Carly Fiorina

[Jonathan]

Here's a thought.

Why should the government be issuing marriage licenses at all?

Exactly!

J

[anthony]

She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.

You are aware that at least some of your points are debatable?

--Brant

Isn't it indisputable? From 'The Nature of Government' - " Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally *forbidden"; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally *permitted*."

Government is not in the business of morality, it has nothing else to do but to protect individual morality, such as it may be. (But then it involved itself in marriage, muddying the waters...)

As soon as this woman comes on duty at work, she loses her right to "do anything except that which is legally *forbidden*.

Properly, she is to be fired and charged.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Properly, she is to be fired and charged.

You can't "fire" an elected official and Kentucky doesn't have a provision for recall. Charged with what?

[Selene]

Moreover, there is NO federal law regarding same sex marriage. There is no enabling legislation.

There are, under 37, or so, State jurisdictions, of which there are laws for same sex marriage.

Just as in education, there is no Constitutional right to an education. That is a state right.

However, there was an enabling Federal statute that created, out of thin air, a despicable, oppressive and unconstitutional Department of Education.

There is the SCOTUS decision in Oberfell.

A...

[9thdoctor]

Here's the Reason Mag sum up:

[Brant Gaede]

She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.

You are aware that at least some of your points are debatable?

--Brant

Isn't it indisputable? From 'The Nature of Government' - " Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally *forbidden"; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally *permitted*."

Government is not in the business of morality, it has nothing else to do but to protect individual morality, such as it may be. (But then it involved itself in marriage, muddying the waters...)

As soon as this woman comes on duty at work, she loses her right to "do anything except that which is legally *forbidden*.

Properly, she is to be fired and charged.

There may be a fire but you're not a fireman nor are you pounding on our doors screaming for us to get out.

Why don't you go on a five-mile run and lift weights for a few hours? Bleed off all this emotionalism which no one cares about but you? Everything you're saying is debatable, nothing so much as "Government is not in the business of morality." But you're so wrapped up in your emotionally rendered suppositions, there's hardly any point in explaining why I say that.

--Brant

[Mikee]

She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.

So your position is that is it proper for government to be involved in issuing marriage licenses? Humans have a right to have their unions officially recognized, approved and endorsed by government? And those rights extend to all individuals, sexual preferences and viewpoints, regardless of history and tradition? So, in other words, gays, despite not having the power to be granted government licenses in the past, nevertheless had the right, and all government institutions of the past were therefore in violation of those rights? Currently, three or more people cannot receive a government license to group-marry, and therefore their rights are being violated?

Isn't that the type of position that you're taking?

J

No. I agree with you that the government should have no role in the issuing of marriage licenses. But they do have a role in protecting contractual relationships between people. Unfortunately social engineering has historically applied to marriage, benefits given if people choose acceptable (to the majority) lifestyles and relationships. Fine for the majority, the equivalent of second class citizenship for others. Not merely inconvenienced but denied rights of inheritance, visitation rights, partner privileges of all kinds taken for granted by those with the "right" lifestyle. The Muslim religion calls second class citizens (non-Muslims) dhimmi. The correct solution would be for the government to just step out of the social engineering business and let people design their own lives and associate with whom they please. But a great many legal relationships between people are governed by whether or not they are married and previously gay relationships were not recognized. The Gordian knot of this legal morass is quickly solved by just recognizing a marriage contract between gay people. It doesn't change the relationship between any non-gay partnerships or their own positions of privilege unless they resent others achieving the rights they already enjoy, rights to property, rights to inheritance, tax relief, spousal rights, pride in your relationship with your life's partner. I don't agree with how it was done but once the supreme court ruled it is done.

[anthony]

Properly, she is to be fired and charged.

There may be a fire but you're not a fireman nor are you pounding on our doors screaming for us to get out.

Why don't you go on a five-mile run and lift weights for a few hours? Bleed off all this emotionalism which no one cares about but you? Everything you're saying is debatable, nothing so much as "Government is not in the business of morality." But you're so wrapped up in your emotionally rendered suppositions, there's hardly any point in explaining why I say that.

--Brant

But government is not, or shouldn't be, "in the business of morality". It is not their concern what moral codes people live by, unless or until... Obviously - for that is when such conflicts of interest and issues of conscience, with public servants blocking individual rights, come up. "Debatable", so please explain why you think Rand's statement was wrong.

Emotionalism, no. Nobody else cares about it but I - how do you know that?

Mind my own business, perhaps.

[Brant Gaede]

Properly, she is to be fired and charged.

There may be a fire but you're not a fireman nor are you pounding on our doors screaming for us to get out.

