This is definitely a human rights issue. Do you feel that government has the authority to take away ones right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happines" which every free thinker knows just happened in NC and 30 other states? I thought you and other Republicans complained about government interferance in your private lives. Haven't you just allowed them to interfere into the lives of gay people's right to make their own decision of who to have a committed relationship with? You Republicans are unbelievable in your double standards and infringements into private lives....a thing that you preach against when it only involves you and your interest, but not when it is an infringgment on the rights of others, especially groups of people that you personally do not like. And no 'good' Christian Republican likes gay people. Unbelievable oppressors!

Arnold, I didn't allow anyone to interfere into the lives of gay people. You wouldn't be happy if the N.C. Supreme Court ruled against gay marriage, if the public voted against it or the SCOTUS voted against it. Who would you blame then? Me? The facts are; N.C. Legislature decided to allow a public vote (without asking you) and the PUBLIC voted, had the people that supposedly are "progressives" gotten out and voted we wouldn't be having this conversation. I stated before, Dems outnumber the Repubs and at the end of the day for whatever reason you care to throw out, the gay community and supporters didn't get the vote.

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, I didn't allow anyone to interfere into the lives of gay people. You wouldn't be happy if the N.C. Supreme Court ruled against gay marriage, if the public voted against it or the SCOTUS voted against it. Who would you blame then? Me? The facts are; N.C. Legislature decided to allow a public vote (without asking you) and the PUBLIC voted, had the people that supposedly are "progressives" gotten out and voted we wouldn't be having this conversation. I stated before, Dems outnumber the Repubs and at the end of the day for whatever reason you care to throw out, the gay community and supporters didn't get the vote.

You won't address Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence which is a fundamental value that the founding fathers agreed on, so how can I expect you to with so flimsy an argument to understand that a group of people are being denied. When the goverment comes and takes away your brother's rights,(which I hope they never do), don't go around screaming discrimination. You, and the other 'yes' voters have made your stand on Amendment One and have opened the door of possible further abuses.. Let's see if there is any backlash from unmarried parents on insurance coverage for the benefit of their children. Remember, an unmarried union is not recognized. You got sucked into to the Republican game for election purposes by saying to the voters..."See, we protected marriage". You are not a "liberty and justice for ALL" person. Remember that the next time you say the pledge as you denied a group of people their basic human right...to love and marry whomever they choose. Shame on you.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
You won't address Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence which is a fundamental value that the founding fathers agreed on, so how can I expect you to with so flimsy an argument to understand that a group of people are being denied. When the goverment comes and takes away your brother's rights,(which I hope they never do), don't go around screaming discrimination. You, and the other 'yes' voters have made your stand on Amendment One and have opened the door of possible further abuses.. Let's see if there is any backlash from unmarried parents on insurance coverage for the benefit of their children. Remember, an unmarried union is not recognized. You got sucked into to the Republican game for election purposes by saying to the voters..."See, we protected marriage". You are not a "liberty and justice for ALL" person. Remember that the next time you say the pledge as you denied a group of people their basic human right...to love and marry whomever they choose. Shame on you.

Arnold, since my last rant about my brother, I've come to the realization that he's been discriminated against his whole life because he's a child of a lesser god to most people. No shocker that he doesn't qualify for anything but the sad disability check he receives monthly and medicare. If both are taken away today, my family and I will take care of him and we now know never to depend on others. Tuesday, he had another stroke and flatlined again. Although I thought how unfair for a person as sweet and kind as my brother to be sick his whole life, and no one cares, that's life and some good will come from his life.

As far as unmarried couples go, my daughter has moved in with her finace because I think she's not sure he's that into "getting married". He keeps putting off the marriage and she's beginning to read the writing on the wall. She has the house in her name, all utilities etc and he's suppose to be paying half (yeah, right). Should she become pregnant (and there's definitely no plans, per her, for 5 years), she could put the child on her insurance and she makes enough money to provide for her child and herself. Of course, she would pursue child support, but that doesn't mean a parent wouldn't be a deadbeat parent. Again, I've told her, and she's seen firsthand with my brother, she better not count on anybody to take care of her or care about her except family.

