New Monopoly Board

[Lootifer]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

Unless the government adequately represents all the people. That is: does their job properly.

[Lootifer]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

Conservatives don't want big government. There are plenty of Republicans who want a big government though, so I understand your confusion.

Who's confused here? My post contains NO information on what conservatives want...

My point was a big government does not necessarily mean oppression.

[Night Strike]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

Conservatives don't want big government. There are plenty of Republicans who want a big government though, so I understand your confusion.

Who's confused here? My post contains NO information on what conservatives want...

My point was a big government does not necessarily mean oppression.

And I'm saying that if you follow conservative principles, you would not have a big government, which means your phrase of "big conservative government" is inherently false.

[pimpdave]

Yeah like how conservatives want to run women's lives and declare who is allowed to get married. Totally small government there.

[Lootifer]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

Conservatives don't want big government. There are plenty of Republicans who want a big government though, so I understand your confusion.

Who's confused here? My post contains NO information on what conservatives want...

My point was a big government does not necessarily mean oppression.

And I'm saying that if you follow conservative principles, you would not have a big government, which means your phrase of "big conservative government" is inherently false.

Sorry I thought I was being clear.

Also on the flipside of this coin (ignore my little fxt thing about small govt = freedom...) you can have pretty serious oppression in a small govt too

[Night Strike]

Yeah like how conservatives want to run women's lives and declare who is allowed to get married. Totally small government there.

Nope, they want the 1st Amendment to be followed so that religious institutions can enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. And the marriage issue is trying to get the government even more involved in the institution instead of allowing the simple, current definition to stand. It's getting the government even more involved so that every special interest group can get their own carve-outs of laws. By the way, conservative principles actually let each individual state determine whether or not they want to grant homosexual marriages, as long as it's passed by state legislatures and not forced on them by a court unconstitutionally writing it into law. And as long as one state doesn't force their values and policies on any other state.

[Symmetry]

Yeah like how conservatives want to run women's lives and declare who is allowed to get married. Totally small government there.

Nope, they want the 1st Amendment to be followed so that religious institutions can enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. And the marriage issue is trying to get the government even more involved in the institution instead of allowing the simple, current definition to stand. It's getting the government even more involved so that every special interest group can get their own carve-outs of laws. By the way, conservative principles actually let each individual state determine whether or not they want to grant homosexual marriages, as long as it's passed by state legislatures and not forced on them by a court unconstitutionally writing it into law. And as long as one state doesn't force their values and policies on any other state.

I'll likely always disagree with you on this issue, but you're generally one of the strictest constitutionalists on this site. What's your take on Conservatives who want a Constitutional amendment redefining (or maybe just defining) marriage as between one man and one woman?

[Night Strike]

Yeah like how conservatives want to run women's lives and declare who is allowed to get married. Totally small government there.

Nope, they want the 1st Amendment to be followed so that religious institutions can enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. And the marriage issue is trying to get the government even more involved in the institution instead of allowing the simple, current definition to stand. It's getting the government even more involved so that every special interest group can get their own carve-outs of laws. By the way, conservative principles actually let each individual state determine whether or not they want to grant homosexual marriages, as long as it's passed by state legislatures and not forced on them by a court unconstitutionally writing it into law. And as long as one state doesn't force their values and policies on any other state.

I'll likely always disagree with you on this issue, but you're generally one of the strictest constitutionalists on this site. What's your take on Conservatives who want a Constitutional amendment redefining (or maybe just defining) marriage as between one man and one woman?

I would support it.

[Symmetry]

Yeah like how conservatives want to run women's lives and declare who is allowed to get married. Totally small government there.

Nope, they want the 1st Amendment to be followed so that religious institutions can enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. And the marriage issue is trying to get the government even more involved in the institution instead of allowing the simple, current definition to stand. It's getting the government even more involved so that every special interest group can get their own carve-outs of laws. By the way, conservative principles actually let each individual state determine whether or not they want to grant homosexual marriages, as long as it's passed by state legislatures and not forced on them by a court unconstitutionally writing it into law. And as long as one state doesn't force their values and policies on any other state.

