WE Blog

EU DESPERATE TO PREVENT INDUSTRIES FROM RELOCATING

With global negotiations for an international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol “hardly progressing”, the EU is keen to assuage industry concerns about rising emissions costs and prevent plant delocalisation, the Commission said on 15 May.

Background:

On 23 January, the Commission proposed a ‘package’ of legislative proposals designed to reduce EU CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020. That figure will be upped to 30% if an international deal on reducing global CO2 emissions can be reached – a condition that was endorsed by EU heads of state during a landmark summit in March 2007.

There is “little if any chance” for the EU to reduce CO2 emissions by 30% by 2020 unless a solution to the “problematique” of energy intensive industries is found, according to Mogens Peter Carl, director-general of the Commission’s environment service.

While international negotiations received a “boost of vitamins” during a major conference in Bali in December 2007, the talks are “hardly progressing at an impressive speed,” Peter Carl said on Thursday (15 May) during an official hearing on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

Moving out

EU energy intensive industries are warning that they would be forced to move operations outside the EU if global talks fail, as industries operating in countries with fewer restrictions on CO2 emissions would have an unfair advantage particularly over EU chemicals, aluminium and steel manufacturers. Plant delocalisation would lead to a situation of ‘carbon leakage’, whereby EU CO2 emission would not be reduced through cleaner production methods but rather ‘leaked’ outside the EU’s borders.

A proposal to revise and strengthen the EU ETS for the period after 2012, a main part of the 23 January package, is at the heart of the concerns over carbon leakage. The Commission is pushing for a full auctioning of emissions rights following a gradual phasing-out of free allowances. Exceptions to the phase-out, or a border tax on outside competitors, could be agreed as a means to protect select EU sectors. But the Commission has yet to define precisely what kind of mechanism it would implement, and there are disagreements over the precise definition of ‘energy intensive’. EU industry groups like BusinessEurope say the situation creates uncertainty and discourages investors.

The leakage debate

Meanwhile, environmental groups and a number of green MEPs in the Parliament say industry concerns are being overstated, and are pushing for a full auctioning of CO2 allowances in order to encourage investments in clean technologies.

And not all experts agree in principle that a tighter EU carbon market would necessarily push industries to relocate. “Environmental policies are only one determinant of plant and production location decisions. Costs imposed by tighter pollution regulation are not a major determinant of trade and location patterns, even for those sectors most likely to be affected by such regulation,” according to the 2006 Stern Report on climate change.

The Commission, however, is convinced the problem is real, and says it is “patently absurd” to suggest that Brussels wants to force a relocation of EU industries and jobs, Peter Carl said. But industries remain sceptical and critical, despite the Commission’s stated support.

“Carbon leakage is already happening,” says Daniel Cloquet, director of Industrial Affairs at BusinessEurope. As EU energy prices rise, the bloc is becoming increasingly less competitive for manufacturers of products like chemicals and aluminium, many of whom are facing stiff competition from firms operating in countries like Saudi Arabia, where access to cheap energy is abundant.

In this context, a tightened EU ETS with mandatory auctioning will make staying competitive much more difficult, he said.

Lewis Black on the Old Testament…. if you are easily offended do not click on the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g&NR=1

“Obama, his party’s presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about an online video last week by the state’s GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.”

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”

Ha…good luck with that. What a naive statement, but then again what should we expect out of someone with so little experience.
If Michelle Obama says away from the political microphone and taking part in his political campaign then fine, that’s a fair and reasonable request.
When she starts pontificating on his behalf in politics, as she is doing, and criticizing others, then she if fair game just like any other politician or campaign worker because that’s what she is.

Are they bringing back the ol’ Unpatriotic smears?

Stuck with voting for a Democrat this year?

Here’s your sign

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/mccain08.jpg

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

———————

I wonder which Obama is going to take away first? Your SUV, your food, or your thermostat?

Sounds like the government will be coming to run your life if Obama is elected.

Why do you t hink Obama is going to take awasy any of those things Outlnder?? You get paranoid often??

New Rule: No more arguing with Nathan about who’s a Christian and who gets saved.

From now on, just don’t go there.

If I get goaded into this stupid and futile argument again, someone please remind me of this rule.

Thank you,

The Management

Boxlock?

Do they let you have visitors there in the sanitorium?

Or are you in the rubber room most of the time?

Sounds like Obama is right on target there, Boxer…. Do you want your job threatened by what your wife might say??

I wonder if Obama’s 2 million dollar house is energy efficient?

Regular, since it is in Chicago, it most likely is!! LOL

However, I dont think the White House is!!

“reality isn;t as sellable as the reality.”

Should have read

rality isn;t as sellable as the fantasy”.

Not sure if it is a fantasy… but I understand what you mean…

FORD already touts a V-6 that performs with all the power of a V-8, with the economy of a V-6, or less…

As far as heat — Lots of alternatives to a gas furnace already exist… At reasonable costs… (e.g., electric heat pumps??)

BTW, Chevy already has a hybrid SUV — the Tahoe… We already have the foundations for energy savings…

Oh yea, to borrow from another thread, we also have the very realistic capability of developing Wind Generation…. Wind power is very affordable… and it works nearly anywhere!! We really need to be pushing for this solution… Those big giants produce a LOT of electricity in a day’s time!

I wonder if Obama’s 2 million dollar house is energy efficient?

Another question you might ask is if Cheney’s second (or is it third) 2 million dollar house is even needed. Let’s see, it’s just him and Lynn…

So does anyone know if Obama’s private residence is energy efficient?

Or, you can continue to snark your way through the comments.

It’s a simple question, really it is.

Regular — I already said that since it is in Chicago, it no doubt is nergy efficient. It isnt all that old, so it would be more efficient than many older homes… When you live in the Cold North country, the one thing you want to be sure of is that you dont go broke heating your home in Winter!

Keep in mind, that they also have small children… and that is also a priority for having an energy efficient home…

Other than knowing Chicago fairly well, I dont know where you would find any exact figures on Obama’s house…

I did not intend to make any “snarky” comments….

To be clear by not using gas in any fashion, the generating of the electricity such as wind power or Nuclear. To create heat and cooling for houses, lights in the house and all appliances.

And Littlejohn that is true and part of the problem it not a lack of knowing there is a problem it is the willingness of the public to change their habits. I am not criticizing as I am guilty too, I know it would be cheaper and save me money to ride the bicycle to the store if I need one item. But is it faster and more comfortable to drive the car.

Gun bans can’t stop wackos bent on murder
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN
The Kansas City Star

The panel that oversees Kansas state universities has decreed that campuses under its control shall be weapons-free. I wonder: Will students, faculty and staff feel safer?

The recent move by the state Board of Regents came a year after the Virginia Tech massacre — a mass public shooting that left 32 dead in a place that was already weapons-free, in theory. Like so many of these incidents, Virginia Tech showed why gun bans in places as open as campuses are toothless as safety measures.

The thought of students or faculty walking around campus with weapons is not an attractive one, I’ll acknowledge. In some visceral sense, it feels wrong at first blush, and it’s a sad comment on the state of our society that officials must grapple with the risk of some psychotic releasing pent-up anger in a hail of gunfire.

Yet it is delusional to pretend that gun-free zones on paper can create gun-free zones in reality, unless you’re talking about closed environments such as government buildings or airport concourses.

Personally I’d feel safer on a campus where I knew some of the students or the staff — those who complied with the licensing requirements of concealed carry laws, if applicable — were likely to be armed. Not all campuses are gun-free zones: Colorado State University, as well as all of Utah’s universities, allow concealed-carry in compliance with state laws….

