I am so sorry
nightmare

Ugh, but I'd have to wade through all those flags to talk to someone. Worst part is other groups do that too, so the "raise awareness for X" message gets watered down with students' constant exposure to mini-lawn flags of various colors from April-May. Good thing I graduated.

that is damned annoying looking. Do they think this gets them members? it's like something the vets would do-which is fine but doesn't smack to me of youth and liberty. also, it's labor intensive. they should be spending that time giving speeches somewhere or blogging or both. you should join, just to tell them to stop that

no, they are just little American flags. Here's a photo from their website. Really gives a scope to all the mid-afternoon nap potential sacrificed in the name of freedom...
https://www.yaliberty.org/sites/default/...

do the flags say anything? lol freedom is uncomfortable sometimes

These guys?! They are the ones responsible for covering the quad lawn with hundreds of little flags just when the weather gets nice, forcing all students who want to lie around reading onto the smaller, less-groomed lawn!

But seriously, thanks. I'll check them out.

thanks for the info.

lol. i'm not lazy i just don't know how to phrase the thought into a question that you can understand. lol

the stupid question is the one you were too lazy to ask.

here's Boulder's group-I think they're meeting tonight-that's what my son said. But it looks like there's one in Denver as well.
http://www.yaliberty.org/chapters/univer...

Libertarian is a political party and has a platform. Not rooted in a specific philosophy, although you see some overlap with Objectivist choosing to vote for Libertarian candidates. Objectivists follow the philosophy of Objectivism, created by Ayn Rand. btw, she was not a big fan of Libertarians.
My son went to the meeting and he enjoyed it. The Objectivist speaker was http://www.atlassociety.org/ed-hudgins
and he is the creator of the first index on economic freedom. The libertarian speaker didn't say that much and was more toward the anarchy side of libertarianism.
Anarchy isn't good for wealth creation, so I'm not for it.

"Crudely put, straight marriage (or relationships), keep the human race going.." Notice I said also "relationships". Hetero relations are not the same as gay relations. One has the possibility of making another human and one does not. They are not the same and should not call them the same. Even if children do not happen, for whatever reasons, it does not then make it the same as a gay relationship. And of course the government shouldn't get or be involved in any of it.

Crudely put, sex keeps the human race going... and (I expect) was around a few years before the institution of marriage. If the rearing of children must be included in the definition of marriage, does the government then step in and annul those straight marriages which, whether by choice or because of medical problems, do not produce children? If so, how long should the government wait for this proof that the marriage is valid?

We're probably going to butt heads here. First, I agree that the government shouldn't be mixed in with marriage. I think legal rights (contracts etc) should be the same no matter what....for inheritance, etc. Here's where I run into a problem though. Marriage already has a definition and I don't think we should change it. Gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage (don't blow her stack). Crudely put, straight marriage (or relationships), keep the human race going..so they shouldn't be named the same thing. All the legal benefits should be the same, just give it a new name. That is my one and only issue...to not change the definition of marriage.

Please define "normal" and "acceptable" - and do so objectively.

I didn't think you attacked me I thought you maybe misunderstood me ("if you have a problem then YOU have the problem not me".) I thought perhaps that was "flaming", before I understood what that meant. Here's the thing... the gay guys that I know always seem to be in a fit that they can't convince everyone to accept them and they get very in-your-face with others over it...which is NOT going to convince anyone of anything that believes differently...and people do have a right to believe what they think is right...and they have a right to fight for what they believe. All parties. So I get annoyed with that aspect of it. Why waste the time on those who are NOT going to think the same way? Which is also what I believe about people who refuse, or are too lazy, or don't care to learn about freedom...and how we're losing it daily and how that will ultimately affect everyone. If they have proven to be unwilling to seek reason then I have no time for them. They are a zero. Not worth the effort or energy. I will keep an eye out for those who aren't sheep and talk to them instead. As difficult as it is find them.

Equal treatment under the law - I'm talking the "gay marriage" issue here, but I come at it a different way. Marriage has traditionally been a religious function. Government should butt out. The only way government should deal with marriage is as a contractual living arrangement, and gay couples in a long-term, committed relationship should have the right to establish the same sort of contract. If they wish to be married, I know of more than one denomination willing to perform the service and include among my friends a number of gay couples who are married in the eyes of their religious denomination but not in the ever-watchful eye of the government.
With the failure of government to recognize my long-term committed relationship, if I were to die, my worthless brother would have more claim to my property than my lover of 20 years. If I'm sick and in the hospital, my sister has visitation rights unavailable to my lover, Little things like that.

I doubt anyone in here on a regular basis gives a shit about Rev. Phelps. But he does have some pretty vociferous (I love that word) supporters. For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.

