Zack Fulkerson I didn't find my comment to be nearly as pointless as yours was argumentative, Jessica. ;) I guess assuming that you were liberal from reading some of your previous comments here was a bit premature. Ultimately, I agree with your premise that it is hypocritical to advocate for limited govt while policing people's private behaviors. Unfortunately, most Republicans are conservatives, not libertarians. Conservatives don't necessarily believe in "small govt." They believe in preserving things the way they are.
Zack Fulkerson Actually, I proposed that very thing: http://www.policymic.com/articles/31107/prop-8-and-doma-the-only-way-to-marriage-equality-is-to-eliminate-state-marriage-licenses I don't find the position to really be all that unrealistic, but admittedly nobody is proposing this to Congress or anything, which I think is your point. Government marriage licenses create easily taxable bodies. Why would they want to throw away one of their biggest tax cows?
Zack Fulkerson It's pretty apparent from most of your comments and articles that you're a liberal, Jessica. So here's what I'm not understanding about your article: American liberals don't buy the whole "small gov't" message anyway, so why even begin from that axiom? That is, whenever conservatives propose a "small gov't" idea, liberals howl like wolves at the moon that "it's about good gov't, not small gov't." The Republican Party has frankly had an abysmal record of keeping government "small" anyhow. It's just that for those of us who have a mind to small government, they're the better of the two choices. Most small gov't people already do buy into your philosophy of gay marriage. As for Republicans and Democrats, NEITHER has much credibility.
Zack Fulkerson Kevin, I really can't follow what in the "f" you're talking about. I'm pretty sure males over 18 get arrested and prosecuted for dating younger girls all the time. This problem is not unique to lesbians.
Zack Fulkerson Blind citation. Nice. "Support background checks for gun owners." Great, I support those too. But background checks are already required for all non-private firearms transactions. This is already the law, not a "stiffer" law. "Nearly 6 in 10 support ... AWB" NEARLY six in ten. So about half of those surveyed. That's not most. And if you read the demographic information at the bottom, the poll oversampled Democrats and non-gun owners. You claim, and your article claims, that "most people" support stricter laws. But the same Quinnipiac survey asked that VERY question and found only 53% of Americans overall supported those laws. That's well within the margin of error, and in a poll that favors Democrats this is hardly damning evidence.
Zack Fulkerson I agree that the author is under that impression, but I believe that she is jumping to conclusions. At this point, there really seems to be no reason to believe that the morality clause was adopted for any pernicious, anti-gay reasons.
Zack Fulkerson Your article claims that "the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t allow for petcoke to be burned anywhere in the U.S." But according to my research, the United States released 76.14 million metric tons in Petroleum coke emissions in 2012. How do you account for this huge discrepancy?
Zack Fulkerson Russ, were you aware that the carbon footprint made by producing a hybrid car completely offsets the benefits of driving one? My research says you'd be doing more to help the environment driving a Hummer than you would a Prius. Plus, not all of us can afford to buy a brand new car that might not even last ten years.
Zack Fulkerson And my point of contention suddenly comes to fruition. It only took an hour. Michael, I'd urge you and other Policy Mic readers to check out Peter Santilli's website for themselves. If you'd actually done that, you'd know that calling him a "right-wing" radio host is quite the stretch. Santilli says he is a "recovering Reagan Republican" who "voted for Obama" and is sick of the "left/right psy-ops" or something. It'd be more appropriate, and less slanderous to those of us ACTUALLY on the right, to call Santilli what he is: a nut job.
Zack Fulkerson Here is the difference: Pointing out the ridiculousness of a large movement, and all of it's adherents, is different from addressing each and every individual point a fringe lunatic says. It is also different for me to take a point from a 9/11-Truther ("WTC 7 fell for no reason!" for example) and debunk that claim. It is not the same for you to take some ridiculous statement a shock-jock made and run away with it. I understand that Santilli's statement was disgusting, I'm not arguing this. I also know that your intention was probably not to demonize gun owners. But the debate has been spiraling downward very quickly here at PM, and even if that wasn't your intent, somebody will inevitably use your article for that purpose eventually.
Zack Fulkerson Mayura, Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent are public figures. They appear on a wide variety of programs to talk about gun control. This is their job. Just because they have appeared on Santilli's program in the past does not make them of his ilk. This is only implied by your own suggestion, where you name drop them as if speaking on his radio show reflects a tight association between these three. Santilli's website features a memorial for Bill Cooper, an avowed anti-Semite and nationally syndicated radio conspiracy peddler who believed the fed gov't was conspiring with an alien race to implement the New World Order. If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about him, I'm not sure what does.
Zack Fulkerson Luciano to the rescue! Peter Santilli is a conspiracy propagating moron whose website looks like it was made with Angelfire. He has about 6 listeners and there's probably a total of fourteen teeth and twelve brain cells between them. This article contributes absolutely nothing to public discourse. It gives publicity and gleans relevance to a moron who should be ignored. You only contribute when you publish a title with his name in it. It's become a joke to this guy. Way to really stick it to him! I don't see anything being added to the discussion here. Just lumping all gun owners together for a daily round of vitriol.
Zack Fulkerson So basically, those exempt will be WELL below the "poverty line," or be teenagers or other individuals who wouldn't be required to purchase insurance in the first place? Well golly, thank God they made that exception!
Zack Fulkerson Ben, I find it ironic that you'd accuse others of bringing up the same arguments you've been having for over a year, when the only time you pop up on Policy Mic is to rehash the same talking points you've been dishing out forever. Then you back peddle into sarcasm. Soon you'll be repeatedly asking a number of rhetorical questions. The temper tantrum you throw practically every time is well on the horizon. Maybe people would stop using the same arguments against you if you'd stop using the same dusty old arguments to begin with. Otherwise, I'm not surprised that Gary continues to engage you on your bullshit.