…According to The Star’s account of the meeting, much of the discussion dealt with where to post signs prohibiting concealed weapons.
I asked Regents’ spokesman Kip Peterson how putting up signs would stop a wacko bent on mass murder. Peterson said he couldn’t comment until the specific policies and regulations were put into effect.

I wish them luck, but this exercise looks like another replay of the familiar fantasy underlying gun control: the assumption that gun bans alone can curtail violent crime.

http://www.kansascity.com/275/story/593451.html

I see this is now a Bible Blog. So, here’s one for you Socialists.

Matthew 25

14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

THE FOLLOWING IMMIGRATION LAWS SHOULD BE ENACTED……

1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long
they are here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.
Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… Options will be
restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved
for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of
a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president
or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively
hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be
arranged. All assets will be taken from you..
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Harsh, you say?…….

The above laws are the current immigration laws of MEXICO

Farmgirl, you of all people now determining what is appropriate?

HA HA HA

tourettes syndrome ?????

Thanks gster. Spell check and I have a loose relationship! :)

My pressure!

Hank, my Dad had a similar experience, ordering via catalogue a 22 rifle (In LR, L, and S) when he was 11 or 12 years old.

Used it for hunting rabbits/squirrels which was often the only meat on the table.

Crime in those days? Not like today.

Also recall older brothers taking shotguns to school (unloaded and in a case of course), keeping them in their lockers during the day, and hunting after school.

Today, there would be a panic attack with SWAT called out, and TV newscopter live reports local and on CNN.

Ya Max, I remember that thread. It’s a good idea whose time has come and is overdue.

It is probably the most efficient system we can do that is relative to the value of our infrastructure when compared to the savings achieved.

Once the freight aspect is done, the passenger rail service can be easily tied in if the freight rail design is planned carefully.

I would like to see passenger terminals all over the U.S. with Electric/Hybrid Rental places at the terminals.

One innovation stimulates the other.

Where I am currently in TX, probably a dozen trains go through here each day…. MOST of them are pulling “stack trains” which then off-load onto Semi’s when they reach their destination… Some of these trains out here are a good two miles long!! The only thing I worry about, is that I know a LOT of guys/gals who are truckers… many would lose their businesses if this becomes any more wide-spread than it already is!!

Hi speed rail, plus passenger service should be a high priority for this country… For a nation this size, we are FAR behind passenger rail when compared to many nations around the world!!

The Burlington Northern/Santa Fe just put in a new second main line along side the one that’s been there for decades and there are trains going both directions all day long and night.
Warren Buffett is investing heavily in railroads. I think it is a very good thing to save fuel and the roads over individual trucks all over the highways and much safer for cars too.

“The main problem is the vulnerability of people traveling in smaller vehicles. Trucks often weigh 20-30 times as much as passenger cars.”

I disagree. The main problem is that people travelling in smaller vehicles frequently decide they have the right of way instead of the truck. WHile there are larege numnber of exceptions, I understand, and I only have a small slice of knowledge, but I have seen quite a few truck/passenger vehicles accidents. Often fatal. Of those, problably less than 10% could be attrituble to the truck or it’s driver.

Got Milk?

Tractor Trailer Overturns, Spilling Oreo Cookies on Highway
Monday, May 19, 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356583,00.html

Awwwww, poor baby Obama. Can’t stand having his wife criticized. He has her campaigning for him, so she’s fair game.

If he can’t stand the heat….

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/19/obama-to-tennessee-gop-my-wife-is-off-limits/

Obama to Tennessee GOP: Lay Off My Wife
by FOXNews.com
Monday, May 19, 2008

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, crying foul over a video made by the Tennessee Republican Party last week, said Monday that his critics should “lay off my wife.”

In the four-minute video produced by the state GOP and now available on YouTube, Michelle Obama is shown delivering a speech in February during which she said: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” The ad then features Nashville voters saying why they are proud of their country.

Ben, that sounds very much like a recent Plot from Law and Order SVU LOL

‘Michelle Obama is shown delivering a speech in February during which she said: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”’

What is so frekin WRONG with her statement?? Of course, you need to put the statement in the context of the other things she said before and after that statement… Just about anybody can be MADE to say what they didnt say, IF you take a statement out of context!!

I pointed this out with a Bible quote a week or so back….

You have kids right Chas?

Are you proud of them?

Have you always been?

Have they ever done anything you didn’t like? Sure, but I bet you were still proud of them.

Mrs. Obama is only just now proud of her country and she’s how old?

My kids??? What do my KIDS have to do with Michelle Obama’s comments?? My KIDS arent my country!!

L J – What is there that is NOT appropriate about her comments??

bth Posted May 19, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
“Boxlock – YIPES! Unless there are some real good reasons for that (e.g. mixed-up anatomy etc) his actions seem reprehensible.”

bth, why does it seem like essentially it’s always the defenseless, innocent little kids that get hurt by those that should be caring for them.
I think that for some there will be hell to pay someday for hurting them.

Regular, I am sure you have watched the speech… You heard her words… She never said she wasnt proud of her country before her adult life… I do believe there are many things in the past 26 years that maybe we shouldnt be proud of in this country… Iran/Contra… Granada invasion… the progress of reducing racism, and violence against minorities, Daddy Bush’s No New taxes Taxes… Perhaps the Clinton/Lewinski affair… Maybe no child left behind, except for the ones that ARE left behind… Many things could be behind her statement… It is NOT appropriate to express her OPINION in this country… built on expression of opinions… even opinions that are in the minority…. Like, she is some sort of Un-American because she has a different opinion from certain others??? Now THAT concept is unAmerican!!

“Chas
Posted May 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
L J – What is there that is NOT appropriate about her comments??”

I didn;t say there was or was not. I was limiting myself to replying to what Presidential candidate Obama said about laying off his wife.

If a Republic makes a statement that is questionable or subject to interpretation, he or she has “misspoke.”

If a Democrat makes a statement that is questionable or subject to interpretation, they are unpatriotic or down right evil.

Only in the Karl Rove America.

ksfarmgrrl Posted May 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm |
“Boxlock, your ignorance about transgendered folks is just breath taking.
Kinda like your bigotry about gay folks.”

The value of my statements and my position stands on it’s own, I ask for strength in fighting this kind of abuse. My statement;
“why does it seem like essentially it’s always the defenseless, innocent little kids that get hurt by those that should be caring for them.
I think that for some there will be hell to pay someday for hurting them”.

“Boston’s Children’s Hospital bills itself as the hospital for children — and now it’s also the hospital for children who want a sex change, a procedure some critics are calling “barbaric.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html

It is barbaric!

LJ writes, “While I am not disagreeing with your goals, I would suggest that if that were true, then why has not a consortium of likeminded investors, looking for easy street and being king of the world, not jumped right in? Because either they know the economics isn;t there, or the reality isn;t as sellable as the reality.”

This is the old “since capitalism is inevitable, capitalists will do anything for a profit” mind-set.

Dude, did you see the movie “Tucker” that although just a movie showed the historical facts of how the Big Three automakers colluded to destroy Tucker’s ground-breaking new automobile design?

Or for a more recent example, see “Who Killed the Electric Car?” California passed a law requiring a zero emissions car, so GM decided to defeat the law by complying with it–they’d build a cheap little electric car that nobody’d want to buy.

Surprise! Somebody forgot to tell the designers. They built a cracker-jack electric car that everybody LOVED.

GM’s response? Recall all the cars and crush them in a compactor.

End of story.

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

Funny stuff there, Boxlock.