I'll likely always disagree with you on this issue, but you're generally one of the strictest constitutionalists on this site. What's your take on Conservatives who want a Constitutional amendment redefining (or maybe just defining) marriage as between one man and one woman?

I would support it.

Would that not be an example of federal government forcing a view of marriage upon states, in opposition to your previous post? That is, not letting each state determine whether or not they wanted it?

[Night Strike]

Yeah like how conservatives want to run women's lives and declare who is allowed to get married. Totally small government there.

Nope, they want the 1st Amendment to be followed so that religious institutions can enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. And the marriage issue is trying to get the government even more involved in the institution instead of allowing the simple, current definition to stand. It's getting the government even more involved so that every special interest group can get their own carve-outs of laws. By the way, conservative principles actually let each individual state determine whether or not they want to grant homosexual marriages, as long as it's passed by state legislatures and not forced on them by a court unconstitutionally writing it into law. And as long as one state doesn't force their values and policies on any other state.

I'll likely always disagree with you on this issue, but you're generally one of the strictest constitutionalists on this site. What's your take on Conservatives who want a Constitutional amendment redefining (or maybe just defining) marriage as between one man and one woman?

I would support it.

Would that not be an example of federal government forcing a view of marriage upon states, in opposition to your previous post? That is, not letting each state determine whether or not they wanted it?

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

[Symmetry]

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

I suppose the corollary question would be if the Federal government did pass some sort of civil rights amendment on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage, would you take a similar position? That states have no right to oppose it?

[Lootifer]

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

I suppose the corollary question would be if the Federal government did pass some sort of civil rights amendment on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage, would you take a similar position? That states have no right to oppose it?

That's an easy one...

[Night Strike]

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

I suppose the corollary question would be if the Federal government did pass some sort of civil rights amendment on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage, would you take a similar position? That states have no right to oppose it?

Lol. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Nice try though. But yes, states could not supersede that type of Constitutional amendment either. However, either direction would require 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which would probably not happen.

[Symmetry]

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

I suppose the corollary question would be if the Federal government did pass some sort of civil rights amendment on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage, would you take a similar position? That states have no right to oppose it?

Lol. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Nice try though. But yes, states could not supersede that type of Constitutional amendment either. However, either direction would require 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which would probably not happen.

Well, this is the point that we disagree on, and indeed the point that much of the debate hinges on. Whether or not it's a civil rights issue. Obviously it is, from my perspective, because gay couples don't have the same civil rights as others. They cannot be legally recognised as married, and can't get the same kind of civil rights that heterosexual couples receive.

Given the current trend, it seems like more and more states have ratified, are ratifying, or will, given demographic trends, ratify some form of civil union or gay marriage.

[Night Strike]

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

I suppose the corollary question would be if the Federal government did pass some sort of civil rights amendment on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage, would you take a similar position? That states have no right to oppose it?

Lol. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Nice try though. But yes, states could not supersede that type of Constitutional amendment either. However, either direction would require 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which would probably not happen.

Well, this is the point that we disagree on, and indeed the point that much of the debate hinges on. Whether or not it's a civil rights issue. Obviously it is, from my perspective, because gay couples don't have the same civil rights as others. They cannot be legally recognised as married, and can't get the same kind of civil rights that heterosexual couples receive.

Given the current trend, it seems like more and more states have ratified, are ratifying, or will, given demographic trends, ratify some form of civil union or gay marriage.

There are not different kinds of civil rights. Everyone has the same civil rights, and none are being violated by defining marriage between one man and one woman at one time. Every person is covered equally by this definition. If the definition was that you had the freedom to marry anyone you love, then you would have a point. However, that is not the definition.

[Symmetry]

Except it would no longer be a states-rights issue if it becomes a Constitutional Amendment as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, then the states can't go against that. But if the Constitution is silent on an issue, then the states are the ones who get to decide the issue. The federal government has no say on issues where the Constitution is silent.

