Burch: Big-government Republicans?

Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 10:05pm
By Michael R. Burch

As recently reported by The City Paper ’s Jeff Woods, Gov. Bill Haslam recently reprimanded state legislators for “introducing too many bills.” Haslam said the legislature should drastically curtail the number of new bills (about 2,200 the past year), explaining that “every bill that’s proposed actually does cost money.” He later told reporters, “As Republicans, we’re the party of smaller government. Let’s see if we can do that in terms of bill proposals.”

What happened to conservative principles such as “smaller” and “less intrusive” government? They seem to have flown out the window now that Republicans have the majority. Even worse, some of the bills are anti-freedom, anti-equality and, therefore, un-American. Will the majority really be “safer” if minorities are denied their constitutional rights and freedoms? How much money should Tennessee taxpayers be forced to fork out so that right-wing bigots can discriminate against teachers (and therefore students and their parents), the poor, the elderly, the medically uninsurable, union workers, gays, Hispanics, Muslims and anyone else who isn’t lily-white, rich and in the bloom of perfect health?

Woods noted the irony, pointing out that Haslam’s comments are “certain to irk Republican legislative leaders, who boasted of their efficiency at the end of this year’s session.” The sad reality seems to be that Tennessee Republicans are busy little beavers industriously whittling away at our cherished rights and freedoms. And like bad lawyers, they’re over-billing us for their “services.”

On a national level, things are even worse, since “fiscally responsible” conservatives never saw a trillion-dollar war they didn’t fall in love with at first sight. Their infatuation with military power is only exceeded by their hubris, as evidenced by the following quotations:

"Bring ’em on!" — George W. Bush

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” — Dick Cheney

“I don’t do quagmires.” — Donald Rumsfeld

“I don’t do body counts.” — Donald Rumsfeld

“Deficits don’t matter.” — Dick Cheney

“I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won’t last any longer than that.” — Donald Rumsfeld

“With every advance by our coalition forces, the wisdom of [our] plan becomes more apparent.” — Dick Cheney

If Republicans want to convince us that they’re fiscally responsible defenders of our constitutional rights, they should act in accordance with their principles. That would mean a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government.

But there is no evidence that Republicans have any such intentions. Ronald Reagan kept the U.S. out of costly, unwinnable ground wars, even when Libya funded and supported acts of terrorism. If President Obama keeps us out of a ground war in Libya and manages to extract our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq in the near future, he will be the true, pragmatic heir of Reagan, knowing it is far better to carry a big stick for defensive purposes, than to use it for offensive purposes.

As the Southern proverb goes, “The proof is in the pudding.” So both here in Tennessee and nationally, Republicans need to deliver the goods or eat crow.

 

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

58 Comments on this post:

By: govskeptic on 6/24/11 at 5:20

Bush/Cheny are now thankfully relics of the past. On spending and big government
we have presently "The One" to be concerned with, and the totally inept
group of Academics miserly running this administration! Bring them "all"
home now, is the only Hope and Chance I'm looking for.

By: Kosh III on 6/24/11 at 5:55

You left some out

"Iraq will not require sustaned aid" Mitch Daniels OMB Director

"We're dealing with a country that can finance it's own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Decty of Defence

This isn't new. GOP/Conservatives have ALWAYS pushed for more intrusive policies into the private lives of individuals. They never met a restricion, especially on sex, that they didn't promote.

If they really want to be less intrusive, then legalize prostitution. Why is it fine and dandy to pay PacMan millions for his physical services, but a woman gets throw in jail for trying to sell a physical service?
Why don't the Republicans demand that government stop restricting the sale of alcohol? Aren't they stifling business?

I believe the person they falsely claim to follow said it well: "Woe unto you....hypocrites."

By: Captain Nemo on 6/24/11 at 6:00

The Republicans have dropped their philosophy of smaller government for one of power and control. I am afraid that what we are seeing and feeling is just how far the GOP has fallen.

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 6:04

You're wrong, gov. When you look at it, President Obama really hasn't done much different than Bush...

Stimulus/Bailout..check
Extend Bush Tax Cuts...check
Conduct two wars...check

Oh, he did start another one...

And then there's that pesky thing about the President can't spend any money without the approval of Congress...

No, when you break it down, the only thing Obama has done is more of the same. He should be held responsible for this.