Let’s take another look at how times have changed:

1968–Boy who sits at the girls’ table is given a swirly in the toilet by hyper-masculine bullies every day. Grows up to be a self-loathing gay, Senator “Toe Tapping” Larry Craig.

2008–Boy who sits at the girls’ table can take his boyfriend to the prom. Grows up to be well-adjusted Ken Mehlman.

1968–Student who is 8th grade class president tells school counsellor that he wants to be a lawyer. Counsellor tells him to stick to a “trade” like carpentry because it’s more suited to “you people.”

Malcolm Little grows up to become angry black militant Malcolm X.

2008–African American kids want to be lawyers because that’s what the next president of the United States, Barack Obama, was before he became president.

1968–A woman graduating from college could pick any career she wanted . . . just so long as it was nurse, teacher, secretary or stewardess.

2008–The woman governor of Kansas hands the Republican-dominated State Legislature its ass, again.

Yeah . . . how I long for the “good old days.”

CapnAmerica,

You also never explained how Jesus healing people without faith means that you don’t need faith to be saved from your sin.

Have any scriptural support for such a statement or is that just your personal view pulled from the thin air?

Is that what your church teaches or do they even care what you teach the kids in Sunday School?

Thanks, Nathan, for allowing me to bring you up to speed.

New Rule: No more arguing with Nathan about who’s a Christian and who gets saved.

In the immortal words of Dana Garvey imitating a nasally George H. W. Bush, “not gon-na do it.”

BTW, when I teach Sunday school, I follow a lesson plan that the Church gives me.

I don’t set the curriculum. So my personal beliefs are not an issue, even if they were in conflict with my Church, which they aren’t.

We’re also encouraging Chas to follow this rule:

New Rule: No more arguing with Nathan about who’s a Christian and who gets saved.

Aren’t we, CHAS?

“CapnAmerica” hands “Boxlock” his comeuppance with –

“Let’s take another look at how times have changed…”

Reminds me of the old Monty Python bit:

“I had to get up at ten o’clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down at the mill and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our mother and father would kill us and dance on our graves singing Halleluja.

“Aye, and you try telling young people of today that. And they won’t believe you!”

CapnAmerica,

Does that mean that both you and Chas will hold yourself to the rule in some regard to my father and I?

No more mocking either of us for our belief in Young Earth Creation?

I highly doubt it.

“My point is that you can’t expect capitalism to take the risk and pull together the disparite elements like power lines and regulations to provide a clean alternative.

Those initiatives will have to be a public-private enterprise”

Perhaps. I am not dead set against this, in doses that are fully vetted individually, and not just given acceptance cart blanche. My closest opinion is that most should come from the private sector.

CapnAmerica,

Here you go:

“His sister, far from exhibiting faith, says it’s too late to do anything now.”

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/open-thread-517/#comment-351582

This is what the sister said:

“She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

Yup. She does say that.

She also says that Lazarus has lain in the grave for four days and the smell of rotting flesh is coming out of it. This implies that she does not believe anyone can do anything about Lazarus’ death.

To which, Christ says, “Did I not tell you if you believed, you’d see the Glory of God?” which also implies that he thinks she doesn’t believe sufficiently.

So . . . we can go round and round about this for centuries just like the medieval scholastics did about angels dancing on pin’s heads.

Not interested.

Take it somewhere else.

Claim victory if you want, it’s nothing to me.

CapnAmerica,

Of course it is nothing to you. You make up whatever you want to about the Bible and scripture and Christianity.

When someone calls you on it you run and hide.

You have to “imply” this or “assume” that in everything you say about the Bible.

We were having a discussion on faith in Christ. You then went on to try to show that faith wasn’t required for healing and thus it isn’t for salvation either.

Those who followed Christ at one time or another would question him too, doesn’t mean they didn’t have faith, they just didn’t understand.

We are humans, of course we doubt and wonder. Doesn’t mean we don’t have faith.

Lord, I feel sorry for the young minds you are educating at your Church.

You are corrupting an entire generation of youth.

“Lord, I feel sorry for the young minds you are educating at your Church.

“You are corrupting an entire generation of youth.”

In Chaucer’s time, there was an on-going debate about whether a bad priest could give a good sermon.

You think I corrupt people and I think you’re a heretic because you worship a so-called “literal” reading of The Bible instead of an informed one.

You make an idol of The Bible and worship it instead of God.

So . . . we’re even.

Mr. C,

Just exactly how many mHz can you output from that ‘coat hanger’ anyway? :D

Mr. C,

So does this mean I should turn off my “RF” scrambler when I’m passing overhead on I-35? :)

Nathan:

This is directed to you, almost entirely. I have stayed out of the religious doctrinal discussions, and I have no intention in getting involved now. I post this passage hoping to assist you, and putting an end to these endless, and pointless, exchanges. You do not further others in their relationship with Christ with these exchanges; if anything, it is counterproductive.

And you might consider whether it is even proper. Consider Romans 14 – I’ve posted the entire chapter so there is no argument over whether the context is proper(emphasis mine):
—–
“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
” ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’ “[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

And with that, I will say no more on the topic.

…and at $20,000 plus, with a week’s stay in the hospital and a two month recovery time, there is a one YEAR waiting list for the surgery with Dr. Marci Bowers in Trinidad, Colorado. There is another guy in Quebec who also does the surgery, and he is even more expensive and has a longer waiting list.

And did I mention, that transgendered folks, once they start the hormone therapy, are not eligible for health insurance, even on some group plans? The surgery is NEVER covered by health insurance.

Perhaps, just once, boxlick, you and john stone need to use the google before you let your alligator mouth overload your tadpole ass.

So..boxlick, I notice you conveniently left this part of the article out!

“But other doctors say there is a transgender “gene.”

Dr. Irene Sills, an physician and Senior Professor of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, has treated 15 transgender children in the last 6 years, and considers the condition innate as a result of her study.

“We have had a case of identical twins that seems to disprove [other] theories,” she told FOXNews.com. “The twin girls were brought up in exactly the same environment, but by the age of 3, one of them kept insisting that she was a boy and kept mimicking masculine dress and behavior.”

Sills reported that her patients and their families have all been pleased with her therapy and support. She said she never asks families to sign a waiver before treating their children. “I trust our procedures and I trust my patients,” she said in an interview.

But some experts expect legal challenges to mount in the face of further treatment. According to Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense, parents and doctors may not be safe from litigation if children are made sterile due to hormonal treatments — even if they do sign waivers.

“We will eventually start to see such parents and doctors sued and possibly arrested for what is essentially child abuse,” Nimocks told FOXNews.com

Still, some think transgender medical therapies for children, which have been used for many years in Europe, Asia and Australia, may soon gain more acceptance in the U.S.

“Most medical professionals know very little about transgender treatments for children, so I do grand rounds at hospitals to educate them,” said Stephanie Brill, co-author of “The Transgender Child,” which will be published in June. “The doctors are very receptive, so I believe that we will see transgender medicine become much more prevalent over the next decade.”

Boxlick, your SELECTIVE quotes from a FUX news article is just laughable. NO ONE is doing surgery on kids. They are delaying puberty, so the kids and their families have more time to decide. But I notice, you didnt mentinon that. I suggest anyone reading this go to the article and read it in its entirety, since boxlick CLEARLY is just pasting selective quotes here.

None of the parents are complaining, and none of the kids are complaining and none of the docs who do the surgery are complaining.

Just a conservative group shouting “lawsuits”. And he notes this MAY happen in the future. NO doc has been sued or even charged with child abuse for helping transgendered children.