I suppose the corollary question would be if the Federal government did pass some sort of civil rights amendment on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage, would you take a similar position? That states have no right to oppose it?

Lol. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Nice try though. But yes, states could not supersede that type of Constitutional amendment either. However, either direction would require 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which would probably not happen.

Well, this is the point that we disagree on, and indeed the point that much of the debate hinges on. Whether or not it's a civil rights issue. Obviously it is, from my perspective, because gay couples don't have the same civil rights as others. They cannot be legally recognised as married, and can't get the same kind of civil rights that heterosexual couples receive.

Given the current trend, it seems like more and more states have ratified, are ratifying, or will, given demographic trends, ratify some form of civil union or gay marriage.

There are not different kinds of civil rights. Everyone has the same civil rights, and none are being violated by defining marriage between one man and one woman at one time. Every person is covered equally by this definition. If the definition was that you had the freedom to marry anyone you love, then you would have a point. However, that is not the definition.

Of course this is not true, those who wished to have a marriage to a heterosexual partner would have greater rights than those who wanted to marry a partner of the same gender.

Now the obvious argument here, and one that no doubt you're familiar with, is anti-miscegenation law. How is your argument different from an argument that everyone has the same civil rights as long as it's between same racial identities? That, at the time, being part of the definition of marriage under law.

[Night Strike]

Of course this is not true, those who wished to have a marriage to a heterosexual partner would have greater rights than those who wanted to marry a partner of the same gender.

Now the obvious argument here, and one that no doubt you're familiar with, is anti-miscegenation law. How is your argument different from an argument that everyone has the same civil rights as long as it's between same racial identities? That, at the time, being part of the definition of marriage under law.

I have greater rights as a heterosexual? Where are these listed? I don't see them mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I may have different privileges and definitions under the law, but that is open to any male who chooses to marry a female. Those same privileges don't exist for singles, so does that mean their "rights" are also being violated?

And race is a completely different issue. (Do you not read posts, because I know I've gone over this before?) All people are people. Males are males and females are females, regardless of race. You cannot restrict a male from marrying a female simply because they have different skin colors.


By the way, how did this thread change from relying on the government for money to homosexuality? Let's get back on topic and discuss how to reduce the amount of spending on transfer payments.

[Symmetry]

Of course this is not true, those who wished to have a marriage to a heterosexual partner would have greater rights than those who wanted to marry a partner of the same gender.

Now the obvious argument here, and one that no doubt you're familiar with, is anti-miscegenation law. How is your argument different from an argument that everyone has the same civil rights as long as it's between same racial identities? That, at the time, being part of the definition of marriage under law.

I have greater rights as a heterosexual? Where are these listed? I don't see them mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I may have different privileges and definitions under the law, but that is open to any male who chooses to marry a female. Those same privileges don't exist for singles, so does that mean their "rights" are also being violated?

And race is a completely different issue. (Do you not read posts, because I know I've gone over this before?) All people are people. Males are males and females are females, regardless of race. You cannot restrict a male from marrying a female simply because they have different skin colors.


By the way, how did this thread change from relying on the government for money to homosexuality? Let's get back on topic and discuss how to reduce the amount of spending on transfer payments.

Would you like me to reply to your post, or not? It looks like you're damning me either way. Either I ignore your arguments and let you get back to a topic you're more comfortable with, or I ignore your backtracking and ignore the majority of your argument.

[Lootifer]

By the way, how did this thread change from relying on the government for money to homosexuality? Let's get back on topic and discuss how to reduce the amount of spending on transfer payments.

Ok; so are you opposed to all forms of wealth redistribution?

[BigBallinStalin]

Nicely played, grab onto the poorly worded specifics and ignore the meta point.

Ok Im sorry Night Strike, you are right and I am wrong, I apologise for my poor wording.

