Here's my take on prop 8 and gay marriage.

The voters of California decided to define marriage as between a man and a woman. And that is an entirely reasonable thing for them to do.

My reasoning? States and the federal government choose to recognize straight marriage for its benefits to society. The traditional family has, for thousands of years, shown to help stabilize society and encourages its growth (by the obvious ability of men and women to produce offspring, which gay couples cannot do). So, it's understandable that they would wish to continue to support that.

Notwithstanding any religious aspect, marriage is essentially a contract between two people. They agree to share a home, income, expenses, etc. There's no reason that ANY two people couldn't enter into a similar contract. The issue is whether the states will choose to recognize it and grant any benefits onto the couple.

I think the fair thing to do would be to rescind marriage benefits bestowed by the state and federal gov't. Straight or gay; couples would receive no special treatment. After all, no one should receive special treatment in the eyes of the law.

Comments?

-snakelips

I haven't seen much posted in here about it, so can I assume, for those of you who've heard snippets from Obama's 2001 interview on NPR, that you're OK with his desire to see further redistribution of wealth by the federal government? That you're OK with socialism to this degree happening in this country?

I am against redistribution by fiat of the government. The basis for most all we've accomplished in this country is a result of the private ownership of property and the right to part with that property by our own desires.

Does this further evidence (after the "Joe the plumber" admission) of Obama's desire to lead this country down the socialist road at all concern you?

-snakelips

Giuliani, in speaking of Obama's flip-flops emphasizes his campaign slogan: "Change you can believe in!"

You can believe he'll change his mind! LOL

-snakelips

I wonder if I will be able to claim a mortgage deduction on my income taxes next year for these mortgages that I'm helping to bail people out of with my taxes?

Heck, I ought to get some kind of benefit for actually doing the right thing and being responsible! I'm not going to be able to live in those houses or ride the jet-skis that people bought with home equity loans, or go out to eat with the money they saved by agreeing to a ridiculously low variable rate and not having to pay any down payment.

The very least I should get is a frickin' tax deduction, don't you think?

-snakelips

I've taken a break for a while from Partybuilder and now when I come back I see a new Search Blogs format. My question is, how does it work, other than not well? I sign all my comments so that I can search for them later and find them. But now, when I do a search for snakelips, it brings up old stuff, in no particular order. It'd be nice if it displayed the results in chronological order, newest first (what a concept, huh?)

My other question is, why, when I'm commenting on a post, it sometimes shows "unregistered" where it would normally show my username?

Small things I suppose, but kind of irritating. I always want to have the last word (LOL :-P), but if I can't find my posts unless I bookmark every one, it's hard to do.

Thanks for your time!

-snakelips

Whoa! The world is cooling?
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

What's going on?!?

-snakelips

OK, how about we talk about something else. I'm curious about ya'll's (sorry, I'm in Texas) opinion on whether or not there should be laws banning the burning of the United States flag.

I'll withhold my opinions (and you KNOW I have some) until you've had your say.

-snakelips

I'm wondering on this new year's eve, whether it is even necessary to have states any longer? I believe, of course, that that is a rhetorical question. They are VERY much needed.

The many states give we the people another way to vote. We can vote with our feet. We can move to a state which has laws and policies that suit us. Don't like paying state income taxes? Move to Florida, North Dakota, or Texas. Don't want people to have easy access to guns? Move to New York or California. Every state is different. And that's the beauty of the thing!

Why would so many of you on the left want to erode that tier of freedom that you have? Why are states rights in this day and age ignored? Is secession still an option? If slavery were not the 300 pound gorilla in the room and a modern state simply wanted out, would it be allowed? And if not, why not?

Just a lot of thoughts swirling around my head tonight... I'm worried that very soon we will no longer be free by anyone's standards...

Happy New Year.
-snakelips

I saw this: Link about illegal aliens being given drivers licenses in New York. At first I was outraged! But then I thought this may be a good first step in rounding up these law-breakers and deporting them! This will help bring them out of the shadows and document them so they will be easier to find!

-snakelips

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southerner?

Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? What does the law say about this situation? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.


Republican's Answer: BANG!


Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click..... (Sounds of reloading) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click.......... Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points? Son: Why did that dumb SOB bring a knife to a gun fight? Wife: You are NOT taking that to the taxidermist!

This Rep is mad at Bush! And where is the outrage on this blog? Bush went to the hill to personally lobby to resurrect the comprehensive immigration bill. I am disinterested in this until we manage to stop or at least slow the flow of illegals across our border.

I want the fence, which has already been authorized, to be built and I want the National Guard armed and deployed.

Is anyone else appalled that he is promoting amnesty while at the same time leaving our borders wide open? If you guys are so gung-ho on impeachment, this should be your battle cry!

Comments?

I was looking at my previous posts to see if there had been any new comments and I came on this one: Link

If you are curious, it is a very interesting discussion regarding the Assault Weapons Ban (among other things), and may be relevant again with all the hub-bub over the Virginia Tech tragedy. Any additional comments are welcome. LOL! How's that coming from a conservative!?!

I was surprised to learn recently that Congress members are allowed to carry guns. It�s not so much that they are allowed to do it in general, but that they can do it in the District of Columbia which has very strict gun control laws� for average citizens. If members of Congress need to defend themselves, why don�t they extend that basic right to John Q. Public? It sort of sounds like the Commissars of the former USSR with their special cars and streets and rights and laws that only pertain to them. The poor peons they lorded over were too weak and stupid to handle such things. Is that what we�re becoming?

