NY Tea Party Candidate Paladino: ‘I’ll Use Eminent Domain to Stop the Mosque’

US News • Views: 5,144

Tea Party-endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate for New York, Carl Paladino, has released a campaign video attacking the Park51 project:

“As governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop the mosque, and use the site as a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country.”

That’s right. He’s promising to simply confiscate the property from the Muslim developers.

Youtube Video

LGF readers may remember Carl Paladino. In April we had a story about the blatantly racist (and sexist) emails he was sending to his list: Tea Parties? Racism? No Way!

One of the videos he forwarded (now deleted from YouTube for obvious reasons) was titled “Obama Inauguration Ceremony,” and may have originated at the neo-Nazi site Stormfront (Google search link). A screenshot:

Jump to bottom

418 comments
1 allegro  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:26:02pm

It's been 9 years since 9/11... a NOW they think a war memorial is a groovy idea? Where they been?

2 bratwurst  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:27:02pm

It is just a coincidence that a vocal opponent of the Park51 project was spreading around racist "joke" emails.

3 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:28:15pm

I keeping hearing about the Shadow of Ground Zero. There is no shadow. We haven't fucking built anything there yet.

4 Charles Johnson  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:30:49pm

re: #3 JasonA

I keeping hearing about the Shadow of Ground Zero. There is no shadow. We haven't fucking built anything there yet.

Apparently, if a certain area is hallowed and/or sacred enough, that alone will cast a gigantic shadow, within which Muslims must never dwell.

5 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:31:06pm

GOP: "It's Not Fascism When We Do It!"

6 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:31:11pm

re: #3 JasonA

I keeping hearing about the Shadow of Ground Zero. There is no shadow. We haven't fucking built anything there yet.

Ground zero, due to its sacred nature, is able to cast shadows upwards, and through intervening buildings, even when the light source is overhead. Duh. Everyone knows that.

7 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:31:56pm

re: #3 JasonA

I keeping hearing about the Shadow of Ground Zero. There is no shadow. We haven't fucking built anything there yet.

The Tea Partiers and racists have turned it into a club to forevermore bash Muslims over the head with...

8 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:32:07pm

re: #3 JasonA

I keeping hearing about the Shadow of Ground Zero. There is no shadow. We haven't fucking built anything there yet.

You have to wonder. Using the "logic" of the opponents. Would it be OK if a Muslim owned company leased space in the new building at "Ground Zero"?

9 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:32:20pm

re: #1 allegro

It's been 9 years since 9/11... a NOW they think a war memorial is a groovy idea? Where they been?

Aren't we supposed to be building some kind of memorial on the actual footprint of the WTC? Or have we simply given up?

10 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:33:46pm

re: #8 Gus 802

You have to wonder. Using the "logic" of the opponents. Would it be OK if a Muslim owned company leased space in the new building at "Ground Zero"?

We know the answer to that question...if word got out about anything like that, the TPers would throw a bigger fit than we're seeing now with Cordoba House/Park51.

11 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:33:52pm

re: #8 Gus 802

You have to wonder. Using the "logic" of the opponents. Would it be OK if a Muslim owned company leased space in the new building at "Ground Zero"?

I have to say, all this talk about the sacred ground of Ground Zero is kind of backfiring. I'm getting upset again about how they're going to put up another commercial building there.

12 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:35:06pm

It's not just a m-m-mosque, people. Its an Islamic mosque!

Run for the hills!

13 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:35:08pm

The whole rather have a starbucks than a multi-cultural community centre thing - really sticks in the craw.

They should have built a huge monument to the murdered victims of the atrocity as soon as the dust had settled - something muted and tasteful, and then rebuilt around the monument.

Sounds so simple in retrospect.

The temples to capitalism had to be rebuilt first - before any spiritual closure could happen with a proper in situ memorial.

A lot of the misdirected anger at P51 is the pent up frustration at not having a proper monument or grieving place on site by now.

14 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:35:09pm

re: #10 talon_262

We know the answer to that question...if word got out about anything like that, the TPers would throw a bigger fit than we're seeing now with Cordoba House/Park51.

