Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The rise of same-sex marriages

March 8, 2014

To the editor: The Feb. 15 staff column and Feb. 19 letter reacting to it, both seemed to touch on tolerance and the mainstreaming of homosexuality in America....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(141)

Scout101

Mar-19-14 8:16 PM

I would partially go along with your statement about people needing essential services. If they are willing and trying to work or if they are unable to work they should have the basic essentials. The problem is we have a growing segment who is unwilling to work and want to sit back and have everything given to them.

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-19-14 8:12 PM

A dyed in the wool socialist would be appalled at our materialistic society and too much of anything is a problem. We have a sizeable portion of our population, some elected officials, who would now support socialism and the redistribution of wealth. That is pushing us toward it. We also have a group of extremely wealthy who appear to be trying to control all the wealth and property in the country, pushing many others toward socialism simply because they are tired of the ultra rich while they struggle to survive. If it happens middle class America will cease to exist. So how do we stop it from happening ?

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tedtufty

Mar-19-14 3:49 PM

We should really ask a real Socialist if they think our government is heading towards Socialism. They would be appalled by all the capitalism. I am a believer in capitalism like no other. But I am also a believer in providing essential services to the people (as was Jesus interestingly). Again, the grey area between socialism and capitalism is a galaxy wide. To claim we are heading for socialism is fear tactics and nothing more. And to claim one man is doing it is even more ridiculous.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-19-14 3:22 PM

Hartman get back on your meds.

Ted I understand what you are trying to say but you leave out some details. You say our military, roads, libraries etc. are socialist products. We have an all volunteer military, well maintained roads, diverse libraries etc. All things that would typically be very limited in a socialist society. We have all these things in good condition because our capitalist economy provides the money need to support them. California us a big producer with a lot of tech but let's get real. In the past they have at times had the worst state fiscal condition, they have sued surrounding states to provide power to them because they refuse to build their own power plants, the list goes on.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-19-14 10:37 AM

After putting in his two cents worth of meaningless blather, Scout realized he was overcharged.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tedtufty

Mar-18-14 9:51 PM

I walk away for a couple days to go to California (yeah that uber Liberal state that is the 8th largest economy in the world, a leader in technology innovation and the biggest agriculture producer in the union) and come back to the same circular arguments. Although it seems we have moved on to the dreaded concept of socialism. Just so we are clear, the grey area between socialism and capitalism is a galaxy wide. I have yet to hear conservatives complain about these socialist efforts: national military, highways, public libraries, police and fire departments, postal service, parks and the list goes on for ever. All socialism is just evil, right? Give me a break. Too much of anything is a problem. As is too little. We live in a balanced economy. The reason why we bicker over all this is because we are fortunate enough that we can.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-18-14 10:50 AM

Here is a little history lesson for you teach. The US won the cold war because we were able to outspend the former USSR. We were able to do that because we are a capitalistic society not a socialistic like the USSR was. Obama has us headed for socialism and look how well it has worked for Russia. Now, sit and philosophize over that while the rest of us get the job done.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-18-14 10:44 AM

Where you fit in. You probably went from high school to college now back to high school as a teacher and have zero real world experience. Obama is the perfect example, a constitutional scholar turned president. He has no idea how to manage a 711 much less a country. Answer this for me. Suppose all of Obama's wishes were to go into effect. Redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, everything. When it is all in effect where is the money going to come from ? To pay for it all taxes will be huge. When people realize that working harder has little or no effect on their personal gain they will stop trying to excel at their job and earn more. This will primarily hit the middle class which is being hit hardest now. Wages will stagnate and decline, then tax revenues will decline followed by social services.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-18-14 10:32 AM

Well teach this isn't debate class and I really don't care what some liberal professor thinks. Hitler's actions were a huge piece of our history and that time period should be studied so similar mistakes can be avoided. The professor who insulted NBHH should have been strung up. As for the voting on this forum, all it proves is you may be able to count, nothing else. I would bet most voters don't read the text, they look at the posters name and vote. NBHH is very correct about the liberal attitude in MN & Marshall. Minneapolis is a sanctuary city. The college in Marshall grew up in the 60's & 70's when the liberal philosophy was taking root. Liberal academic types are very good at voicing their views and pointing out what is wrong with society. However, they cannot function in the real world where one must make an actual contribution to their community. They are all talk, but when asked to back up their talk with actions they can't perform. I suspect this is where y

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-17-14 10:39 PM

teach, this may very well be a final post on this forum. You, and even I myself, reminded me that I should be weary of, to quote Paul Simon, "people hearing without listening".

I will close with this little memory of how insane society was during the Vietnam era. I was attending college. I won't give the name of the college because I don't believe it should be demeaned for the long past actions of and activist professor and a following of students. The prof was my advisor. I informed him that I would be dropping out of college to enlist in the Marines, knowing I would probably be drafted anyway. I was in his class on my last day there. He informed the class of my decision, and mockingly told the class to give me a round of applause. What I got was loud boos, from my advisor and most of the class. The last thing I remember leaving the room was a flying textbook to the middle of my back. Now you know why I am a conservative. Liberal is just not my cup of tea.

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-17-14 10:10 PM

I no longer provide my fact sources, teach.

I used to do that, but even if I provided such a source and nothing else, the majority by far, were disagrees. That, I believe, also speaks volumes.

1 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-17-14 9:59 PM

Well, teach here's a thought. Could it be that political correctness existed even back when you were in college? Your debate prof was likely equivalent to the all too frequent liberal progressive profs of today in any college.

