QuoteBermuda’s governor has signed into law a bill reversing the right of gay couples to marry, despite a supreme court ruling last year authorising same-sex marriage.
Walton Brown, Bermuda’s minister of home affairs, said the legislation signed by Governor John Rankin would balance opposition to same-sex marriage on the socially conservative island while complying with European court rulings that ensure recognition and protection for same-sex couples in the territory.
Bermuda’s Senate and House of Assembly passed the legislation by wide margins in December and a majority of voters opposed same-sex marriage in a referendum.
“The act is intended to strike a fair balance between two currently irreconcilable groups in Bermuda, by restating that marriage must be between a male and a female while at the same time recognising and protecting the rights of same-sex couples,†said Brown, whose ruling Progressive Labour party proposed the repeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/08/bermuda-repeal-same-sex-marriage
"balance"
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/549dc120e4b038053fe557b7/t/563ca070e4b0fa39e5085f28/1446813812847/)
Gay people want to get hitched, homophobes oppose that, so let's compromise. Gays can kinda sorta get married, but it's not technically marriage. Everyone's happy, right? *crickets* Right?
I'd hate to see this appeal to moderation principle applied to other contentious topics. Let's partially go to war with North Korea. Let's partially teach evolution. Let's partially protect the environment. You get the picture. These "compromises" are lunacy, but they exist because the general public is pretty schizophrenic on the topic.
(http://www.royalgazette.com/storyimage/RG/20151026/NEWS/151029760/AR/0/AR-151029760.jpg&LogoXPos=5&LogoYPos=5&maxw=630&maxh=350)
Bermuda public opinion poll from October 2015 (http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20151026/NEWS/151029760)
No bermuda shorts for you ;-(
I hear the term centrist often used as a positive description. I don't hold the concept in high regard. I usually see centrist positions as harmful to the overall good, but helpful for the political process. This is fine if you want to promote the political process for the sake of the political process. The problem is that political processes, seldom accomplish anything good, but the centrists seem to think doing something is a good thing, even if the thing itself has negative consequences.
Quote from: SGOS on February 10, 2018, 05:18:45 AM
I hear the term centrist often used as a positive description. I don't hold the concept in high regard. I usually see centrist positions as harmful to the overall good, but helpful for the political process. This is fine if you want to promote the political process for the sake of the political process. The problem is that political processes, seldom accomplish anything good, but the centrists seem to think doing something is a good thing, even if the thing itself has negative consequences.
Yes, compromise with opponents is evil, because our opponents are evil. The Final Solution for them, yes?
If you find you think like this, then you aren't a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. Join Hitler or Stalin, fight for your so called principles on the Eastern Front.
Quote from: SGOS on February 10, 2018, 05:18:45 AM
I hear the term centrist often used as a positive description. I don't hold the concept in high regard. I usually see centrist positions as harmful to the overall good, but helpful for the political process. This is fine if you want to promote the political process for the sake of the political process. The problem is that political processes, seldom accomplish anything good, but the centrists seem to think doing something is a good thing, even if the thing itself has negative consequences.
Yesterday's centrist becomes today's left-winger when the other side decides to take a hard right turn; conversely, yesterday's right-winger becomes today's centrist.
Quote from: SGOS on February 10, 2018, 05:18:45 AM
I hear the term centrist often used as a positive description. I don't hold the concept in high regard. I usually see centrist positions as harmful to the overall good, but helpful for the political process. This is fine if you want to promote the political process for the sake of the political process. The problem is that political processes, seldom accomplish anything good, but the centrists seem to think doing something is a good thing, even if the thing itself has negative consequences.
Centrists are skilled at passing laws, just not good laws. And standing for everything is indistinguishable from standing for nothing.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2018, 09:07:59 AM
Centrists are skilled at passing laws, just not good laws. And standing for everything is indistinguishable from standing for nothing.
Only puritans are ... pure. Natch. I have no need for extremists ... except in the mental ward. No different from Jihadis.
Centrism doesn't mean splitting the difference every time. Sometimes it means "I'll support that one good idea YOU have if you will support that one idea I have that YOU think is good.
The idea is to trade good ideas, not bad ones. And I'm not seeing a whole lot of that lately...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2018, 02:48:36 AM
Centrism doesn't mean splitting the difference every time. Sometimes it means "I'll support that one good idea YOU have if you will support that one idea I have that YOU think is good.
The idea is to trade good ideas, not bad ones. And I'm not seeing a whole lot of that lately...
Ancient method of squabbling children. One child cuts the last section of pie, the second child gets to choose first which half they want.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2018, 08:54:52 PM
Ancient method of squabbling children. One child cuts the last section of pie, the second child gets to choose first which half they want.
My Gramma once said I had a "miking eye" when it came to pieces of good stuff. Well, I see geometry well.
But that's not how Republicans work legislation these days. If they can't get a majority of their party in support of a law, it can't come to a vote. Never mind that some basically good laws WOULD pass without that idiotic partisan practice...
That is the very refusal of bipartisanship.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2018, 02:20:02 AM
My Gramma once said I had a "miking eye" when it came to pieces of good stuff. Well, I see geometry well.
But that's not how Republicans work legislation these days. If they can't get a majority of their party in support of a law, it can't come to a vote. Never mind that some basically good laws WOULD pass without that idiotic partisan practice...
That is the very refusal of bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship is an oxymoron ... but you are not.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2018, 07:27:03 AM
Bipartisanship is an oxymoron ... but you are not.
