Cuomo's girlfriend

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Morals have no place in law?...reread what you wrote....and there is a perfect example of why our society has gone down the tubes....as for religion having no place....I believe it is phrased as freedom OF religion....not freedom FROM religion. If someone practices any belief and then sets out to pick and choose the ones that are convenient for them....that sounds like a character trait that could very easily spill into other aspects of their life. I think you are wrong wildcat...it is about the money ....and morals....and character....but not about religion

[Mr VJP]

I think we should elect only single people without children.  I also think these elected positions should be considered full time 24/7 jobs.  No days off and no vacations.

If someone can't commit to that, don't run for office.  They get hardly anything accomplished during their term as it is and they can't be fired if they are lousy.  These elected positions are very serious and they should be taken with that in mind.

Taxpayers should get what we pay for.  We should not be paying for excess baggage either.  If the politician has kids, their expenses should come out of the money in the politician's salary, not from additional taxpayer funds.  The same goes for spouses.

Girlfriends?  Lovers?  Gay Partners?  Pets?  Or whatever else you can think of.  Not one dime of taxpayer money should be spent on any of that.  Those are personal expenses of the elected official and should be paid out of the salary of same!

The only elected official I can think of that even came close to this idea, was Ed Koch.  And I believe he still took a vacation every year.

[nyantler]

I don't look at my marraige "contract" as laughable at all.. I absolutely look at is a committment to be honored by continually making an effort to make the marraige as strong as possible... I suppose if you take the view that you take.. then morality really doesn't matter in any aspect of life.

[nyantler]

I think it is funny though how people always say they want to see a regular guy in politics... well Pallidino was as regular as it gets... he spoke his mind like a lot of us on here do and people (even supporters gave him flack about it) Finally a guy that said it like it was and people still didn't like it.. I think I just will never understand ???

I guess people say a lot of things until they actually see an example of it. Politics is an art. Candidates have to have some natural talent towards it otherwise they can do far more damage to their cause than they ever intended. Paladino simply was not cut out for that kind of work. It's too bad, but someone should have recognized that fact before all the attention and support went his way. We certainly were left with a couple of real ugly choices. Like I said, the Republicans and Conservatives gave away what should have been a simple win for them.

However, on a positive side, Paladino did highlight the anger in the way government is conducted. No, he didn't scare anyone by making the election close, but I think the liberal NYS politicians did recognize a force that has the capability of growing. I think they are all pretty happy that they dodged the bullet by having a politically challenged candidate to run against. I think it is also true that he successfully got his message across and forced his opponent o pick it up and carry it forward. It is my belief that without Paladino and the Tea Party, a lot of the more conservative rhetoric would not be coming out of Cuomo's mouth.

Well said Doc..

[wztirem]

You are may be correct Doc, but the state was in such a shambles financially (you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing) prior to the election. In any event Cuomo has his hands full with the NY State Legislature and Silver's cronies. Hard and unpopular decisions will be made by the governor.

Our problem lies with our corrupt legislators who we (who voted) placed in office!

[Caveman]

Morals have no place in law?...reread what you wrote....and there is a perfect example of why our society has gone down the tubes....as for religion having no place....I believe it is phrased as freedom OF religion....not freedom FROM religion. If someone practices any belief and then sets out to pick and choose the ones that are convenient for them....that sounds like a character trait that could very easily spill into other aspects of their life. I think you are wrong wildcat...it is about the money ....and morals....and character....but not about religion

Morals have no place in law because of the extreme subjectivity of morality.  What is moral to you may not be to me and vice versa as evidenced by the general tone of this thread. 

And yes you are correct on the wording of the 1st amendment.  That shows that you took and successfully completed a high school government class.  However you also seem to forget a concept known as the separation of church and state.  In case you're not familiar with this one it's the idea that the government should not be imposing any sort of religious views on the public.  I won't go as far as to say that "under God"should be removed from the pledge, however we do need to keep a watchful eye that our government remains a secular one. 

As for your moral views you're certainly entitled to them, just don't make the dangerous assertion that yours is the only correct line of thought.

[Caveman]

I don't look at my marraige "contract" as laughable at all.. I absolutely look at is a committment to be honored by continually making an effort to make the marraige as strong as possible... I suppose if you take the view that you take.. then morality really doesn't matter in any aspect of life.