By: dargent7 on 6/24/11 at 6:11

The "Bush Years", 2000-2008, will go down as the worst ever in an American Presidency.
First he and his minions, hacks, shucks, shills, stole the 2000 election from Al Gore.
Then 9/11 happened on his watch.
Then, under the guidiance of Darth Vader Cheney, invaded Iraq to revenge his daddy's failure.
Yet, both Bush's have libraries, Secret Service protection, pensions, free medical care for life. There are still people who buy their books and listen to their speeches.
Notice not one foreign country has invited GW Bush to give a speech?
They all know him for the fool that he is.
What they should have is "life" behind bars. Even in a zoo.

By: Captain Nemo on 6/24/11 at 6:18

When someone does a lousy job and waste money, it takes more money and time to clean up the screw ups.

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 6:31

Especially if you keep doing the same thing.

By: Kosh III on 6/24/11 at 6:32

Bush and Co pushed for an intrusive constitutional amendment to steal marriage rights from gay citizens.
Obama helped abolish DADT and is pushing to eliminate DOMA and has often stated that he thinks gay citizens should have civil unions with ALL the same rights and benefits of straight marriage---including Social Security.
Bush and Corker and other GOP wanted to let GM and Chrysler go down the drain and take millions of jobs with it. Obama helped them and now they are much improved.

Yeah, he has not done as much as some of us wish, he's also beholden to the crooks on Wall Street and been almost as war-like.

Did you realize that the State Dept spends 6 BILLION annually just for Iraq. Thanks to Shrub and the other war criminals.

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 6:40

"Bush and Corker and other GOP wanted to let GM and Chrysler go down the drain and take millions of jobs with it. Obama helped them and now they are much improved."

Wrong. Bush first bailed them out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

And the topic is big government/spending. In normal times, with less unemployment, the increase to the deficit would hardly be noticed, it would be business as usual, but when you have no revenue stream, it gets magnified.

I stand by my assertion that as far as spending goes, nothing has changed much.

By: Kosh III on 6/24/11 at 6:49

But...but..but...I'm never wrong gd

You're just saying that because you're a witch. "Burn! Burn!" Ni Ni Ni
-----
Seriously, Sen Dorker did seem quite happy to let GM go down the drain, just to break the UAW, as did Gov. Romney and others.

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 6:58

That's because their view is that the market will correct itself, which is absurd. We have a reactionary market. Any action, or inaction has consequences. It's too sensitive to outside forces.

What do you think would have happened had the official U.S. policy been let them fail?

By: Captain Nemo on 6/24/11 at 7:01

gdia-

That could back fire on Corker.

By: Kosh III on 6/24/11 at 7:14

Yes, didn't the Great Depression prove that the laissez-faire policies did not work, yet the GOP keeps clinging to it. It's not really policy but a matter of dogma and faith.

It might backfire on Dorker if there were a decent Democrat to oppose him, but all we get are Republican Lite(Bredesen) candidates or candidates with no spine.(too many to list) And Kim McMillan won't try to run again because the power structure is determined to stay male-only. (see 2006)

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 7:45

Babbling Burch and his entourage fire up the Friday morning Republihate fluff.

In the immortal words of Charlie Brown's teacher, "Waah... waaaaah ... waaah... waaah waaaaah waaaaah waaaaah"...

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 7:55

Interesting, Ben. I usually make that comparison to your long winded rants.

And don't be so defensive about Birch...so he has you pegged, we all do. Don't sweat it.

By: Captain Nemo on 6/24/11 at 8:05

Encourage, Ben? The truth is sufficient for those that can see what the Tea Party is going to the State and Country. The GOP gave up Principles for Power some time ago. Now the Tea Party is capitalize on the Republican’s lack of morals.

By: Captain Nemo on 6/24/11 at 8:06

I still like you Ben.

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 8:13

ditto nemo.

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 8:41

I guess in the same way the younger generation gets used to and enjoys something as vile as gangsta' rap you guys also enjoy the echo-chamber of falsehoods and the typical ad hominem litany of charges of racism, bigotry and greed applied to your big boogey man the conservative.

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 8:42

Music to your ears, I guess.

By: serr8d on 6/24/11 at 8:45

Burch and his tag team of dirty socialists, looters and moochers and ME FIRST! weak-minded LeftLibProggs are certainly riled up this morning. "Let's force on this Nation equal outcomes for EVERYONE!, invent a new Constitution because that one there is so OLD and out-of-date (got Commerce Clause?), make everyone exactly equal and with us, LeftLIbProggs, at the top ruling over all!'. Works out well, if you get to print and borrow money forever and ignore troubling financial warnings.