Jesus WEPT. There are lawsuits for EVERY medical procedure. Sounds like the usual conservative bullshit regarding TRIAL lawyers, not the transgendered.

But thanks for playing. As noted before, your ignorance is breath taking.

Google “transgendered children” and see what you come up with.

Unless you are so freakin’ stoopid you think you can CATCH “the transgendered” by doing a little research and not looking for the fainting couch when you read Fux News.

Farmgirl, I’m sorry you have to read all of those gay posts.

Just scroll over em. I do.

And before you ask, no, I’m not transgendered. I LOVE BEING A WOMAN!

However, when I was young, I used to want to be a boy. But as my self awareness grew, I understood that I really didnt want to be a boy. I just wanted to be treated equally with the boys.

And back when I was a kid, I was told I could never be an engineer, even though I had the highest aptitude test scores for mechanics in my class.

My guidance counselor said that was just because I grew up on a farm. And anyway, HE said, girls cant be engineers or farmers.

Nope. I didnt want to be a boy. I just wanted the same respect and same rights.

He suggested nursing…..

“But other doctors say there is a transgender “gene.”

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply “genetic.” And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

“The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled. The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten. The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for. On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule. The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene”.”

I don’t know, there may be developmental chemical factors during fetal development, or early life developmental variations that result in transgender situations. Who knows. Whatever, we are all human beings deserving of respect. But, I simply will not accept changing the meaning of marriage from what it has been throughout recorded history into something it isn’t, which is how much of this got started, with the activist court in California last week.
Enough, I wish you well.

Box — How come the court is only activist if it votes against your whims and wishes? And how come in you criticism, you cannot provide any legal opposition to the court ruling??

GMC

Excellent post —- I hope it stops the bickering

Clark, his former status as a POW in Hanoi, has sort of bothered me ever since McCain first tried to run in 2000… I always wondered how severely he had been brainwashed as a POW… The North Vietnamese were ruthless as captors!!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back again to bondage.”

Reported to be written by Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago while America was still a British colony. Source not confirmed.

“Courts are supposed to interpret and uphold the law not make law.”

Yeah, like “separate but equal” and other “will of the people” issues.

The courts are supposed to rule based on the Constitution, not the will of the majority.

Scroll down from the top of the page…

Chas
Posted May 19, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
Ahhhh yes — the work ethic… It can, and has been argued that it was the Constitution that inspired the work ethic… not the other way around… The law of the People inspired people to work and succeed… And the law of the People is to protect the minority, from the tyranny of the majority…
———————-
…or the tyranny of the minority (judges) who take away the Will of the people? :)

“…or the tyranny of the minority (judges) who take away the Will of the people?”

You mean like when interracial marriages were made legal?

Regular — You prove my point perfectly >>>>

“How come the court is only activist if it votes against your whims and wishes? And how come in you criticism, you cannot provide any legal opposition to the court ruling??”

Clark, Jed, Chas, and all other reasonable and kind people on the blog…

Thank you for your continued support. We cant do this without you!

Chas
Posted May 19, 2008 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
Regular — You prove my point perfectly >>>>

“How come the court is only activist if it votes against your whims and wishes? And how come in you criticism, you cannot provide any legal opposition to the court ruling??”
———————
It was something that needed to be said.

Tyranny can come from anywhere where power is held.

One man’s tyrant is another man’s liberator.

With the exception of the Borg, then you are just assimilated.

(chortles)

Chas
Posted May 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
Exactly — and when is the last time you saw POWER held by the minority?? Hmmm????
———————-
United States Air Force – Medina Air Base,

The instructors had all the power. :)

Chas
Posted May 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
Sorry — The instructors were not the minority… In the military THEY had rank, therefore, they hold the power!! Try again??
———————
Sorry, but you are ever so wrong.

The higher the rank, the fewer that rank is populated.

Of course, I know you’ll argue this point until you blow out in some sort of exclamatory explosion, so whatever I write you’ll just be your usual unyielding, unreasonable self.

Sorry, forgot why I don’t bother to discuss anything with you anymore.

My bad!

Steady Chas…

He’s dangling that big fat worm out there like I did to the big bass on Saturday!

I wonder if gay marriages will be recognized on passports? And can said gay married couples travel to Iran as a married couple.

Hmmm, according to Achmydinnerjob, there are no gays in Iran…

One of the best evidence that homosexuality is beyond a choice has to be the very persecution that has been suffered by those that are Gay. Why would anyone choose to suffer that? I find it odd that those whom decry Gay marriage sight reasons that either do not pertain to those outside the faith. Or such thing as marriage is for the reasoning of procreation. If that is the case then my wife and I should get a divorce as our child baring is over and no marriage licenses should be issued unless it can be determined that both the male and female are fertile and able to have children.

Shall we go there? If not than there is no logical reasons to ban gay marriage.

Some Harvard students are objecting to their classmates who opt out of elective abortion coverage in their student health plan to get a dollar refund. They don’t think anyone’s morals should have to be respected when they buy medical insurance.
- – -

Gastonia, NC police found a newborn boy in the trunk of the mother’s car around 3 a.m. Saturday, parked at a women’s health care office. Police believe the mother gave birth to the baby at a location in Charlotte around noon Friday and then drove herself to an appointment at the health care office in Gastonia. Police have not said how long they believe they newborn was in the trunk of the car, but likely it was several hours. The child was in the neonatal intensive care unit at Gaston Memorial Hospital on Saturday, and police said they expect the boy to fully recover.

jimmymac falsely claimed: “The truth hurts when told, the Sierra Club screwed the Levees in New Orleans.”

Here are some examples of jimmymac’s proof(sic) of that false claim,

“cosmos gasbagging his way to more one liners of attack. It’s not a wonder that cosmos large intestines are the size of fire hose and just as deadly with the expulsion of stinky fumes.”

“I have no idea why cosmos has such a ‘hard on’ for the Sierra Club. Maybe he’s a local president of them, I don’t know. But he’s definetely in butt lust with them.”

“Yet more of cosmos denials and lies and his incessant lustful butt thrusting about the Sierra Club.

Once again, cosmos changes his story to suit the occasion. An incessant liar and toe licker for the Sierra Club.”

“I wonder if cosmos attentions to the Sierra Club involve courtship or is it just a straight illicit affair?”

McLiar is just full of shit and cannot/won’t defend his lies and misbehavior. He is just a sick, sick troll that has difficulty controlling himself.

What a loser he is.

So, McLiar, care to defend the proven lies that you have spread on the blog?

No?

What a chickenshit……

Last I checked, military rank has nothing to with the “rights” of the people! Military is a closed system.

Well, MCLiar, I never made those statements, yet you claimed to have served in ‘Nam, then you claimed that you were too young. You also claimed that you were married and your wife left you with your child, then you said that you had never been married. You also claimed that you were not JM, then you admitted that you were JM.

So, cut the bullshit and tell us the truth, McCliar.

McLiar, have you EVER been able to tell the truth?