In theory I respect the marriage contract and I have every intention of getting married.  My parents have been married for 24 years now and that is because they respected and honored that vow.  The reason I call it laughable is because unfortunately the majority of our society does not seem to share this view with myself, you, and people like my parents.  "Till death do us part" has become "Eh, we'll see what happens," and as unfortunate as it is it's only getting worse.  The divroce rate in this country is over 50%, I'm not sure about you but I think that is a disgusting statistic.  That's why I'm so pessimistic I suppose.   

[Mr VJP]

And it's the laws installed by the government regarding divorce that made the rate as high as 50%.  Used to be you needed a good reason to get a divorce.  Now, for women, divorce has become quite profitable. 

Get married for a short time, file for divorce without any reason, or even cheat on your husband, take the house, half of all the stuff and get money every month for life.  It's a wonder that divorce rate isn't higher!

[Caveman]

Not to mention half your pension if you've got one and extra every month if you've got the kids. 

And that's why I'm going into domestic litigation law.  Help some of the men keep what's theirs in the first place. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Morals have no place in law?...reread what you wrote....and there is a perfect example of why our society has gone down the tubes....as for religion having no place....I believe it is phrased as freedom OF religion....not freedom FROM religion. If someone practices any belief and then sets out to pick and choose the ones that are convenient for them....that sounds like a character trait that could very easily spill into other aspects of their life. I think you are wrong wildcat...it is about the money ....and morals....and character....but not about religion

Morals have no place in law because of the extreme subjectivity of morality.  What is moral to you may not be to me and vice versa as evidenced by the general tone of this thread. 

And yes you are correct on the wording of the 1st amendment.  That shows that you took and successfully completed a high school government class.  However you also seem to forget a concept known as the separation of church and state.  In case you're not familiar with this one it's the idea that the government should not be imposing any sort of religious views on the public.  I won't go as far as to say that "under God"should be removed from the pledge, however we do need to keep a watchful eye that our government remains a secular one. 

As for your moral views you're certainly entitled to them, just don't make the dangerous assertion that yours is the only correct line of thought.

I just read you plan on going into law. I find it odd that you think morals have no place in laws. I really think that by definition laws are legislatied morals. They are beliefs imposed on society based on the moral view of the majority. Since we do not live in a Democracy,and we are turning over the development of our laws over to our represtatives, It is important to understand their moral positions. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and the majority of the laws (until recently) have been framed in those moral guidelines. I agree with out founders that there should not be a state sponsored religion but when we are asked to vote for a candidate I think it is important to understand their moral convictions. Their religion and their view of it can speak volumes to their general orientation and voting tendencies. I would probably be aligned more consistently with a Christian based candidate because of some common moral ground. I would be lease likely be aligned with a strict Muslimm candidate or others. Will I agree with every moral view, hence voting tendency, of a Christian candidate...no... but it sure can be used as an evaluating basis. If someone that we are trusting to do as they say they will frames themselves as one religious leaning or another and then lives their life contrary to that same religion.....are we suppose to believe they would hold true to any promises made on a self serving campaign trail.

As for the shot on my high school knowledge...The first ammendment IS part of our legal and binding founding documents. With your vastly superior knowledge, could you point me the that "concept of separation of Church and State" in any of our founding doucuments. I mean other than a ruling that ...to use your words is subject to "extreme subjectivity"

[Caveman]

The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution word for word.  It is however in the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The US supreme Court has interpreted this clause to be evidence of the "wall of separation between and state" in the case of Reynold's v. U.S. and other subsequent decisions.  These decisions have yet to be overturned and are still regarded as relevant case law. 

As for laws being codified morals, yes to a degree that's correct I suppose.  However, we should only codify those moral breeches that have tangible harm associated with them (Ideally).  Which is where morals give way to something more utilitarian and less subjective. 

Also I'd like to apologize for the comment about your education.  I've always believed that two people can debate without resorting to petty insults and I broke that rule with my previous post.  I tend to get fired up when people try to force their own views or beliefs on someone else.  Again, that was out of line and I apologize. 