Forget it, squishes. You don't get to write a new constitution, especially now when the money's run out and you've no where else to go to get more. Time's up, you just haven't realized it yet.

This, for the Conservative non-pragmatic Classical Liberals who might read in this here swamp...

So, why can't Team R keep the gains we've made at the state levels? The polls are down for Republican governors in most states. Seems we can win a cycle, but then lose the next cycle because Democratic dirty socialists have more to offer (freebies from the Treasury), and we wind up no better off than before, only pushed a little more farther away left from center.

Why?, you ask? Because many people are just not of the same moral character as were stouter people of previous generations. Collectively, our society has lost much of the moral character that was so pervasive when the founders founded; I blame this wane of morality on the drop in religious belief and participation; people of little faith tend to be more ME!-first oriented and moocherly, if you’ll allow that expression.

And don’t repeat to me that the founders wrote religion completely out of the Constitution. They did, if you insist, but they never knew I’ll warrant that the waning of religion would bring with it a twilight of character. Without some sort of faith-based structure as an ‘unseen helper agent’, a society with little or no moral character and backbone will go to hell (!) very quickly, no matter who wrote or how well-written is their Constitution.

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 8:45

"Waaa Waaa Waaa" indeed.

By: Funditto on 6/24/11 at 8:46

Something for republicans to ponder:

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2011/06/newt-gingrich-and-callista-gingrich.jpg

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 9:11

A friend on Facebook posted this but I'm not sure of the original source. It does represent well the fundamental view of conservatism though.

Founding Principles – Individual Rights

“I want you to look at the birth of a miracle: the United States of America. If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence. The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully – and 200 years have not been enough for other countries to understand it.” – Ayn Rand

Our country was the first and only country in history that was founded on a brand new idea, the idea that people have rights. These rights are:

• the right to one’s own life (which includes that which one has worked for)

• the right to one’s own liberty (freedom to live the way you want provided you don’t hurt anyone else)

• the right to pursue one’s own happiness (not everyone else’s—yours)

When America was created, there was another new idea — the idea that the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect these rights, to make sure no person violated the rights of another. Government was not there to tell men what to do, or how to live their lives, or to take by force what each man has earned by his own efforts to give to another. Initiation of force was banned from human relationships. The only proper use of force was in retaliation against those who had initiated force or fraud against another. Force was only used as a means of defending rights through three branches of government: the police, the military and the courts. And that’s it. The purpose of government was to only do that one thing and nothing else. It was to protect individual rights.

The implementation of these two ideas created something unseen before on the face of the earth. For the first time men were free from other men. They were no longer subservient to a lord, master or king. They could live their lives and pursue their goals independently yet associate with each other voluntarily instead of by force. With individual rights as a guiding principle, all other freedoms fell into place: economic freedom, religious freedom, social freedom, freedom of association, contractual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms and so on. And look what happened. The United States of America became the happiest, wealthiest, most prosperous, most advanced nation on earth. It was also the most moral country because it recognized individual rights.

But the concept of rights has been corrupted over time. Now people claim they have a “right” or are entitled to things like an education, medical care, food, housing and so on. But if people have a “right” to something, it means that somebody has to provide it. And when someone has to provide something against his will for someone else, there is only one word to describe it—slavery. Yet if man’s survival is the objective, freedom is imperative. Since man does not automatically know how to survive, he has to use his mind in order to figure out how to live. He requires freedom so that he can think and act in accordance with the conclusions of his mind. Therefore, a moral country provides the conditions necessary for this to happen and there is only one political system that does this–Capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system based on the concept of property rights. Without property rights, you have no right to your own life. If you can’t keep what you have worked for in order to support and enjoy your life, if you have no say in what happens to your property, you have no power over your decisions and actions, which means your rights to your life, your liberty and the pursuit of your happiness have been taken away. Is this happening here in the United States? Yes, it is. Can it be saved? Only if Americans discover our founding principle of individual rights and eliminate the government programs and laws that don’t protect them. Here are just a few examples:

• Re-distribution of wealth doesn’t protect rights. The man who earns an honest living has his money taken against his will (theft) to be given to someone else. His right to what he has worked for, that which supports his life, has been violated.