Off topic here today, but. Be aware that the Elections in Kansas are not fair. I became a Candidate for Sheriff May 7th 2008 in Miami County Kansas. The weird part, I need to finalize my intentions for ballet placement in 1 of a few ways, by either June 10th 2008 or August 4th 2008 by noon. 1. I declare either as a Republican or a Democrat. I pay, in this, 1% of the current Sheriffs pay. 1% of $66,300.37. And $35.00 for the background check because it is for Sheriff. Sound fair and ok except for 2 things. 1. The pay is $10,000.00 above the National Average for Law Enforcement in the U.S.A.. It is above the top 10 States rankings. 2. I file by Petition. I have to get 745 Registered Voters to sign that I can be an independant and that I am not filing as a party affiliate. The kicker, I am only “ALLOWED” to pay the $35.00 background check fee. I am not allowed to pay the 1% of the pay scale for the Election Fees. This has been declared, as Kansas Law per the Secretary of States Office and the States GOP. Your taxes are going to go up to make up the loss of budget when people run as an independant in your county. I want to pay the 1% and am told it is, “ILLEGAL”, for me to do this. I am being forced to file as a Republican or a Democrat. I am forced to ask for signatures from Registered Voters here and tell them I wish to file for $35.00 and they have to make up the difference in higher taxes to fund the Election. I am being forced to declare and file as a Party Affiliate for a “Non-Political” Elected Position. Sheriffs are not Political, Senators, and Representatives are. The Kansas Peace Officers Association has been contacted. I hope to hear from them soon. As a Candidate for Sheriff, I fall under their Auspis. I hope to be allowed to pay the 1% and run as an Equal Candidate. This Law needs fixed!!! I should have to pay the same 1% like everyone else. I should not be allowed to bypass the 1%. Please contact the State Government and contact your counties and complain. I demand that I should and must be allowed to file as a independant and pay the same fees and taxes as any other Candidate. Thanks Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, as of May 7th 2008, by appointing myself Treasurer of my campaign. Demand that all Candidates pay the fees. It saves “YOUR” tax money!!! west.herb@yahoo.com

Please God don’t let Herb get elected to sherrif. Perhaps we need to put this address into a letter to the editor so they can all see how whacked he is?

ksfarmgrrl Posted May 19, 2008 at 8:05 pm |
“Boxlick, your ignorance once again, is breath taking.”
Then why don’t you just give it a rest and try and catch your breath. I’m only responding to you at this point.

“But other doctors say there is a transgender “gene.” Okay, I’ll play along.
Then produce evidence of it.
Human genetic mapping has been completed and there is no scientific data that substantiates a genetic or biologic basis for same-sex attraction.
The “genetic and unchangeable” theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media but there is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply “genetic.” And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
THERE IS NO SCIENCE THAT SUPPORTS A GENETIC BASIS FOR HOMOSEXUALITY. If you think so then produce it.
Look, I don’t care that you or anyone else is gay. In fact it’s none of my business and I don’t want to make it my business. You live how you want, with who you want, where you want, and every other want you want….except, marriage is one thing and one thing only, and it always has been and always will be, the union, in all aspects, religious, societal, legal, between one man and one woman.
THE END

Unlike jimmymac, I can show that the Sierra Club did not cause the design and construction flaws in the NO levee system.

——————————-
Sure you can.

But you can’t prove that the lack of funding that caused gates not to be built on Lake Ponchetrane, didn’t cause the tidal surge to fill up the lake at a faster rate and over burden the levees.

That was the fault of the Sierra Club lawsuits that caused the Corp of Engineers to put programmed monies on Wildlife and Environmental surveys instead of construction projections.

How does it feel to be part of the Murders’ Row that contributed to many deaths and mass destruction in New Orleans cosmos?

Too: Political_Mama, where am I whacked?? And it is Sheriff, not Sherrif! Again, where am I whacked out?? I have studied the Election Process, have contacted all parties involved, communicated my concerns and support form the Citizens and Registered Voters here in Miami County. I have shown or exposed the States corruption in manipulating the Elecotoral Process. What is whack about caring for people and their Rights?? I am open to discuss your views, if they seem somewhat intelligent and meaningful. Thanks as allways, Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, as of May 7th 2008. I still also own a Publishing company. “Wikipedia” defines this as well as the “Blacks Law Dictionary” under the definitions of Puiblisher. HLWIII west.herb@yahoo.com wen2k.com

HLP, do you feel it is fair that some candidates dont have to pay the fees for the same position they are wanting to run for? I pay $35.00 and you pay $698.00 for the same position, in fees. Just curious. Thanks eitherway. Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, as of May 7th 2008. west.herb@yahoo.com . wen2k.com

Parkay…SOME WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE MOTHERS NOR GIVE BIRTH!

You keep pointing it out. You make my points for me.

Can I opt out of, say, traumatic brain injury coverage in my health plan?

Please note Boxlock — I am NOT challenging your BELIEFS about marriage… So, just wanted you to take note of that before responding…

Good advice Hank… well put…

Thanks Chas.,

How ya doin’?

I hear ya, how’s the weather in Texas? It’s 77 outside right now and 84 in the house. Talked the wife into keeping it open today and now we’re too stubborn to turn on the AC.

Mid 90’s here today AC working good… at least today LOL more hot tomorrow…. hope it cools down by Friday for the weekend…

HLP, why would it be allowed for any Candidate to except contributions above the allowed exspence needs to run a Campaign? Why would a “Party Machine” be involved to that degree? I dont need the support of a Party. I am only disputing the Parties are allowed to shun or alter the fee/tax field for Elections. I should be allowed to pay the same fees as them. I dont understand where you seem to miss that “I feel I SHOULD pay $698.00, not just $35.00″. I am not asking to pay LESS than the other candidates. I want to pay the “”SAME”" fee!! I am not wanting to LESS, I am wanting to pay the “”same”". You buy a burger for $4.oo. I get the same burger for 25 cents and you feel this is exceptable? The guy behund us has to pay the difference in the burgers. They have to pay the $4.00 and $3.75 to make up for the loss because I only paid 25 cents. They have to keep the doors open. The Government needs to stay open. People are allowed to pay less during Elections amd we as citizens end up paying more elsewhere to make up the difference. All based on Republicans and Democrats manipulating the TAX CODES/BASES!!!! I want to pay equal, not less. I hope to ghet a burger for 25 cents that is worth $4.00 because you want to stiff the guy behind me. I will tell them you knew this, but did not care. You charged them $7.75 for a $4.00 burger and I got a $4.00 burger for 25 cents. Politics does seem fair I quess, because this is happening. I just wanted you to know I will point the finger where it belongs, at the “PARTY MACHINES”!!! Do these “Party Machines” have stock in burger meat??? Just curious!! Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, as of May 7th 2008. west.herb@yahoo.com , wen2k.com

Boxlick just cant resist

“with animal unions, or whatever”

Man on dog? That’s already happened. And it was a man and a female dog.

’nuff said.

I guess that “consenting adults” thingy just doesnt get through your tinfoil, does it?

Good point, KFG — they always flame with that animal thing, or the polygamy thing…

I told you the laws concerning marriage have been established based on the traditional definition of marriage. Many, many laws and established practices in government, taxes, employment, life and health insurance statistics, etc. etc.
To redefine the term throws all that into a blender.
Can you not understand that.
Establish laws on one basis, change the basis, and that makes those laws all chaos.
You are asking to change the foundational basis that was used for the establishment of the laws…you dummy.
To argue further on this subject is stupidity.

Poor jimmymac. He seems to be just too dumb to understand the facts about the NO levee system failure.

Maybe that is why jimmymac is a republikhan?

‘BLAMING ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR KATRINA: WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW!’
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-09-13a.asp
“Mississippi River Basin Alliance, et al. v. H. Martin Lancaster — 1996

In the mid-1990’s, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed raising hundreds of miles of levees 100 miles north of New Orleans in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Conservation groups and others did not oppose the idea of raising the levees, but they did have strong concerns about the fact that Corps wanted to drain as much as 11,000 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands, crucial to health and safety of the Lower Mississippi Basin, to supply the construction material for those levees.