Why don't you go on a five-mile run and lift weights for a few hours? Bleed off all this emotionalism which no one cares about but you? Everything you're saying is debatable, nothing so much as "Government is not in the business of morality." But you're so wrapped up in your emotionally rendered suppositions, there's hardly any point in explaining why I say that.

--Brant

But government is not, or shouldn't be, "in the business of morality". It is not their concern what moral codes people live by, unless or until... Obviously - for that is when such conflicts of interest and issues of conscience, with public servants blocking individual rights, come up. "Debatable", so please explain why you think Rand's statement was wrong.

Emotionalism, no. Nobody else cares about it but I - how do you know that?

Mind my own business, perhaps.

I apologize, Tony. I thought I was replying to someone else and had run your post and his together in my mind. I would not have replied to your post alone like that.

If by minding your "business" you mean that you're not in the USA--forget it. Mind away.

Again I apologize.

Morality in government refers to the morality its laws made possible and that those laws reflect. The protection of individual rights is right and the violation of them is wrong. This is a narrower, more particular sense of morality then you were using it. There is a reason there is an Objectivist Ethics apart from any politics. Politics is just an off-shoot of that.

--Brant

I gotta drink more coffee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I apologize, Tony.

Tony,

If you can't find one, I can recommend an excellent framer. He'll even custom design it for any wall you like.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Yeah, if I sign it he can sell it on Pawn Stars.

--Brant

[anthony]

Not a prob, Brant. Really. A misunderstanding. You know me better than many do, I think you know my concerns and what the USA means to me as my intellectual home, from which freedom elsewhere will resurge sometime, so I nag at you all a bit.

A 3' by 4' will suit nicely, Michael.

[Peter]

CNN schedule: Round one on September 16th, at 6pm. The big table debate will be September 16th at 8pm.

CNN announced Thursday night that 11 Republican candidates had made the cut for the network's primetime September 16 presidential debate, and will be at the Royal, Downton Abbey Table. Here's the lineup: Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Walker, Kasich, Christie, Huckabee.

The Downstairs table will be occupied by the staff and will include Pataki, Perry, Jindal, Santorum, Graham.

Gilmore didn’t make it because he did not get 1 percent in any one poll. He can talk to the horses because he will be sleeping in the barn.

I hope they ask some questions about the global financial situation, US entitlement programs, ISIS, refugees, and the increased Chinese and Russian Empires.

Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

I see media agenda. Two hours for Pataki, Perry, Jindal, Santorum, and Graham (24 minutes each)

Calculated to stop Trump. He'll get a gotcha question to make him look stupid then made to stand mute, while they "fairly" apportion time among 10 others, tossing softballs at Bush and Fiorina, the Salem-CNN dream ticket.

[Peter]

From The Federalist, The Not Trump Not Bush Republican Primary by Robert Tracinski, September 11, 2015. . . . Let’s put it this way. If you want the Republican Party to stand for something, and not for someone, who is your candidate? Let’s run down the possibilities.

. . . . . Carly Fiorina: The Executive
Carly Fiorina has also been rising in the polls. She didn’t make the top ten for the first Republican debate, but her spirited performance in the “kids’ table” debate got her noticed, and she’s now around fifth or sixth in most polls.

Her personality is more sharp-edged than Carson’s, more polished and less abrasive than Trump’s. But what gets attention is her quick wit and command of the facts and issues. When Trump had his embarrassing foreign policy interview with Hugh Hewitt, the host asked Fiorina onto the show to answer the same questions, and she demonstrated a much more detailed knowledge. It was exactly the kind of performance you would expect from a former top-level business executive, who is used to doing her homework and having all the facts at her fingertips. Among other things, this should put to rest any suggestion that we have to make a choice between someone who’s strong and decisive and someone who is factually up to speed on the issues.

Yet Carly Fiorina has much the same problem as all the other outsider candidates: great rhetoric, but no actual track record in political office against which to match her words. And worse, she has run for office once—a 2010 Senate race—and lost. To be sure, that was in California, which is a tough environment for a Republican. But it still raises questions about her ability to campaign and win.

Major parties have very rarely chosen a candidate who has never held elected office.

[Peter]

Wolf wrote about Trump in the CNN debate: He'll get a gotcha question to make him look stupid, then made to stand mute, while they "fairly" apportion time among 10 others, toss softballs at Bush and Fiorina.
end quote

Ah, hah! Your observation is less than “poker faced.” So, Wolf bids Trump? Does your proposed strategy for CNN assume they want Hillary to win the hand? Or could it be that they were thinking Hillary might lose or fold, then who would be the least objectionable Republican? Both options? Are you assuming the Commies don’t want a Trump – Hillary match up in the presidential election?