Come on teach, we live in an ultra-liberal state, in a college town. What would you expect when someone offers up a conservative point of view? I've been commenting here for years. The agree ratio never changes regardless of the topic. Once there was an example which was hilarious. Another poster was offering conservative viewpoints. But his post name was, sardonically, "Liberal". Only occasionally did he get a disagree. What that told me was that perhaps posts don't always get read. That the name alone tells some folks who to agree or disagree with.

You said it yourself teach. "Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." All I see in those 67 disagrees are a whole bunch of folks wanting a first hand history lesson. Later

1 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teacherinmarshall

Mar-17-14 9:41 PM

Funny, I ended up one letter short. NBHH, you got your rear-end taken to the wood-shed, son.

Also, not sure what how the program thought I was swearing with the added asterisk when I wrote "come back"

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teacherinmarshall

Mar-17-14 9:39 PM

NBHH-- When I was a freshman in college 20 years ago, I joined the debate team. In my first week of practice, I got wrapped up in a lively exchange and in a heated moment, I pulled out a Hitler/Nazi Germany example to support my argument. My teammates immediately put down their heads. The coach stopped the debate, got in my face and said something very close to this..."rule number one of competition debate: if you use Hitler or Nazi Germany to defend your argument, you've already lost. We need people who can THINK..****e back when you're ready to play with the big boys." Then he dismissed me from practice.

Of course, I thought of that immediately when I read your crazy Obama=Hitler rants last week. Then I read your exchange with Sally, so I played scorekeeper.

In that exchange, Sally received 43 agrees and ZERO disagrees. You received 67 disagrees and ZERO agrees. Allow me to make this clear. In competition debate, you got your read-end taken to the wood-shed, so

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-17-14 11:20 AM

Redistribution of wealth, socialized health care and gun control. You better take a good hard look at history and look at the first actions of politicians who lead their countries into socialism.

When/if it happens here there are going to be a lot of people very surprised to learn they are now considered wealthy and some of their wealth needs to be redistributed.

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-17-14 11:14 AM

A friend of mine has lost 2 co-workers due to Obama care. Both part-time working a variable schedule 2-4 days a week and happy. Due to the mandatory Obama care coverage the company limited them to 3 days a week. Both had to quit and find other or additional jobs so they could work 4 days when needed. Their positions have not been filled and have been eliminated. Nice job Obama !

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-17-14 11:10 AM

One of the unions has finally realized that employers are actually reducing their workforce to reduce Obama care costs. This is reducing union membership. If Obama is so concerned about jobs why does he keep beating on the general aviation industry ? Wichita Kansas is a huge aviation manufacturing town that has been devastated by the economic downturn, some major companies laying off over 50% of their work force yet Obama continues to demonize this industry.

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scout101

Mar-17-14 11:04 AM

Sally or Teddy or whoever, the only proof you need to confirm Obama is a socialist is his statement about redistributing the wealth. On gun control, he has on many occasions stated his support for more gun control. He has prevented several hundred thousand collectable firearms from being returned to the US. These are firearms that were made here, sent to other governments and now could be imported and sold to collectors. Most of these are fixed magazine 8 shot rifles. His auto industry bailout was pandering to the unions. GM was not going to go away. The jobs you talk about would still be there just a new name on the top of the pay check. He protected the union pay check in return for their support. Now at least one is rethinking their decision after Obama care is having a bad effect on their membership.

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-17-14 1:25 AM

Hey good distraction. True to the liberal way. I won't dwell on your not answering my questions, knowing I'll get more "fantasy from oblivion". I'm looking forward to the CBO report as well. The last report was a real body slam for the administration. I suspect the next one will be too. There is just no good news to report. Enjoy your peculiar world. I'll go back to the real one. Been "fun".

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tedtufty

Mar-17-14 12:32 AM

And before you start ranting about Sally vs Ted. One is my wife's log-in on the iPad and the other is my laptop. We are in fact one person writing this.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tedtufty

Mar-17-14 12:28 AM

Hold on! You are making things up again. My exact quote was "Obama didn't nationalize big banks during the financial crisis". I never said take over as you claim. Either way, neither of which the administration did. Further, the point of that comment was around socialism. Any involvement by the government here was temporary during a financial crisis and subsequently the government removed itself from ongoing involvement. At a profit to taxpayers! That is not how a socialist government would operate. You continue to hide behind the a comment about the CBO without providing proof. I am quite familiar with the CBO and can tell you they have not provided an update on TARP in almost a year (May 2013). I look forward to the next actual update because it will prove the private and well documented numbers correct. The only reason the website I provided is "incomplete" is because the Marshall Independent put the **** in. You can find it if you really wanted to.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-16-14 11:40 PM

Ok I'll answer your questions. The contradiction: You made the case that the administration had not "taken over" any banks. Then later you "revealed" that banks got government bailouts. What would be the intent of a bailout in the event of a default? Answer to 2nd question: No you should not take my word for it. Again, I recommend the CBO.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-16-14 11:34 PM

You can put up all the "persuasive" and incomplete websites you want. I make my observations based on the more neutral CBO reports.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RuralSally

Mar-16-14 11:29 PM

So now you are ignoring my questions after I called you out?

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Mar-16-14 11:26 PM

Look at the big picture sally. This administration has been, and still is, putting a nation in self-destruct mode with horrendous deficits. It started early with the bailouts, because Obama was under the mistaken impression that he had a mandate from the populace to do as he pleased, and did so with his incompetent majorities in both houses. The taxpayer went to the back of the bus the day Obama took office.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 141 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web