And they weren’t the only ones who had concerns: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana Legislature all urged the Corps to look at how the proposed project would have impacted the area. It refused to do so. That led the Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Wildlife Federation, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations, and the Mississippi River Basin Alliance to take the Corps to Court. The case was soon settled, with the Corps of Engineers agreeing in 1997 to look at ways of minimizing the damage to the wetlands.

But other problems plagued the project. According to a 1997 Baton Rouge Advocate article, “Corps officials said it will take them 30 years to finish the levee work. That much time is required because funding is lacking for the projects — not because of the new environmental study, called an environmental impact statement.

BOTTOM LINE: The project was 100 miles away from flood area and wouldn’t have made any difference with Katrina. Conservation groups never opposed raising the levees; just the heavy handed way in which the Corps was going to do it. And it wasn’t just conservation groups; even the LA Legislature had concerns. The case was settled one year later but the Corps never had the funding to move ahead on the project.”

WHAT REALLY WENT WRONG IN NEW ORLEANS
…
Post-Katrina computer modeling and direct observation by the Hurricane Center point to faulty design and inadequate construction of barriers and levees as a main culprit for the flooding.
…
The other problem was a little-used canal known as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) which basically funneled the water from the storm surge directly into the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parrish. In fact, MRGO also contributed heavily to the flooding in New Orleans during Hurricane Betsy in 1965.”

boxlick,are you just too stupid to get that transgendered folks are both straight and gay? That gay is different from transgendered?

Or is that just another “fact” failing to penetrate that tinfoil hat of yours?

You made the claim. Why dont YOU post the link to the science that supports your viewpoint?

Or is it just religion masquerading as voodoo science?

I love how something is true because you say it is true. The end.

I thought someone else claimed the Alpha and Omega position?

I didnt know it was you, tinfoil boy, who claimed the Omega.

“To redefine the term throws all that into a blender.”

Uh, no. It throws it into the realm of secular justice.

Besides, ending slavery also upset the apple cart “throwing everything into a blender”.

So did giving blacks the vote. And giving women the vote.

I dont recall the writings of the founding fathers that justice would be easy or neat and not messy.

Tell me boxlick, do you disobey your god when obedience might mean “throwing everything into a blender”?

Whaever TF THAT means.

Sorry you are so incovenienced by my partner and I getting all the rights and benefits that you do.

‘Cause that is really the crux of the issue. As long as YOUR marriage is superior to mine, then you are cool.

And that is the very definition of bigotry.

Boxlock says >>>>

“You are asking to change the foundational basis that was used for the establishment of the laws…you dummy.”

NO — that is simply a false statement… Gay marriage would change absolutely nothing about the establishment of marriage laws at all… Gay couples would simply comply with all of the current laws regarding marriage… the only exception is the same sex part…

As you are most aware, that traditional definition you keep insisting on is formulated by mostly “religious” understandings…

I asked for a LEGAL REASON to ban gay marriage… not a bunch of sociological platitudes…. LEGAL REASON, Boxlock…

HLP posted May 19, 2008 at 10:36 pm

“It’s 77 outside right now and 84 in the house.”

Under those conditions, and if the humidity outside is lower than inside, a whole-house fan works great.

Also, during the summer try to keep humidity inside low. Squeegee the water off the walls after taking a shower, hang wet bath towels outside, etc.

I simply can’t believe you are that stupid Chas.
If laws are established based on a given definition of marriage, and then you change the definition, that changes the original intent of the law that was established using the traditional definition.
Now that’s simple, and I can’t make it any simpler, so take it to a judge or lawyer if you still can’t understand that. That IS a legal reason, you are altering the definition used as the basis for the law.
Unbelievable, I’ve been giving you to much credit I guess.

And ksfarmgrrl, you’ve got nothing. Crawl back in your hole.

Box, what part of OUR posts are YOU not understanding?

Here’s a little tip. Laws, and the basis for them, change every legislative session.

Really. Look it up. That is why they have a whole division called the Reviser of Statutes office. It’s their considerable full time job to CHANGE laws and the BASIS they were built on.

Really. Laws change every year, and civilization and/or government as we know it dont collapse.

You seem to be the only one collapsing on the fainting couch with smelling salts.

Say Box, why not let the Government marry anybody?

I mean brothers/sisters, moms/sons, dads/kids?

I never thought it was any business of Government anyway. I couldn’t care less if the Government does or doesn’t “bless” my marriage.

They want recognition/acceptance, fine, if a piece of paper will make them think they have recognition/acceptance, give it to em.

They really want the government benes and company benes that come with the legal marriage. Fine, give it to em.

Give em the joy of divorce laws too.

“The only law that would be changed would be Jan Paul’s little hate filled kansas “defense of marriage” act and the hate amendment tothe kansas constitution. And they would just be wiped off the books.

I bet the Reviser of Statues could do it in two hours….”

But it ain’t gon’a happen farmer.

The same argument can be applied to ANY law.
A law or laws are established based on a given understanding, or words with established understanding.
Then the terms get changed.
You can’t understand how that might alter the intended effect, not wording, of those laws.
I am arguing with imbeciles.

farmer,
I can go to bed tonight knowing the laws in Kansas are as they should be, and I will wake up with the same set of circumstances in place. And I am confident that will be the case for a long long time.
How about you farmer???
Who’s ass and who’s head is where bright girl?

Nathaniel
Posted May 19, 2008 at 11:32 pm | Permalink
Steven,

“Cue for Nathan to show with some dumb remarks that are easily rebutted. Come on boy, show us your stuff.”

Huh?

What are you talking about this time Steven? I have not said one word to you this thread.
———————-
No doubt Steven Davis has blessed the blog with another one of his drive-by’s to express his civility (cough).

So you being in the majority with the other religious bigots in kansas makes you sleep well at night, and somehow, that’s handing me my ass and head?

heheheheheheheheheheheheh…..

Another straight, white, christian male who thinks god is on his throne and all is right with the world as long as the law upholds HIS superiority. THat means the laws are “as they should be”.

I call god complex.

“all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Tell me, what color is the sky in that world of yours?

Because it isnt planet Earth.

BJ, you save the world yet?

All all animals equal in the wild kingdom?

Even in the same species? Group? Herd?

Just wondering…

..and since you are clearly either too stupid or too lazy to look it up… here ya go. It’s a problem with folks enrolled in Debate 101. They get clocked on it every time. Rookie mistake.

It’s true becaue I said it’s true.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This

Tautology
Tau*tol”o*gy\, n. [L. tautologia, Gr. ?: cf. F. tautologie.] (Rhet.) A repetition of the same meaning in different words; needless repetition of an idea in different words or phrases; a representation of anything as the cause, condition, or consequence of itself, as in the following lines:

The dawn is overcast, the morning lowers, And heavily in clouds brings on the day. –Addison.

Syn: Repetition.

Usage: Tautology, Repetition. There may be frequent repetitions (as in legal instruments) which are warranted either by necessity or convenience; but tautology is always a fault, being a sameness of expression which adds nothing to the sense or the sound.

Sorry, KFG — Thats about all the bigotry I can stand for one day… Catch ya tomorrow!!

Good night; Good luck; God bless -
Whatever you conceive God to be!!

Blessings ALL!!

Blessings to the newly weds in California!!

It would be a good time to be a jeweler in Hollyfornia.

“BJ, you save the world yet?”

Killing you in all your nics will be a considerable start James.

And I’m hungry.

Consenting adults? Why should the law read that way?

Hungry and a freak too.

I think it should read consenting primates.

It’s age discriminatory as it is written now. Some fellow might want to get his ‘chimp’ on and go bananas.