I agree with your assumption that a lot of pundits think a moderate Republican would be more likely to beat a Democrat. More conservative and libertarian people like Krauthammer and Trancinski would prefer Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio, or Paul over Trump but they are definitely not for Bush, Christie, Santorum, or Huckabee. Kasich and Walker are maybe’s.

Any other predictions for the next debate from anyone? Ideologically, CNN is very left wing as are the other networks (but not Fox). Objective journalism has been replaced with more a more subtle propaganda machine, using the selection of stories to slant views, with just a touch of Progressive pepper spray for spice.

The longer times for the kiddy table is not indicative of bias against the top eleven candidates. And I am not sure CNN will be so obvious in any bias towards Trump.

Peter

[Peter]

Take a look at what comes up when you google Wolf DeVoon.

Michael Marotta wrote on a blog: The Good Walk Alone is a novella, set in a post-apocalyptic Costa Rica. The cops are women. Wolf DeVoon's personal experiences working in prisons and working for prisoners showed him reasons to assert that women should not be subject to criminal law and that law enforcement should be entrusted to them exclusively. It is a radical theory. But I found it empirically supported.

From a review of Wolf’s book: First serialized in Laissez Faire City Times, this is Wolf's zany action adventure saga of an anarcho-capitalist utopia in the year 2050. Plutocratic playboys and private police grapple with assassins, a war zone in Southern California, corrupt London bankers, and myriad cloak and dagger identities. Rated "R" for racy language.
end quote

Come clean, Wolf. Why were you in prison and in a woman’s prison, no less? You don’t look like the bearded lady from P.T. Barnum. You must be a guard or a therapist. If your book weren’t *zany* I might have bought it.

Another review of Wolf’s work: The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch is not really any kind of a specific proposal until the very end. First, you spend a lot of time with Wolf DeVoon, drinking coffee and drinking Dewars, listening to him explain how he came to these ideas. That is important and necessary and consequential because inside each book is a man. Jefferson is within the Declaration of Independence. Washington is within his Farewell Address. Lincoln is within the Gettysburg Address. Wilson is within his Fourteen Points; Roosevelt his Four Freedoms. Denounce or endorse them each as you choose. DeVoon is deep or shallow to the extent that you find him. In the famous words of the Higley Tokens: "I am Good Copper: Value Me as You Choose."
end quote

I still want to see your Constitution but I don’t want to wade through anything other than its text. But enough advertisements for Wolf. I think he wants us to pay for his views here in Oland. Vlad you are here but how about some more substance?
Peter

[Mikee]

GOP debate: Carly will beat Trump like a drum...

[Wolf DeVoon]

I still want to see your Constitution but I don’t want to wade through anything other than its text.

Okay, I'll post it a new thread. It's a public document.

[Selene]

I still want to see your Constitution but I don’t want to wade through anything other than its text.

Okay, I'll post it a new thread. It's a public document.

I know you have the link in prior posts on OL Wolf...

This could be a teachable moment for Perter...can he find it by using the search asset of OL?

A...

[Jonathan]

I have probably slipped into Hate and Punish mode, myself.

I don't think that you have. Even when emotionally engaged, you're a pretty level-headed feminized-leftist poop-fucker. The only times that you seem to occasionally lose your grip is when Apey gets under your skin and you forget that he's such a moron that he's not deserving of anyone's anger, but only of laughter.

Hate and Punish mode isn't your approach of reasonable investigation and analysis despite having your emotions engaged, but more along the lines of, "You won't bake me a wedding cake 'cuz I'm gay? Well, fuck you then! I'm not going to go to one of your dozens of local competitors who will gladly bake the cake for me, but instead I'm going to sue you and try to force you to bake me a cake, or to get you thrown in jail and to make you lose your business!"

J

[Mikee]

Carly in Phoenix, Sept 11

[william.scherk]

I have probably slipped into Hate and Punish mode, myself.

I don't think that you have.

Sort of almost on your point, I presented my main observation, on the Kim Davis thread. I can't write about Carly till October 20, so I feel stupid opining on the Rowan County schmozzle on this thread.

[Mikee]

I have probably slipped into Hate and Punish mode, myself.

I don't think that you have.

Sort of almost on your point, I presented my main observation, on the Kim Davis thread. I can't write about Carly till October 20, so I feel stupid opining on the Rowan County schmozzle on this thread.

How come? What did I miss? [sorry, short memory and ADD]

[Selene]

I have probably slipped into Hate and Punish mode, myself.

I don't think that you have.

Sort of almost on your point, I presented my main observation, on the Kim Davis thread. I can't write about Carly till October 20, so I feel stupid opining on the Rowan County schmozzle on this thread.

How come? What did I miss? [sorry, short memory and ADD]

Maybe he is self flagellating and punishing himself...?

You know how fanatical those secular skeptics can get...