I am sorry about your brother, and I really pray that his condition will improve. I have no problem with him receiving disability, if fact, I support it. You know your love for him is the same as my love is for my brother. I see him denied a right that only heterosexuals have. I feel that he should have the same right as everyone else....to have a marriage with the person he chooses to love. No one can convince me that being gay is NOT biological and genetic in nature. I have known him all of my life. His tendencies to be more feminine have always existed. He never had to make a decision on his sexuality at 12 or 13. He was born homosexual. I was born heterosexual. There shouldn't be any difference between my human rights and his. I married the girl I loved. He should be able to marry the man he loves. Just as you know there is discrimination against your brother, I see the discrimination in Amendment One against mine. As far as your daughter is concerned, I hope that she will realize that if this man is uncommitted now, he will be even more so in the future. My advice? Kick him to the curb, but then your daughter makes their own decisions, and has that right. I just know that some young ladies think "he will change" or "I will change him". Experience teaches that never happens. I hope she wakes up before it is too late, and, if they have a child out of wedlock, know that Amendment One will deny their child certain privliges. I hope it turns out for the best, but it is hard to wake up those who think they are in love with someone. We all just have to take our knocks from bad decsions. That's life.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
You won't address Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence which is a fundamental value that the founding fathers agreed on, so how can I expect you to with so flimsy an argument to understand that a group of people are being denied. When the goverment comes and takes away your brother's rights,(which I hope they never do), don't go around screaming discrimination. You, and the other 'yes' voters have made your stand on Amendment One and have opened the door of possible further abuses.. Let's see if there is any backlash from unmarried parents on insurance coverage for the benefit of their children. Remember, an unmarried union is not recognized. You got sucked into to the Republican game for election purposes by saying to the voters..."See, we protected marriage". You are not a "liberty and justice for ALL" person. Remember that the next time you say the pledge as you denied a group of people their basic human right...to love and marry whomever they choose. Shame on you.

One more thing, don't you shame on you to me. Shame on YOU!!! You compare a person born with physical disabilities that had no choice, to a person with a choice to "love and be with whomever they want"? And FYI Arnold, Tuesday while the vote was going on I was sitting in the ICU with my brother. For me, blood is thicker than water and that vote didn't matter squat to me, but being with my brother did. Lay off me and stop trying to compare apples to oranges, you only look transparent (like you care about his rights) and desperate trying to use someone with physical disabilities to make your point about two situations that have nothing in common.

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
One more thing, don't you shame on you to me. Shame on YOU!!! You compare a person born with physical disabilities that had no choice, to a person with a choice to "love and be with whomever they want"? And FYI Arnold, Tuesday while the vote was going on I was sitting in the ICU with my brother. For me, blood is thicker than water and that vote didn't matter squat to me, but being with my brother did. Lay off me and stop trying to compare apples to oranges, you only look transparent (like you care about his rights) and desperate trying to use someone with physical disabilities to make your point about two situations that have nothing in common.

And you must remember that it was the liberals Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson that cared enough about your brother to see that his needs would be taken care of. No conservative Repubican gave a squat about your brother's condition. They still don't today, and yet you support them. How ironically blind you must be. And besides, my brother never had a choice either. That is where your relgion has severely blinded you even more. You're typical in that you care about your own needs and those of your family, and not of the needs of anyone else. This, they call selfishness and self centeredness. No wonder you are a devout Republican. That makes complete sense to me.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
And you must remember that it was the liberals Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson that cared enough about your brother to see that his needs would be taken care of. No conservative Repubican gave a squat about your brother's condition. They still don't today, and yet you support them. How ironically blind you must be. And besides, my brother never had a choice either. That is where your relgion has severely blinded you even more. You're typical in that you care about your own needs and those of your family, and not of the needs of anyone else. This, they call selfishness and self centeredness. No wonder you are a devout Republican. That makes complete sense to me.

Arnold, you can call me blind, selfish, self centered whatever you want, but at the end of the day who is going to take care of my brother? You? It's called reality Arnold and the reality is there is no one but my family and me to take care of my brother. Show me how much you care and you get up every morning early, do blood pressure checks, prepare breakfast, clean house, make the minimum of 2 doctors' appointments a day, and have your back ache and bruises from lifting and moving around someone with limited mobility and then we'll talk. I said your brother had the choice to love someone and didn't state what gender. At least he can love, and live with the person he has chosen, my brother has never had that choice. To most people, he's damaged goods and who's going to sign on for someone with his condition? For my brother, just to have had a woman to love and to love him and to be able to go out on dates and share special moments has never been part of his life. Your brother may not be able to marry his partner, but at least he's been able to experience a relationship. Neither one of us have walked a mile in my brother's shoes (we'd probably fall if we did), but we have been able to love and be loved by more than just family members. If anyone needs to remove the blinders from their eyes, it's you. And BTW, my faith is the only thing that has kept me going and if I'm blinded by it, so be it.