BTW, I met Jane Goodall here in Wichita. Quite likeable and very spry.

Right, it is age discrimination.

What basis is there for prohibiting a 10 yr old and 20 yr old from getting married?

Did she smell Chimpy?

Parades? What parades?

Not forced (yet) to watch any light floaters.

They even let Nazis have their parade. BFD.

Cheer up all:

The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There’ll be sun!

Just thinkin’ about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
‘Til there’s none!

When I’m stuck a day
That’s gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!

The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
‘Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You’re always
A day
A way!

KFG,

Not supporting State endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle choice doesn’t make me a bigot.

I couldn’t care much less about what you do with your significant other.

You are DEMANDING that the state recognize and sanction your relationship.

I disagree with that.

I support giving you and your significant other all the same rights and privledges as any other married couple, without state recognition of your relationship.

As I have said before, marriage has become so corrupted with state and federal laws regarding taxes and many other things when it never should have been that way.

This doesn’t make me or anyone else a bigot.

I suggest you look up the words you are using before you start calling people those words.

Yup Regular, and other cultures in the past didn’t recognize any difference between children and adults.

But who cares? It’s whatever/however the Libs want to define the law today, that’s what matters.

The Constitution is a Living Document to them, which means, that it means nuthin.

Regular posted May 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm

“cosmos kneils(sic) down to the Sierra Club. No doubt there is union at the hip between him and Ben Huie concerning Sierra Club matters.”

No… again I have the facts on my side.

jimmymac has proven that upthread, and on other threads.

And all that little jimmymac has is lies, stupidity, and false personal attacks. It seems that jimmymac really is so dumb that he cannot understand reality.

Or else he is just a very obnoxious troll.

But there’s really not much difference between a dumb liar, and a very obnoxious troll.

Hey boxlick, if you go to google and type in “genetic basis + homosexuality” you will find pages and pages of studies. Not one nut job on Fux news.

That oughta keep you busy for a while.

Or are you just too stupid to do that research? Even though YOU made the point. And in debate, the person making the assertion must back it up.

To translate into little words… THAT. Be. YOU.

“The Constitution is a Living Document to them, which means, that it means nuthin.”

Have you actually READ the constitution max? It is silent on the subject of marriage.

not so silent on the separation of church and state

But feel free to continue talking out yer ass…

“I support giving you and your significant other all the same rights and privledges as any other married couple, without state recognition of your relationship.”

That is called separate but “equal” and it was struck down with Brown v Board of Education, and again last week by the CA supremes..

Besides, you cant grant ANYTHING to something you refuse to recognize.

SO.. if the state refuses to recognize gay marriage, how can it then turn around and give rights to something it doesnt recognize?

I thought YOU were supposed to be logic boy?

KFG,

You have the same exact rights as I do. You are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

You have no right to marriage. Only the most liberal courts are ruling that way and I disagree with them.

“I support giving you and your significant other all the same rights and privledges as any other married couple, without state recognition of your relationship.”

How do you plan to do that? Since ALL federal and state benefits require the couple accessing them to be “married”.

Civil unions dont get me survivor benefits for social security or pensions and it does NOT get me access to my partner’s health insurance.

ALL the benefits depend on a… wait for it….. MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE!

KFG,

Simple. Fix attaching those things to marriage.

My point is that we have intagled marriage with all of those things when it never should have been.

There are plenty of ways around it without the state recognizing you as “married.”

Call it a civil union for all I care.

Merriam-Webster Online. 20 May 2008

intolerant
One entry found.

intolerant

Main Entry:
in·tol·er·ant

1: unable or unwilling to endure2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted3:
— in·tol·er·ant·ly adverb
— in·tol·er·ant·ness noun

“Call it a civil union for all I care.”

That was just struck down by the California Supremes.

You would know that if you’d read the decision instead of listening to rush or terry fox or another bigot who already agrees with you.

your favorite kind.

KFG,

Why don’t you try to lay out in a logical and well thought argument how I am intolerant and a bigot?

All you have done is cut and paste the definitions of both, which I already know, and then say I fit them.

Were you not the one early talking about a Tautalogy?

You are no better yourself here. Quoting the definition and then saying I fit it is not any better than simply calling me the name to begin with.

Why don’t you take that pipe you are always talking about and knock some common sense into yourself?

“Why don’t you try to lay out in a logical and well thought argument how I am intolerant and a bigot?”

I dont have to “argue” that you are intolerant.

Your words are right here on the blog, preserved for posterity.

So, who are the readers here gonna believe? YOU? Or their own lyin’ eyes?

KFG,

So I guess you can’t show how I am intolerant in a well thought out argument?

Figures.

Let me see…. what words am I looking for here?

Oh yeah,

Grow up.

Nite chas. Let the boy wonder blog by himself. Let him put up more words that shows who he is.

No logical argument needed. A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is what these blogs are. A picture, preserved forever, of your words and what they are.

Maybe his tutu is too tight…

“I’d wish you good luck if I didn’t hate you so much.”
That statement provides the clear window into the heart and character of BlueJay. What a loser. Blue Jay, I can’t imagine being anywhere around you could possible bring anyone good luck.

ksfarmgrrl Posted May 20, 2008 at 12:00 am |
“What basis is there for prohibiting a 10 yr old and 20 yr old from getting married?”
Are you REALLY that ignorant and uniformed? Or is the tinfoil on too tight.
Is there some part of consenting adult you cant understand?
the ten year old is not an adult. As such, he/she can not give consent.
Statutory rape. Look it up sometime….”

Whoa everybody, I love this hypocrisy from the farmer ….farmer righteously points out the necessity of one being a consenting adult for marriage, and I agree, yet this genius farmer says it’s just fine to violate nature and a young child of ten, and younger, by halting their sexual development with drugs and hormones to halt their natural development so as to explore transgender questions and later surgery. The result of which might permanently harm the child emotionally, physically and reproductively.
Does everyone see the ‘gay’ agenda here.
That agenda is one of them KNOWING they are wrong, but making sure no one else including the law recongnizes that fact.

One thought Boxer… You called this “the gay agenda”??? That is SO FALSE!! It has nothing whatsoever to do with that!! I sometimes pity you for your closed minded agenda… but I guess it takes all kinds to make a world…

Heheheheheh. You are STILL implying somehow that the eeeeviiiil gays, with their eeeeviiil “agenda” (whatever the hell THAT is) are somehow FORCING this therapy on kids. “violating them” as you said.

Uh, link please?

Idiot.

Bedwet much?

Thank you Chas for your suggestion.
I am not being patronizing to say I hope your tooth problem is not a big one and you got some sleep. I can truly say I fell asleep quickly and soundly in spite of the rather ‘heated’ discussions of last night much to my surprise this morning.

I didn’t read anything in the article I referenced that indicated this Dr. was treating the kids as a result of a problem with a circumcision or other such accidents or even as a result of genetic deformities.
I have read of disfigurement circumcisions situations and genetic genital malformations that resulted in the attempt to change the child’s sex, but I am honestly under the remembered understanding that frequently that caused great harm with problems later for that child.
We won’t know this side of Heaven why a lot of things happen, or why some folks are the way they are. I truly don’t think I want anybody unhappy, in this case homosexuals, transgenders, etc., but I don’t think their having the world conform to their will is the way to go either, and is probably a lot worse. We don’t always get what we want, AND we don’t always want what we get, even if we think we do know what we want.
Being conservative on this issue and others is not backward, it is a recognition that maybe, just maybe we, having come lately, don’t know everything we think we know. That maybe, just maybe, traditions, laws, customs, etc. have come about over millennia and generation after generation because those past generations have lived through it, and there is a reason for things being the way they are. History teaches us many things but not everything as much get lost or overlooked in time.