Bipartisanship is only imaginary to partisans. Like, I must say, like yourself.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2018, 08:03:00 AM
Bipartisanship is only imaginary to partisans. Like, I must say, like yourself.
Partisanship, like killing people ... is only wrong if you have the wrong targets. Or are you Gandhi now? Gandhi wasn't even unprejudiced.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2018, 08:21:01 PM
Partisanship, like killing people ... is only wrong if you have the wrong targets. Or are you Gandhi now? Gandhi wasn't even unprejudiced.
Nothing like throwing random unconnected events into a discussion. Trump has a job for you somewhere. He has lots of vacancies because no one else wants the jobs.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 03:41:22 AM
Nothing like throwing random unconnected events into a discussion. Trump has a job for you somewhere. He has lots of vacancies because no one else wants the jobs.
Easy to say for a retiree. If you were younger, you would still be in an office with the WH guy on the wall ;-0
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2018, 08:24:25 AM
Easy to say for a retiree. If you were younger, you would still be in an office with the WH guy on the wall ;-0
How little ye understand me...
In the late Reagan Administration, the boss a couple levels up came into our small office passing out oaths for us to sign to "The President". I crumpled it up and tossed it to his feet. He turned beet red and walked out. We never heard another word about that again.
One of my proudest moments. And I gave up all my potential promotions doing that. And I would do it again today...
So be careful with your sarcasm...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 25, 2018, 02:39:56 PM
How little ye understand me...
In the late Reagan Administration, the boss a couple levels up came into our small office passing out oaths for us to sign to "The President". I crumpled it up and tossed it to his feet. He turned beet red and walked out. We never heard another word about that again.
One of my proudest moments. And I gave up all my potential promotions doing that. And I would do it again today...
So be careful with your sarcasm...
I approve of your refusal. Would you have done the same if demanded by President Hillary? Federal workers shouldn't have to take loyalty oaths, unless they are in uniform. Hence the FBI etc can be as D or R as they want ... which is still a problem ;-( The military oath isn't to a person (like in Hitler's case) or to a political party ... but to the Constitution (which is hopefully a neutral position). We can see how fun a lack of any loyalty at all, and self aggrandizement, worked in Trump's first year in office ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2018, 08:24:25 AM
Easy to say for a retiree. If you were younger, you would still be in an office with the WH guy on the wall ;-0
The lobby of the building always had the Pres on the wall. But we never paid any attention to it. You underestimate us govt workers. We took an oath of allegiance to The Constitution. Not the current president. They come and go.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 05:10:27 AM
The lobby of the building always had the Pres on the wall. But we never paid any attention to it. You underestimate us govt workers. We took an oath of allegiance to The Constitution. Not the current president. They come and go.
Oh ... I doubt that. I know military takes an oath ... I haven't seen where the civilians do (as part of enlistment?). Aren't they purely partisan D and R people? That seems to be the case now. Back in the old days, military people commonly refused even to register to vote, because that contradicted their oath as a deviation from neutrality.
If you support the Constitution, did you support all the unconstitutional shit the government has been doing since 1950?
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 06:28:34 AM
Oh ... I doubt that. I know military takes an oath ... I haven't seen where the civilians do (as part of enlistment?). Aren't they purely partisan D and R people? That seems to be the case now. Back in the old days, military people commonly refused even to register to vote, because that contradicted their oath as a deviation from neutrality.
If you support the Constitution, did you support all the unconstitutional shit the government has been doing since 1950?
Well, you are wrong (surprise, surprise). Govt workers sign an oath to support the Constitution. The President is merely the temporary head of the Executive branch and his powers are limited (something Dear Fuherious Trump does not yet understand).
And the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. And adjusted by Congress in limited ways.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 08:35:07 AM
Well, you are wrong (surprise, surprise). Govt workers sign an oath to support the Constitution. The President is merely the temporary head of the Executive branch and his powers are limited (something Dear Fuherious Trump does not yet understand).
And the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. And adjusted by Congress in limited ways.
Well, in that case fire every politically registered Federal worker ... for treason to the Constitution. Political parties are the original treason. I would never trust a D or an R to support anything, other than selfish partisan politics. As far as I can tell, there is no partisan activity in our offices ... but I hear it is quite different in the FBI.
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 02:09:57 PM
Well, in that case fire every politically registered Federal worker ... for treason to the Constitution. Political parties are the original treason. I would never trust a D or an R to support anything, other than selfish partisan politics. As far as I can tell, there is no partisan activity in our offices ... but I hear it is quite different in the FBI.
Political parties are not treasonous. You mistake the Civil Service for pre WWII days of partisan office-seekers. I entered in via merit and left it the same. We had all parties in in it, but that was kept personal. You may be thinkig of those high-ranking appointees. We were subjected to those losers too often and more at the end of my career than at the start.
I can go into detail about that, but it sure won't improve your argument any..
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 02:23:30 PM
Political parties are not treasonous. You mistake the Civil Service for pre WWII days of partisan office-seekers. I entered in via merit and left it the same. We had all parties in in it, but that was kept personal. You may be thinkig of those high-ranking appointees. We were subjected to those losers too often and more at the end of my career than at the start.
I can go into detail about that, but it sure won't improve your argument any..
To Vogon at the lower levels of pencil pushing to have enough verve to be partisan? ;-) Yes, the appointees are ... an embarrassment.