• Socialized medicine doesn’t protect rights or life. The doctors become slaves of the state that regulates how they should practice medicine and the patients no longer can choose the best treatments for the best prices. Their right to use their own minds to decide what to do and to form contractual agreements with each other has been violated.

• Social Security doesn’t protect rights. The man who wants to invest for his future the way he chooses can’t, because his money is taken away from him to give to someone else. His right to his property, to what he has earned, has been violated.

• Regulations on businesses don’t protect rights. The businessman can’t hire or fire someone without going through a “process” dictated by the government. His right to use his mind to make decisions regarding voluntary associations has been violated. When oil companies aren’t allowed to drill for oil, their property rights are violated. Companies that have to follow government mandates lose the freedom to be innovative. The right to think, form conclusions and take action with property has been violated.

• Anti-trust laws don’t protect rights. The businessman is treated as a criminal no matter what he does. If his prices are too high, too low or the same as his competitors, he can be prosecuted at the whim of some bureaucrat. His right to his property (to charge the price he wants in order to sell it) has been violated.

• Bail-outs and subsidies don’t protect rights. The government decides who succeeds and who fails instead of citizens who trade with each other. Taxpayers pay to support businesses by force through their tax dollars and become poorer because of it. The right to freedom of association and property has been violated.

• Welfare programs don’t protect rights. The person who wants to give money to a charity of his choice has his money confiscated for government programs that he may or may not support. His right to use his property (his money) the way he wants has been violated.

• Bans on consumption of certain foods don’t protect rights. The right to one’s own body is a property right and this is violated.

• Taxation without representation doesn’t protect rights. Money is stolen from one group of men to give to another. Re-distribution of other people’s money is a direct violation of their property rights.

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 9:13

Any violation of our rights completely contradicts the ideas of our Founding Fathers who were very serious about individual freedom. On February 25, 2011 Yaron Brook gave a rousing speech (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlxbi5syxCM or www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fiagHwNJY) at the Tea Party Patriots Summit in Arizona where he pointed this out about the Founding Fathers: “They didn’t say, ‘We just want a little bit less taxes, please, King George.’ They didn’t say, ‘Give us some liberty, please, King George.’ They changed the world because they asked a fundamental question. And the question they asked is, ‘Who does your life – does my life – belong to?’ That’s a question that people had never asked, because it was always obvious: your life belongs to the state, to the king, to some emperor, to somebody else – and it’s your job to do his bidding. The Founders of this country said ‘No: sovereignty belongs with the individual. My life is mine. Your life is yours. And nobody can take that away – not a king; but not even a majority!”

If we want to restore freedom to our country, we must re-discover our roots. Our Founding Fathers were so committed to their revolutionary ideas that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the document that laid the moral foundation for the United States of America—the Declaration of Independence. We need to be willing to do the same. We need to be willing to stand up and say: “My life belongs to me, not to the government, not to the state, not to King George, not to a welfare program, but…to me!” We need to believe in that principle and commit to that principle, the principle of individual rights. http://www.sd47gop.org/?page_id=9645

By: Kosh III on 6/24/11 at 9:29

sr8d
"Collectively, our society has lost much of the moral character that was so pervasive when the founders founded"

You mean the high morals which allowed them to enslave some humans, practice genocide against the Cherokees, Iroqois etc etc for no better reason than to STEAL their property and lives, and kept the vote only for rich white men?

Yeah, that's sooooooooooo Christian.

By: Kosh III on 6/24/11 at 9:31

"My life is mine. Your life is yours. And nobody can take that away – not a king; but not even a majority!”

So much for the assertion that just because a majority of voters want to steal marriage rights or keep Jim Crow, it's ok. 85% of you folks voted wrong.

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 9:47

Government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place.

By: revo-lou on 6/24/11 at 10:07

{Government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place.}

It doesn't, until you start telling others that they can't do what they are free to do. Strange how that works, just like it was designed to.

By: brrrrk on 6/24/11 at 10:09

Yes, we all know that the GOP hates big government and subsidies.... but yet, when it's your ox being gored everything changes.

Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Antisocialist_Bachmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_subsidies.html

In fact, if I'm not mistaken Bachmann actually sent a letter to Obama thanking him for continuing farm subsidies.

By: brrrrk on 6/24/11 at 10:21

BenDover said

"Government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place."