[Caveman]

As for the shot on my high school knowledge...The first ammendment IS part of our legal and binding founding documents. With your vastly superior knowledge, could you point me the that "concept of separation of Church and State" in any of our founding doucuments. I mean other than a ruling that ...to use your words is subject to "extreme subjectivity"

Though I do agree that the decision is subjective the fact that it has yet to be overturned is evidence that the majority must still agree that religion has no place in law. 

And case law handed down by the Supreme Court is to use your words, "legal and binding."

I can't remember if it was you who said this (if not I apologize) but someone said something about "shacking up."  This bothers me and is the reason that I re-registered independent when I used to be a Republican.  Not you, not me, not anyone else has the right to judge the life choices someone else makes.  You may not like the idea of two unmarried people living together, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.  And you may not want to be gay but that doesn't mean they don't deserve rights.  I'm generalizing about conservatives which probably deserves a preemptive apology. 

[nyantler]

I don't look at my marraige "contract" as laughable at all.. I absolutely look at is a committment to be honored by continually making an effort to make the marraige as strong as possible... I suppose if you take the view that you take.. then morality really doesn't matter in any aspect of life.

In theory I respect the marriage contract and I have every intention of getting married.  My parents have been married for 24 years now and that is because they respected and honored that vow.  The reason I call it laughable is because unfortunately the majority of our society does not seem to share this view with myself, you, and people like my parents.  "Till death do us part" has become "Eh, we'll see what happens," and as unfortunate as it is it's only getting worse.  The divroce rate in this country is over 50%, I'm not sure about you but I think that is a disgusting statistic.  That's why I'm so pessimistic I suppose. 

Why pessimistic? Because many people don't get it? You'd be better off taking an example from your parents who have managed to stay married 24 years... you get out what you put in.. and that applies to nearly everything in life...the real problem is people give up before they even get started.... if your parents hav been married 24 yrs I'm guessing you're in your 20's... believe me there is a lot more to learn about life for you young man... so take the optimistic appproach.. you're life will be far better for it

[Caveman]

I don't look at my marraige "contract" as laughable at all.. I absolutely look at is a committment to be honored by continually making an effort to make the marraige as strong as possible... I suppose if you take the view that you take.. then morality really doesn't matter in any aspect of life.

In theory I respect the marriage contract and I have every intention of getting married.  My parents have been married for 24 years now and that is because they respected and honored that vow.  The reason I call it laughable is because unfortunately the majority of our society does not seem to share this view with myself, you, and people like my parents.  "Till death do us part" has become "Eh, we'll see what happens," and as unfortunate as it is it's only getting worse.  The divroce rate in this country is over 50%, I'm not sure about you but I think that is a disgusting statistic.  That's why I'm so pessimistic I suppose. 

Why pessimistic? Because many people don't get it? You'd be better off taking an example from your parents who have managed to stay married 24 years... you get out what you put in.. and that applies to nearly everything in life...the real problem is people give up before they even get started.... if your parents hav been married 24 yrs I'm guessing you're in your 20's... believe me there is a lot more to learn about life for you young man... so take the optimistic appproach.. you're life will be far better for it

I think you misunderstand me.  I have faith for myself and whoever I choose to marry (hopefully because I won't choose her unless she shares the same views on the subject that I do).  It's the rest of my generation and those slightly older I have no faith in. 

I guess in a nutshell I'm optimistic for myself and pessimistic for those around me. 

[nyantler]

yeah I guess I can understand that.. I saw on another thread you are at SUNY Albany... my oldest son is 2006 grad from there.. good school kid..

[Caveman]

yeah I guess I can understand that.. I saw on another thread you are at SUNY Albany... my oldest son is 2006 grad from there.. good school kid..

I just read your post on the other thread.  That was a really good decision on his part going for computer science.  I'm regretting my decision for criminal justice mainly because of the reputation that major gets for not being very challenging.  That's why I vainly make an effort to mention the school of criminal justice's national ranking or my law school intentions when people ask lol

[Mr VJP]

I've never thought optimism is a good idea.  Pragmatism seems a better philosophy.  Here's a little story to show why.

There once was a man who was eternally optimistic.  So much so, he jumped off the Empire State building in front of a large crowd, all the way down yelling, "So Far, So Good!"

[nyantler]

How about sensible optimism?? ;D