I heard a story on NPR this morning mention that 40% of the federal budget is used for retirement benefits and Medicare spending. What part of the Constitution relates to spending taxes on these programs? It grinds at me a bit that 40% of the American people�s money is spent on things that individual Americans can and should be responsible for. At the very most, it should be a states issue.

Now that Democrats control Congress, do you think that there will be new gun control laws on par with the assault weapons ban restrictions? If so, we all better start buying up what we can while we can. Opinions?

I wrote this as a comment to another post, but I thought it was kind of funny, so I'm reposting it.

Me: Dang, the tire is flat.
Wife: Yep, I wish you wouldn't have run over that nail.
Me: Well, you said you left the iron on and we had to turn around in the ditch.
Wife: You didn't have to turn around in the ditch.
Me: Yes I did, there was a car coming up and I couldn't do a 12 point turn in the road.
Wife: You're lying, there was no car.
Me: YOU said there was a car. I saw the car. The kids saw the car.
Wife: It was just a mirage on the road. There was no car. You lied. You should have stayed on the road.
Me: Dang, how could I be lying when you told me there was a car?
Wife: None of that matters now, you lied, we have a flat tire now. What are you going to do about it?
Me: ARRGH! Well, ok, I could plug the tire.
Wife: No, that'll never work.
Me: What do you mean? Why not? What do you think we should do?
Wife: I think you shouldn't have driven in the ditch.
Me: But you said the iron was on and a car was coming!
Wife: No, you lied about the car because there was none, and you know, now that I can see in the window of the house, the iron is actually off anyway.
Me: Ok, so we still need to fix the tire. I'm going to plug it.
Wife: That won't work. You don't know what you're doing. You were wrong about the starter motor last week.
Me: No, I just didn't replace the starter right off, I checked the battery first, because it's easier to do than replace the starter. Besides, what would you have done.
Wife: Me!?! I don't know anything about cars! I just know you were wrong about that, you're a liar, and obviously incompetent!
Me: Sheesh! I'm going to plug the tire.
Wife: Fine, but I don't think you're doing the right thing.
Me: Whatever. Move.
Wife: You're so stupid. You shouldn't have driven in the ditch.
Me: But the iron was on and I needed to turn around to go turn it off.
Wife: No, it was off.
Me: Yeah, now you see it was off.
Wife: Don't change the subject. You didn't need to drive in the ditch.
Me: You said there was a car coming! We all saw it!
Wife: It was a mirage on the road. You lied. And then you drove in the ditch when you didn't need to.
Me: You know what!?!?! YOU fix the tire!
Wife: Don't be ridiculous. I don't know how to fix a tire. Let's just leave the car here.
Me: Are you crazy? Someone will steal it or vandalize it or something.
Wife: So! You lied and you shouldn't have driven in the ditch.

and on and and on and on and on and on andonandonandononaodnlndlajdljafjafogjaer0gjdfaogjzzzzzzz..........

Sound familiar?

I've searched this blog for a little disappointment in Nancy Pelosi waiving the minimum wage requirement for a tuna company based in her district. I thought dems were going to act more ethically? Now, how about a little discussion.

-snakelips

I'd like to explain trickle down to you, as I see it. The wealthy spend their money on things like boats, houses, jewelry, furs, pedicures, etc. That money goes into the hands of business owners who operate the boat factories, contractors, jewelry stores, tanneries, and spas. They keep a portion of that money for themselves in an effort to become one of the wealthy and give another portion to their employees in exchange for performing the service for the wealthy person. That employee saves or invests some of that money in an effort to become a business owner on the way to becoming wealthy and spends the rest at Walmart and the bar. Walmart and the bar are staffed by people just like them working to move up the ladder. The money in their pockets and getting spent by them came originally from the wealthy who gladly gave it in return for a service performed or a good provided. The money trickled down and along the way government at all levels got a little piece of every income and expenditure. Everyone along the way benefited in some way.

What I see the left wanting to do is remove all the people in the middle from the equation. They want the rich taxed heavily and then the government will decide how to hand out the money. The rich don't get anything for their money and now can't afford the boat, or the house, or the jewels. Now the boat builder, the contractor and the jewelry store owner can't become wealthy and soon can't pay his bills...so he turns to government to get him out of this fix. The folks working at Walmart and the bar lose their jobs because the boat builder, tanner, and spa opener don't have any money to spend there and Walmart and the bar can't afford to keep paying so many people. Now those workers can't become rich and start having trouble paying their bills. But, no worries, the government has all the money and they'll decide who gets what. The problem is, once that initial flush of money is gone, you've already zapped productivity while at the same time increasing the dependancy of these need cattle you've created. You've killed the golden goose.

The key to all this is the flow. Money flows up and it flows down and all those changing of hands is where we are productive and motivated to advance. We allow gov't to take little cuts here and there to provide for defense and the common good, but we can't come to rely on it for everything because government itself does not produce wealth.

Thanks for reading,
snakelips

(2006-10-21) â�" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, today issued a joint statement calling on terrorist groups and armed militias to pull out of Iraq, or at least begin a â��phased redeployment.â�� They also called for sanctions against any nation that harbors or funds those terrorists.

Until this week, the Democrat leaders had been calling on the U.S. to retreat from Iraq, but today Rep. Pelosi said, �it suddenly occured to us that the terrorists and so-called insurgents are the aggressors.�

â��We realized that if the U.S. pulls out,â�� she said, â��the shooting, bombing and beheading continues. But if the terrorists leave, or if their funding dries up, then the fighting stops and we can build a lot more schools, clinics, water purification systems and electrical generation plants.â��   Read More »