Holy crap!!! For once, Ben and I actually agree. We should be doing as other countries do and extract the legal concept of "marriage" from the religious concept of "marriage". In a lot of European countries you have two ceremonies; one civil and one religious. The problem is that we have gone so far down the path of entanglement between the civil and the religious, that it would be nearly impossible to untangle them. So here's my immediate and simple solution, any religious institution that chooses to discriminate (cause let's not kid ourselves, that's exactly what it is) based on sexual orientation relinquishes its tax exempt status.... just for starts.

By: yogiman on 6/24/11 at 11:42

It was good to view your "quotes" of three of the men in the recent past Republican regime, Mike.

Now let us view your most recent "quotes" of the currant Democratic regime.

I'm sorry. Its Bush's fault. Is it also Bush's fault Barry decided to enter the Libya "debate"?

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 11:46

Yogi, it's current.

And the title of the article is "Big Government Republicans?". Get it?

By: Mike Burch on 6/24/11 at 11:54

Kosh,

I agree. Why not legalize prostitution instead of imposing an artificial morality on American citizens? If I can sell my blood for profit, why can't other people rent out their sex organs?

If we legalized and taxed prostitution and drugs, we might not have such a huge budget deficit. And let's be honest: how many people who want to pay for sex and drugs have been stopped from doing so by the prevailing laws?

Mike

By: Mike Burch on 6/24/11 at 11:59

yogiman,

I am not happy to see the US bombing yet another Middle Eastern country. But I think there is a clear difference between Obama and the unholy trinity of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Reagan bombed Libya but didn't invade Libya and try to "establish a democracy." I think President Obama is much more pragmatic than Bush & Co.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect, just an improvement. Hopefully someday soon American presidents will stop seeing guns and bombs as anything but a last recourse, when the US is under fire. I don't go around killing my neighbors because they have guns and MIGHT someday use them against me.

Mike

By: Mike Burch on 6/24/11 at 12:03

BenDover,

Holy crap!!! It seems you and I finally agree on something:

The problem is that we have gone so far down the path of entanglement between the civil and the religious, that it would be nearly impossible to untangle them.

But I think there is a simple solution: make it illegal for religious people to torture and brainwash innocent children by telling them they'll go to "hell" if they don't believe and do as churches command them. Then lawyers can put the Cult of Hell out of business.

Cheers,
Mike

By: yogiman on 6/24/11 at 12:05

Individual rights are the sole purpose of being an American citizen. Wars have kept those rights in our favor. Millions of men..., and women, have sacrificed their lives so the rest of the people would have the right to their individual rights.

Most recently, George Bush has been blamed for having our nation in two wars. The currant man sitting in that office has not had one negative comment about going into the Libya conflict..., even without consulting with the legislature.

Billy Boy Clinton has had no negative comments about any conflicts he had our nation in during his tenure two terms ago.

Is Bush the only one at fault? How many of the past 43 presidents held office without being in a conflict with our nations' troops?

Is this a democratic site?

By: Mike Burch on 6/24/11 at 12:11

gdiafante,

You made good points about President Obama emulating GWB ... why would the "smartest man in the room" emulate a moron?

I think all American presidents are plagued by a Messiah complex, to some degree. But they are also hampered by the irrationality and religious fervor of the average American.

What would happen if President Obama told the American public the REAL REASONS for 9-11 and the current wars? They would call him the Anti-Christ. So to some large degree what any president says and does is the result of Americans "believing" the Bible, even though the Bible says God and Jesus are intolerant bigots who favor Jews and Christians and will eventually murder billions of people of other religions, then send them all to an "eternal hell" while drying the tears of the "chosen few."

Most Americans don't want to hear that Muslim women and children are human beings who deserve equal rights on their native soil, and that ignoring their rights led to 9-11 and two unnecessary wars.

In the face of such irrationality, what can any American president do?

By: revo-lou on 6/24/11 at 12:12

{Individual rights are the sole purpose of being an American citizen}

Too bad you have no idea what that means.

By: brrrrk on 6/24/11 at 12:29

yogiman said

"Individual rights are the sole purpose of being an American citizen. Wars have kept those rights in our favor."

Really? What wars have you been following? Since 2000 our rights have been eroding rapidly. Habeas corpus is all but gone and the right to privacy is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And all in the name of a false sense of security that is lining the pockets of the "security industries". Let's ask Michael Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security) how much money he's made selling his body scanners to all the airports. To quote Ben Franklin, “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 12:55

"The currant man sitting in that office has not had one negative comment about going into the Libya conflict..., even without consulting with the legislature."

