This is actually funny.

It's pretty clear this guy has NEVER seen American TV/Newspapers (or much of it). Yet, he has aboslutely NO lack of compulsion to just prattle on and on about something that he apprently knows virtually NOTHING about.

I love folks like this.

Answer: ALL THE TIME.

Dissapointed?

It's true.

The establishement and continued support of the Israeli state is a subject of virtually CONSTANT debate in the United States. Both in the media and privately.

We read stories and see programs - EVERY DAY - about the establishment of settlements, the surrounding of Arafat's headquarters by Israeli tanks, the building of walls in the middle of the night, the "retaliation" and "enforcement" efforts of Israeli police and military against Palestinians, etc., etc.

And it is NOT all supportive. There is a good deal of reporting, commentary and debate about these events and who might be "right" (or mostly right) when they occur. The politics, culture and conflict in the region are often discussed and it is a point of great debate.

Yes, America, as a matter of its collective foriegn policy, is "formally" allied, as a nation, with Israel, but if you think that is a reflection of some un-opposed, massive resolution on the part of ALL American people, who have all somehow been "duped" into that position by only being fed pro-Isreali propaganda...

Well, then I guess you SHOULD be as paranoid as your several posts here indicate.

That comes with an extremely narrow and totally uninformed view.


In the future, it would be wise - BEFORE you presume to announce what is discussed and how it is portrayed by the American media (regarding Israel or anything else) - to actually try to READ and SEE some American media BEFORE doing so.

That's the idea I was talking about before, when I said real, actual, facts work best.

So far, you don't seem to have any.

Knife, we're going around in circles. It really is as simple as I'm making it - freedom to swing your arm, etc.

You've said I'm unrealistic, and for some strange reason I disagree. I'm not avoiding anything you say, I just don't think it's constructive to answer every single word you post.

So far you've brought up two arguments to say that there's another side I'm ignoring: the financial impact, and "redefining the word." My answers are that the costs must be absorbed because it's the right thing to do, and that going on about how the word means what it means and therefore we shouldn't change it is ludicrous.

And I guess the third argument is that some people are offended by gays, but I've already answered that too.

None of that stuff about dual standards (using a different word) has anything remotely to do with what I'm saying, by the way.

So let me ask you: what arguments for outlawing gay marriage have I not answered?

So says Nick Batzdorf, the most learned man on the topic of society and law that the world has ever known!!!

If it is so simple, try to build a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood…

Or better yet, let’s use your rule, as you actually stated it: Go swing your arm right up to the nose of say, a cop on patrol.

You may find that your simple rule runs afoul of some very well entrenched and apparently competing principles – some of which could very well land you in jail - like the idea of “assault.”

Something tells me you know this already. You have gotten as far as you have in your life without major incident because, whether you will admit it here or not, you KNOW the rules that govern society are not, and have never been, so juvenile and simplistic.

Well, there is a whole HOST of issues that you have not ADEQUATELY addressed or answered. Your posts are full of QED statements like “[it] is unjustifiable” and “and they are wrong” and the one du jour: “it is as simple as I’m making it,” up there.

All made without a shred of support from facts or even from unproveable theory.

Its just the way Nick would like it to be, so…dammit everyone, that is the way it is!!

It would be good to be The King, I guess.

But I’m not one who fell off the turnip truck yesterday, and so I require a bit more analysis and a bit more supporting evidence before I deem your proclamations correct statements of fact, or supportable arguments or theories.

Like these here:


Well, for starters, the “costs must be absorbed because it’s the right thing to do.”

A reasonable person, who understands how these things REALLY come to bear, might ask you to elaborate. Just a sampling:

1) Can you adequately identify all of the “costs” to be “absorbed??”
2) The costs must be absorbed by whom??
3) If it is more than one person/entity – in what measure/proportion??
4) If the costs are to be “absorbed” by any party on a non-voluntary basis (i.e. a tax – whether de facto or de jure,) – who will it be imposed upon and how?

And “going on about how the word means what it means and therefore we shouldn't change it is ludicrous.”

Makes me wonder:

1) Who decides what the word means and in what regard (legally, financially, in terms of responsibility to/for others, etc.)?
2) Aren’t “words” and “what they mean” a fundamental part of laws and how they are passed, interpreted and enforced?
3) Is it your contention that any argument to not change a “word” that has all these implications (and more) is ALWAYS “ludicrous?”

These are just SOME of the questions/issues that immediately pop into my head, when I see your completely subjective, self-proclaimedly dispositive pronouncements of “The World According to Batzdorf,” like those up there.

Again, I’m not necessarily for or against the idea of legalizing gay marriage.

What I am for however, is an informed and intelligent discussion – considering ALL of the facts and circumstances that are relevant – to try and make sense of the debate.

If all you want to do is say “it’s a private matter between individuals” and “it’s a free country” and pronounce simple tautologies and summations that emanate therefrom, like "because its the right thing to do," I fear that your arguments will not be taken very seriously.

Well,

I promise this is MY last post on this thread too. I'll answer John Gee's question with my theory. This theory is based on my limited experience. Every christian church I've been too, there is a general feeling that because Jesus was a Jew, and Israel is the Jewish homeland, we need to respect them for that. There is something in the book of revelations that says, (and this is my recollection as I haven't read it for awhile) that in the end times Israel will be restored, and soon after the second coming of Christ will come. We all know that Ireal was restored in 1949, which is a sign of the times. I'm sure that there are many in the government that feel that because of this connection that we need to protect Isreal.