So Bacon, you think that you are the only person in the world with a disabled family member? My middle grandaughter is severely autistic and I provided most of the care for her through her developmental years as she lived in my home. I know that was partially the stress that contributed to the divorce. I would care for her at school during the times I had a break, and would do a great majority of the care at home. She now lives with her father, and home care is provided for her while he is at work. Don't give me a sob story about being someone being cheated in life, that is a certain reality and some of us have that fate...we do what we have to do and hopefully we do it with love. Quit complaining. Stop the pity party. You are only a victim if you view yourself that way. Me? I am not a victim and neither is Lauren. She is loved and she knows it. So is your brother if you care for him without it being a chore or burden to your life. Lighten up. You should be grateful that you have him in your life and that you take care and responsibility for him.

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, you can call me blind, selfish, self centered whatever you want, but at the end of the day who is going to take care of my brother? You? It's called reality Arnold and the reality is there is no one but my family and me to take care of my brother. Show me how much you care and you get up every morning early, do blood pressure checks, prepare breakfast, clean house, make the minimum of 2 doctors' appointments a day, and have your back ache and bruises from lifting and moving around someone with limited mobility and then we'll talk. I said your brother had the choice to love someone and didn't state what gender. At least he can love, and live with the person he has chosen, my brother has never had that choice. To most people, he's damaged goods and who's going to sign on for someone with his condition? For my brother, just to have had a woman to love and to love him and to be able to go out on dates and share special moments has never been part of his life. Your brother may not be able to marry his partner, but at least he's been able to experience a relationship. Neither one of us have walked a mile in my brother's shoes (we'd probably fall if we did), but we have been able to love and be loved by more than just family members. If anyone needs to remove the blinders from their eyes, it's you. And BTW, my faith is the only thing that has kept me going and if I'm blinded by it, so be it.

A true God would know the complexity of human nature and just how many variances it can take. These religions could not understand this. im sure that anyone would do the things you do for their loved ones, if necessary, quit using that in your arguments.

felinegrace wrote:

BTW "The Truth" Here is a little bit of truth for you to digest. Also, most sodomy laws included oral sex.
Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex[citation needed], many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.
Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual mores led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining fourteen states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

So Cat-Woman,

You support the breaking of laws?

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

Robert, I knew that you would not directly answer the question about putting Civil rights of minorites to a vote in the 1960's. You know that it would have been soundly defeated and a great injustice would have been committed. Just as today, the rights of gays cannot be determined by a popular vote. A great injustice was perpetuated on this group by Amendment One. It will eventually be repealed, and generations to come will look back and say, "It still looks like prejudice and hate was still running rampant in 2012." You can't be for freedom and justice when you deny any group the full right of privlidges. It is just a lip service to all Amendment One 'yes' voters. Do you have any homosexuals in your family? My brother and his partner of 20 years exhibit more love for each other than any heterosexual couple that I know? Is that love wrong, and should they be denied marriage in the name of that love? I don't expect an answer because you really can't put up a solid defense against it, but I will give you the opportunity to try. Please remember in your response that The Constitution is the basis of government in this nation, and Not the Bible.

Arnie,

You are the pot calling the kettle black.(Excuse me...the angry pot.)

Why have you not answered my question to you about unconditional love?

TSF wrote:

I don't know if you are dishonest or just stupid. Derivatives are packages of shakey to worthless loans sold as commodities and designed to lose money so insurance (hedge) against losses can be collected. So all the banks accept bailouts so that the ones which were dragging down the others like Morgan could pay their debt with OUR TAX MONEY. So then Morgan pays us back with our own money? Wake up ! Its a scam. We are being shock tested to see if we are stupid enough to fall for the trick again.
<quoted text>

Sadly, this appears to be true. It is all a game to them. Funny how Obama, "champion of the little guy" is doing NOTHING to stop it.

TSF wrote:

Derivatives Parallel: Buy a cheap old termite infested house, paint it inside and out , make it look good, take pictures, insure it for many times its value, it gets hit with Jewish lightning, collect the insurance, make a pile of money.
Bad loans are the old house, derivatives are the paint and pictures, Taxpayers are the insurance company, banks make a pile of money and give their execs bonuses. Banks get the gold mine, taxpayers get the shaft. Republican cockroaches in congress insist that we do not need regulations.

What is "Jewish lightning"?