Again, it's CURRENT

And...what the hell are you talking about, Obama is getting all kinds of criticism....

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/21/world/la-fg-us-libya-20110322

By: dargent7 on 6/24/11 at 1:14

@1:11pm...psychotic gibberish.
9/11 wasn't some referendum on "Muslim women and children's rights".
It was a clear display of hatred of the United States of America and for all which it stands.
Freedom of religion, speech, and life and liberty.
The USA is 180 degrees opposite from Islam and these psychotics cannot bear the thought.
So, they hijacked 4 planes and flew them into landmarks to make their point.
Now, they want to come here and build mosques and infiltrate our society with their psychotic mumbo-jumbo, ie., Shar'ia Law..
They picked the right country: America is full of Gingriches, Weiners, Bachmann's, and Palins.
We're ripe for the fleecing and raping. And most will say, " we never saw it comming".

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 1:17

You know, Burch... as I read back over your sophomoric rant you really come off as one of those young guys... fired up by some career educators who've spent their lives behind the insulating curtain of academia... and who has yet to learn how little he knows.

Just the pure arrogance in your repeating the talking points and the boilerplate slurs against people with a conservative value system... astounding. You do know this internet stuff sticks, right? Being a liberal, the whole 'everyone else is an idiot' thing is pretty common but one day when you grow up and actually learn a little something do you really want this kindergarten bile tattooed across the web with your name on it? Seems like a career limiting gesture to me.

By: revo-lou on 6/24/11 at 1:38

Wow Ben, you are quite prolific with the metaphors today, no? I would doubt that in 10 or maybe as few as 5 years the internet will be like it is today, and that all the crap we have posted will be gone because nobody is gonna have the room to store it all. While “cloud computing” sounds all cool and sci-fi like, you do know that the “stuff” still has to actually be stored some place, don’t you?

While technology is moving at a more rapid pace every day, good luck in finding a computer that can read a 3.5 or 5.25 diskette. The same will be true for all this “stuff”. Damn, I miss my 8-tracks!

As to MB’s comments, we all have learned that yours mean no more than his do, so, really, whatever could be your point?

By: gdiafante on 6/24/11 at 1:44

Ben is just pissed because Burch knows him better than he knows himself. But calling his posts arrogant...well that's the pot calling the kettle black.

By: BenDover on 6/24/11 at 2:14

Believe what you will revo... Google's backing it all up and keeping it with a timestamp for its historical searches. You can buy a terabyte drive now for ~ $50.

By: revo-lou on 6/24/11 at 2:52

{You can buy a terabyte drive now for ~ $50.}

Which would just continue the adage that there is one born every minute.

By: serr8d on 6/24/11 at 2:53

If gays want to get civil partnerships, civil unions, that's fine; they then can have mutually shared health insurance just like 'real' married people, without sullying the terminology, or forcing religious institutions to recognize their strange 'feat'.

Let 'em share stinkys if they like; just call it something other than 'marriage', which for centuries has traditionally been between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children under God's graces. We know these strange people don't give a rat's tail about anything having to do with God, that's for sure. Marriage is a religious term and goes beyond the civil constructs of getting a permit.

Rubber stamp 'em at the courthouse as Civil Unions for insurance and legal purposes. That is all they should get, and more than they deserve.

By: serr8d on 6/24/11 at 3:02

Memory is cheap nowadays. What's not cheap is privacy, which is much harder to keep.

Oh, this from the NYT...

June 24, 2011, 4:14 pm
Consensus Reached on Religious Exemptions in Gay Marriage Bill
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO

ALBANY — The Cuomo administration and legislative leaders have reached agreement on language to protect religious institutions from obligations to recognize same-sex marriage, two people involved in the negotiations said on Friday afternoon, potentially paving the way for a vote on the marriage legislation. ...

That would work, if they drop the 'marriage' term. They can't have that. Nor should they be having or allowed to have kids, but that's a different issue.

By: brrrrk on 6/24/11 at 3:09

serr8d said

"Let 'em share stinkys if they like; just call it something other than 'marriage', which for centuries has traditionally been between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children under God's graces."

I think if you look at the history of marriage you'll find that the concept of marriage had much more to do with cementing relationships between powerful families and the providing of heirs and had very little to do with religion or raising children.