Again, this is my theory since I don't work for the government.

Peace

So, does that mean you won't pay attention to my answers?

Answer: Neither.

“Citezenship” (or nationality) is not specifically governed by the Constitution. It is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

To try to answer your (surprisingly!!!) ill-formed question, however, the answer is that under the INA, a U.S. Citizen becomes “expatriate” and loses their U.S. Nationality IF they swear an oath to a foreign State or political subdivision.

To FURTHER clarify however, it is perfectly legal, under the INA, to have dual nationality, absent a citizen’s voluntary oath to a foreign State or political subdivision.

So, where does that leave us?

Um, I think I adequately answered that.

These general policies and specific events are a result of the United States’ foreign policy, which recognizes and supports the Israeli state. The authority to recognize a foreign State and enter into diplomatic relations rests, in large measure, with the Executive branch (i.e. these matters are the sole province of the office of the President – with certain conditions, like entering treaties, appointing diplomats, declaring war, etc., requiring “advice and consent” of Congress).

The United States does this for DOZENS of other countries as well, sending “tax payer’s money” (does the government have any OTHER kind of money???), weapons, supplies, training, military support, etc. to any number of recognized “allies.”

Again, if you think that supposedly “uncovering” the readily available fact that such a relationship exists between the United States and Israel is some kind of “covert information motherlode,” you are sorely mistaken.

The U.S., as a nation (this does NOT mean “all Americans”), supports Israel. As a result of that relationship, The U.S. gives Israel support and assistance in many ways, including, but not limited to, providing financial, military, diplomatic and other types of aid.

Good for you that you “uncovered” this cache of TOP SECRET! information…

We’ve ALL know it for years.

Ding! Next!

Well, which is it? Either I’m “dodging questions” or I’m giving “hollowed answers.”

I guess, in YOUR warped universe, it’s possible to do both.

I’ve SPECIFICALLY refuted your allegations regarding the timelines to the 9/11 attacks and the Payne Stewart accident. Providing citations to NTSB and FAA transcripts, and specific times, flight numbers, etc. I DIRECTLY answered your question regarding American media presentation of Israel. I even labeled my response “Answer,” for your convenience.

What’s the problem (other than the one you have with not bothering to check facts or acknowledge them, when they are clearly presented to you)?

Knife, slaughterhouses in residential neighborhoods and swinging your fists at cops' noses are ludicrous analogies.

And my position isn't the one attempting to impose "morals" and be King of the world, it's the other side that is.

Finally, this is a simple case of attempted discrimination, a civil rights issue. No, I haven't done a private cost analysis. But are you really going to say we should have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage because it's too expensive?!

ANALOGY??????

Oh, man.

Nick, you are so desperately trying to spin this thing hard, it's almost laughable, now.

It's not an "analogy."

Its WHAT YOU SAID - TWICE!!!.

I applied YOUR rule - which you have plainly stated twice before, above.

Yeah. Try to wriggle out of the undeniable realization that I have shown you your overly simplistic, general statements are NOT applicable to all interactions - by NOW trying to characterize YOUR stated rule as MY "analogy."

And NOW you want to further "proclaim" these newly-characterized "analogies" as "ludicrous."

Again, without even an OUNCE of supporting logic or fact supplied.

OK, King Batzdorf!!! so it is written, so it SHALL be done!

And nobody said "fist" but you, just now.

ONCE AGAIN, I haven't said anything about whether we should or shouldn't have an amendment against gay marriage.

YET AGAIN, what I've said is, we need to consider ALL OF THE RAMIFICATIONS of it - honestly - if we want to resolve the issue.

AND YET AGAIN, there ARE MANY factors to be considred - and cost is BUT ONE.

But while we're at it, the topic of money, and the expense of it, is certainly no stranger to debates regarding Amendments to the Constitution.

XIII - Abolishment of slavery - It was expensive to the Southern farmers.

VIV (4) - Establishment of "Public Debt" of the U.S.

XVI - Power to collect taxes

XXI - Repeal of Prohibition - Largely economically motivated.

XXVII - Compenstion to Congressmen.

Sorry, I said the last was my last but I just came up with a solution to the problem. Since we all know this is strictly a money problem, let's get rid of the financial incentive. Answer, flat tax rates. Everyone pays taxes based on thier income, no single,married classification. As far as insurance coverage, that is a private business decision. If a company wants to attract gay employees, offer domestic partner insurance coverage. The government doesn't force companies to offer insurance. They offer it to attract good employees.

That way, only people who would like to please God will want to get married. Otherwise, why tie yourself down? As far as survivorship goes, you can have a will made out to whomever choose. I think this will work. Let's get congress to change the tax laws!

Okay Knife, you've now posted about 64 times every which way that I'm being glib, blissfully idealistic, ignorant of the real-world ramications, and imperious.

Got it. So let's hear some of those ramifications that are escaping me. That would be much more interesting than just reading the same thing over and over.

You COULD just use the "Thread Pages" buttons at the bottom and navigate your way back to several of my posts, where I raised just SOME of the issues I can think of.

But I guess you don't want to.

I mean, you've been exerting so much energy avoiding them thus far, I can see how one might feel a bit foolish, just "point and clicking" to them, after all that.

And I never said I ever posted a definitive or comprehensive list of the concerns, BTW. I only said I thought we should consider as many as we can identify, and try to resolve them.