I admit, I am very conflicted sometimes on this issue and wonder if my stance is simply selfish or if I am truly standing up for what I think is right. Maybe I just like a good fight, to argue for the sport, I don’t know. But I am being sincere, I think homosexuality is a grave negative for society and that the laws surrounding marriage have evolved for a reason and not simply out of chaos. As we discussed in my utter fatigue last night I know that the laws concerning marriage came about, were instituted, based on an understanding of what marriage was and is and that being a traditional one man/one woman union. To change that, or open it up to other meanings was never the intent of the law in the first place.
I know this is not a good analogy but none the less…I don’t qualify for the benefits given to lots of other folks or groups, ie. Native Americans, seniors above a given age, children below a given age, taxes based on income level, lots of things base on lots of different criteria, and I could go on and on but you get the idea. Marriage laws and benefits were/are there for traditional man/women unions and thats simply the law.
Hey, I got’ta get to work here.

Hey, here’s one you might enjoy.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1183734.ece

PREGNANT man Thomas Beatie gets stuck into the garden chores – just weeks before his baby is due.

“The bearded transsexual, who stunned the world by showing off his swollen belly after swapping from a woman to a fella, happily trimmed his lawn”

Freak

Max, go back to bed. Your IQ is not improving this morning.

NON consensual ANYTHING, sex, marriage, whatever, means someone was forced to do something that they could not or would not consent to.

That’s called rape, forced marriage, pedophilia, whatever label you want to use. And it isnt supported in ANY law. But nice to know you think forced marriage for children somehow has standing in a conversation about marriage.

All that’s left is “man on dog” and you will have covered all the nonsense conservative and religious memes on the subject.

AND… may I remind you, the idea that minor children can NOT give consent is rooted not in some dumb ass religious or moral thing, it is rooted in ALL contract law. Not just marriage and sex laws.

Ten year olds cant sign for loans, property, or any other damn thing. So why is not allowing them to marry, ANYONE, some moral judgement? Why is consent a moral judgement? You think contract law is a moral judgement too?

Jesus wept. Your points have degenerated into absurdity. If you think there is some moral equity between gay marriage and child rape…

…you need help, or at the very minimum, a logic class. You’re beating a dead and STUPID horse here max.

If you dont get help at charter, get help somewhere.

Oh and max AND boxlick, for the last time, I DONT CARE what “moral judgements” you make about me or who I am.

I DO CARE about my civil rights. You can judge me and mine all you want. Just give me equal treatment under the law.

You and your piety can BOTH KMA.

Oh and boxlick, I’m sure you are at peace.

Bigots always are…

Max, you are too stupid to argue with. Go pedal your crazy somewhere else, because, to quote Jack Nickelson, “we’re all stocked up on crazy here”.

And bigotry.

Oh you hate me just as much as I hate you “Boxy”.

The difference is in open honesty. You do your attacking behind the scenes with laws and policies.
You’d walk right up to me and offer to shake my hand after.

And I would look you in the eye and say, “Uh, no”.

What’s the foundation for your Civil Right to marriage or a civil union?

There is none.

Just admit it is because you “Want To”.

There’s no cultural tradition in America for gay civil unions or marriages.

You are advocating a CHANGE based on – “Because I want to”. And that’s ok, just admit it.

So, if the law is amended to change the “age of consent” to 10 yrs, then a 10 yr old and a 20 yr old could legally get married or have a civil union IF the law was changed to allow a 10 yr old and 20 yr old to CONSENSUALLY agree to get married.

The law is based on the law afterall, because that’s the law.

There can be no other basis for law, other then “Because I Want To”.

Boxlock gets his a$$ handed to him a dozen times every day and he thinks he’s winning.

Yup.

He’s a CON.

Box, they can’t make a rational argument for gay marriage or civil union (other then the “Because I Want To” argument) so they must label those who question them as bigots or homophobes, et al.

Then drop “age of consent too”.

That’s all I’m asking.

What CHANGE do you want to make next? What is the foundation for making this change?

It certainly isn’t longstanding culture or tradition.

“Because I Want To”

Clark, I have as much basis for that request as you do for yours.

“Clark, I have as much basis for that request as you do for yours.”

Really? List your reasons.

Well hell, if culture and tradition were the basis of laws, SLAVERY would be legal! Women wouldnt be voting, and child labor would be the norm.

What’s your point?

(chortles)

(ducks a swing from the farmgrrl)

“I have to admit, and not proudly I might add, that I occasionally do take delight in seeing you come so completely unglued. ”

Put more honestly.

You see a person who is discriminated against. She is well written and passionate. So her pain and indignation comes through so well you can feel it.

And this makes you smile.

AND that sir, in my book, makes you and those like you a despicable excuse for a human being.

I have met farmgrrl. There is not a warmer or more kind person on this Earth.

But what makes ME smile? YOU are only pleased because you feel safe in your bigotry….for just a little longer. You KNOW that the America you want is mostly gone or fading fast.

You know that your grandkids, if you have any, will look at you like something that fell out of a tree.

The lights are coming up cockroach. And you are on a white rug.

Oh, and SOCIALISM!

Cant forget max’s second biggest excuse for wetting the bed.

After he worries about them taking away his GUNS!

hee hee hee hee heeeeeeeeee……

“There can be no other basis for law, other then “Because I Want To”.”

Max, I think we are all clear here that your formal education has been limited.

But perhaps, you could exercise that narrow mind of yours by reading a little John Locke.

Not that you’d know how to find his writings. They are NOT on the wingnut list of recommended reading.

Oh and max, why dont you update us on the challenges to the iowa hate laws? Is that what has your panties in a wad over gay marriage?

“It was a long standing tradition in kansas to NOT have concealed carry.

Maybe that is another “tradition” that should be revived?”

“You carry concealed “because I want to” right?”

uh maxie, crickets are starting to chirp waiting for your reply…

Posts crossed.

So… you have no answer though to the LEGAL tradition in Kansas for not having concealed carry?

Just whine about changing the subject?

Uh, the subject was law and tradition and your utter aversion to change.

Can’t wait to see how the topic switches away from marriage next.

Farmgirl, I’ll end this right now –

“I now pronounce you Farmgirl, and your Significant other, Married to Eachother”.

The end.

BlueJay, oh…come on, what are you talking about?
“She is well written and passionate.” And she comes up with these;
“HEE HEE HEE HEEEEEE! Damn,”
“hee hee hee hee heeeeeee.”
Well written my ..s
Or this;
“lickbox” or “lick” in addressing me Ha, I suppose I should be flattered, but whoa…coming from a homosexual I’m not sure how I should take that, but I am sure I NEVER want to find out.

Max, posts;
“Box, they can’t make a rational argument for gay marriage or civil union (other then the “Because I Want To” argument) so they must label those who question them as bigots or homophobes, et al.”
I know Max, it’s sadly comical.
Here’s what I got a chuckle out of.
Crapn posts;
“Boxlock gets his a$$ handed to him a dozen times every day and he thinks he’s winning.”
Max if that were true, with you or me, they would soon tire and move on. But notice they can’t. They just keep trying in vain to make a point which very few accept and they can’t accomplish. The know they are on the losing end, but just keep coming back for more. Mindless.
What is that saying, “Insanity is saying and doing the same think over and over and expecting a different outcome.”
I don’t think we have much to be concerned about.

Here’s a good one for you churchies.

Except for a funeral and a bingo game? My kid has never seen the inside of one of your indoctrination houses.