While I'm rarely in a room or at a party with a bunch of people I don't know, I'm with you on that.

Yes it counts. There's nothing wrong with heterosexuality other than that some heterosexuals (no longer a majority, in my experience) are rather vociferous in their proclamations that ther is something wrong with homosexuality.

Curiously, my boss hasn't told a "fag joke" since I came out of the closet at work...the day after he gave me a 'walks on water' performance review. Timing is everything. Outside of work, a "fag joke" generally brings a response of "You're perpetuating a stereotype that I know is untrue, because I am one." That has cost me a few "friends" I didn't need, and has strengthened other friendships.

I have yet to see an objectivist "flame" another poster. The debate may become spirited. Occasionally there is a post which, taken out of context could be construed as such, but in context is just playful teasing between friends. No, the only flame attacks I've seen have been from left-leaning visitors, and have been pretty quickly removed.
I don't engage in "ad hominem attacks." If you feel I've attacked you, please show me where. I may disagree with a position you've taken. If I can't convince you and you can't convince me, we let reality be the final arbiter.

stupid question alert!

What is the difference between objectivist and liberiarian because you said something like that to me earlier.

I know what Ad Hominem means lol I didn't know what "flaming others" meant. You will find the gulch doesn't have much of a problem with that. We are usually well reasoned but enjoy a good debate (and occasionally get goofy for fun's sake), but the best part is, or so I think, is that we speak our minds without worrying if others agree or not. We have all found our way here because we are like minded. The others get voted down to the point of being covered with an invisibility cloak of sorts. :) I don't visit other (left leaning or otherwise) sites, but I have heard that it's all name calling and little true conversation. But that kind of sums up the left in a nutshell.

kh - I agree. coming out is a hot issue right now, but the newsworthiness of it is quickly fading. People will deal with it independently in their own lives.
But I wasn't talking about smal, anecdotal relationship issues or sexual struggles. I meant the idea of a person trusting his or her own mind over the current beliefs of a society. That takes a bit of conviction, and is an accomplishment whether the issue is homosexuality, capitalism, racism, etc. An intellectual struggle over fundamental beliefs makes for a stronger, more intelligent person who is more valuable to society (should this person choose to produce).

What equal treatment under the law are you not getting?
Who gives a shit about Rev Phelps?
When you're sitting in a room/party (whatever) with a bunch of people who don't know, are you thinking who's gay or straight? I'm always thinking, I wonder who in here has a brain worth picking. I rarely find one worth it. :(

"Flaming other posters".... what's that mean? Ad Hominem attacks - when you disagree with someone but can't refute what he says, attack his character or personality.

And who did it? - it's pretty common among the left-leaning visitors who come to these boards just to try to disrupt them. Most of those posts get removed fairly quickly. (tip of the cap to Mr. Desapio & Co.)

I don't need your approval, or anyone else's. I'd like equal treatment under the law. That situation is improving, but we're not there yet. As far as someone announcing that he or she is straight, it happens pretty frequently when someone is, rightly or wrongly, accused of being gay. In most cases it's unnecessary: you're assumed to be straight unless there is some evidence to the contrary. It's true that today most people don't care, but the ones who do care, like the Reverend Phelps, are pretty vocal.
About 20 years ago, a Libertarian friend pointed me toward Atlas Shrugged, and specifically toward John Galt's speech. But he admonished me to avoid Ms. Rand's other works, especially her non-fiction. After reading Atlas Shrugged - and thoroughly enjoying it, I tackled The Fountainhead, Anthem and We the Living. Once I ran out of her fiction, I went to work on her non-fiction. It all made sense! A lot more sense than any other philosopher I'd ever read. But it didn't so much change my life as provide me the philosophical grounding to understand my life: my feeling that altruism was wrong (charity is right and I can afford to give, but to allow someone else to decide how much and to whom is evil) and that government had grown too large and too intrusive... and too corrupt. My Libertarian friend was a bit embarrassed, because I finally realized what the Libertarians' problem is and why Ms. Rand was so dismissive of them: they had adopted her politics without bothering to study the philosophical underpinings.

I've been called a breeder before. Does that count?
To your point of "If you have a problem with it, YOU have a problem, not me." statement, the same is true for joke telling. Let that be a reflection on the joke teller, not you. However, everyone has a right to tell whatever jokes they like and laugh at whatever jokes they think are funny (at least the last time I checked freedom of speech was still upheld), whether others find it offensive or not. If tomorrow your boss told you a gay joke that you didn't appreciate how would you handle it? Are there ad hominem attacks in the gulch? Have we "flamed" posters? Are you flaming me?