Now that being said; care to provide some [verified] data on the amount of people exploiting welfare/unemployment vs the amount of people who have genuinely fell on hard times (through mostly no fault of their own) and are using the safety net to avoid poverty (and will soon potentially rejoin the workforce or otherwise add value to society)?

Thanks for your tolerance of my poor wording and grammar. But im sure an intelligent person like you can see the context of my question...

(1) f*ck f*ck and f*ck. I can't find my graphs for this eternal question; however, I have found that people who are "unemployed" (acc. to government statistics) readily find employment when the unemployment benefits end.

(2) Also, there's the black market problem. Logically, one could receive unemployment checks and also earn income "under the table." (LOL) I have a cross-country graph of unemployment v. income graph, which I can't find.

If you really love me enough, I would be willing to photo and copy-paste (2) graph, which I could have interpretted incorrectly given my crappy memory. Regarding the (1) graph, ....errr... umm.... I don't know if I could find the person who's responsible for that kind of research...

[patrickaa317]

Nicely played, grab onto the poorly worded specifics and ignore the meta point.

Ok Im sorry Night Strike, you are right and I am wrong, I apologise for my poor wording.

Now that being said; care to provide some [verified] data on the amount of people exploiting welfare/unemployment vs the amount of people who have genuinely fell on hard times (through mostly no fault of their own) and are using the safety net to avoid poverty (and will soon potentially rejoin the workforce or otherwise add value to society)?

Thanks for your tolerance of my poor wording and grammar. But im sure an intelligent person like you can see the context of my question...

Here's a map that shows where Minnesota welfare money is spent. If you can help me understand how to justify that about $360,000 dollars from the Minnesota welfare program were spent Florida, Maine, Washington, California, Alaska & Hawaii (The four corners of the continental US and the two non-continental states), then you may have a point. I am having a hard time understanding all these people on hard times were able to go from Minnesota to Texas and make over 12,000 transactions worth over $387000.

In all fairness, this was from 2007-2008 and Minnesota has revamped their program since but I have no specifics on whether this has changed at all.

[Aradhus]

Unfunny fact. When I was a kid my brother broke one of my Star Wars ships(accidently he claimed, but really he broke it because I was given it by a friend of his who was no longer a friend), I executed my revenge by taking his monopoly boardgame and cutting all the money and cards in half. The really sad pathetic thing about that is, he only ever played the game game when I NAGGED HIM to play it with me. I bet you find it incredibly hard to believe that once upon a time Aradhus wasn't the brightest tack in the medicine cabinet.

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfunny fact. When I was a kid my brother broke one of my Star Wars ships(accidently he claimed, but really he broke it because I was given it by a friend of his who was no longer a friend), I executed my revenge by taking his monopoly boardgame and cutting all the money and cards in half. The really sad pathetic thing about that is, he only ever played the game game when I NAGGED HIM to play it with me. I bet you find it incredibly hard to believe that once upon a time Aradhus wasn't the brightest tack in the medicine cabinet.

You just doubled the supply of money and doubled the amount of properties to be sold!! All hail! Aradhus, greatest central planner of Monopoly!

[patrickaa317]

Unfunny fact. When I was a kid my brother broke one of my Star Wars ships(accidently he claimed, but really he broke it because I was given it by a friend of his who was no longer a friend), I executed my revenge by taking his monopoly boardgame and cutting all the money and cards in half. The really sad pathetic thing about that is, he only ever played the game game when I NAGGED HIM to play it with me. I bet you find it incredibly hard to believe that once upon a time Aradhus wasn't the brightest tack in the medicine cabinet.

You just doubled the supply of money and doubled the amount of properties to be sold!! All hail! Aradhus, greatest central planner of Monopoly!

On the front, that would seem smart. But with a limited number of houses and hotels to go with them, the price of housing would naturally increase.

[Phatscotty]

yes, she has a right to free money. This is what an entitlement society looks like.

" How dare you Phatscotty! It's all about helping people and anyone who says or shows otherwise is hateful to the point I will ignore waste and abuse!"