[Vision2020] gub'mint (was Craig/gay marriage)

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Gary,

I understand your position that you want less government intrusion in our 
lives.  What I don't get is why you support our government intrusion in the 
lives of Iraqis.  While I don't believe I've seen you come straight out and 
say you support the war in Iraq, your occasional comments on the subject 
have led me to think that is your view.  If it isn't, then of course I 
retract my question.

I ask this because it seems to me that many people who question the 
competence/effectiveness of our government in domestic issues also support 
our foreign policy when it involves wars abroad.  If our government is seen 
(sometimes correctly) to bumble around in domestic matters, how does that 
same government become effective when it's in someone else's country?

Sunil


>From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>To: "Scott Dredge" <sdredge at yahoo.com>, <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:52:03 -0700
>
>You righteously assert that "...people in positions of power have chosen in 
>the past not to prosecute crimes against minorities" Specifically when, 
>with regard to the current topic and in anything like recent history has 
>anyone committing a crime against a homosexual gotten off precisely because 
>of the victims sexual preference? Who, exactly, In a position of power has 
>failed to prosecute a crime against a homosexual because of the victims    
>orientation. Hate crime legislation is a solution in search of a problem 
>that, as near as I can see, doesn't exist. This is not to say that I don't 
>believe that there are vermin running around that would happily assault a 
>homosexual for their "lifestyle." What I don't believe is that they will 
>not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if caught. Hate crime 
>laws do not make thugs into tolerant citizens no matter how you might wish 
>it were so.
>
>"Health care benefits between same sex partners, property transfer in 
>excess of $11,000 per year without tax penalties between same sex couples, 
>property transfer to a surviving same sex partner without tax penalty and a 
>step up in cost basis, to name a few."
>
>Thanks for your help in making my point  with regard to marriage.  It 
>appears that you would like to take a demographic that already skews higher 
>on the affluence scale and provide them with a few extra tax dodges. 
>Perhaps you would do better to switch to my side in this discussion and 
>lobby to remove government from having anything to do with marriage.
>
>Lastly, you failed to address my questioning of the converse of your 
>initial claim. Why do you think that the granting of special rights to 
>homosexuals is good for the country. Is it OK to assert that "I believe 
>it's good" without citing any specifics? I think that the basic difference 
>between you and the rest of your amigos on this list and myself is that I 
>believe the solution to most problems is less government whereas there 
>seems to be no limit to the areas of human Endeavour that you would have 
>The State poke it's incompetent and over reaching nose.
>
>g
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----