Ummm....we're talking about a major commercial building in Manhattan, presumably on a par with the WTC buildings.

Oil-state based and owned companies will undoubtedly be using space there, no?

15 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:35:15pm

re: #8 Gus 802

You have to wonder. Using the "logic" of the opponents. Would it be OK if a Muslim owned company leased space in the new building at "Ground Zero"?

Christ. I'm really not looking forward to that "debate." I just hope it doesn't happen during an election year.

16 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:36:21pm

Wow. The an extra level of spooky. Actually confiscating Muslim owned property. Yikes.

17 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:36:22pm

re: #11 SanFranciscoZionist

I have to say, all this talk about the sacred ground of Ground Zero is kind of backfiring. I'm getting upset again about how they're going to put up another commercial building there.

You mean to make it park space? That would be kind of nice to have there.

Business wise it doesn't make sense to build anything unless there is well projected demand for lease space. That would depend on economic predictions as well as current office vacancies. Especially since such a building will demand above market lease rates.

18 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:36:37pm

re: #13 wozzablog


A lot of the misdirected anger at P51 is the pent up frustration at not having a proper monument or grieving place on site by now.

I think you may have hit it with that one. Listen to some of the language about 'we need to heal' that's coming out of some of the people upset about it. They never did get any closure or symbolic moving-on about the site, and it makes them vulnerable to this craziness.

19 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:37:14pm

re: #15 JasonA

Christ. I'm really not looking forward to that "debate." I just hope it doesn't happen during an election year.

Haven't you heard? Campaigns run 23 months now, it's always on.

20 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:37:30pm

I don't believe the governor of New York actually has any such power of eminent domain, but let's not get hung up on technicalities, mmkay?

21 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:37:38pm

So many angles to take here. First, obviously he knows nothing about how eminent domain works. Second, the fact that he would use taxpayer money to pay these people millions of dollars in order to prevent them from putting over $100 million into the project, employing tons of construction workers, engineers, etc., employing people in the center, and paying tons of taxes to the city and state. Then spend millions more in taxpayer money to make it some kind of memorial.

Conservatism!

22 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:37:46pm

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Wow. The an extra level of spooky. Actually confiscating Muslim owned property. Yikes.

I totally thought this was the kind of government intervention that the right was supposed to fight against.

23 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:37:49pm

I'm all confused.

I was under the impression that the Tea Party and its fellow travellers regarded eminent domain to be a bad thing, because ya know only commie governments seize people's property.

I've got to buy a program one of these days. It so hard to keep what they believe straight.

24 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:37:50pm

re: #17 Gus 802

You mean to make it park space? That would be kind of nice to have there.

Business wise it doesn't make sense to build anything unless there is well projected demand for lease space. That would depend on economic predictions as well as current office vacancies. Especially since such a building will demand above market lease rates.

Yeah, my first choice was always to leave it open. Have a memorial, trees, maybe a museum.

25 jamesfirecat  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:38:01pm

re: #4 Charles

Apparently, if a certain area is hallowed and/or sacred enough, that alone will cast a gigantic shadow, within which Muslims must never dwell.

//Don't you know who the hallow spell works in D&D? Its like this but with Muslims instead of people of evil alignment and Christians instead of people of good alignment.

(Not saying Christians can't be people of good alignment obviously, but it'd be foolish to say they all are....)

26 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:38:14pm

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Wow. The an extra level of spooky. Actually confiscating Muslim owned property. Yikes.

It all ended so well when we started doing that to the Japanese.........

27 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:38:44pm

re: #22 JasonA

I totally thought this was the kind of government intervention that the right was supposed to fight against.

This is where we get into trouble with terms. There's the right that is conservative, and then there is the right that is batshit crazy. They have different values.

28 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:39:26pm

Now, if we were talking about a nice Christian or Jewish or even Mormon mosque, that would be a different matter.

29 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:39:29pm

One of these days, asshole politicians are going to learn that thunderous applause from adoring audiences falls off as soon as someone says, "What did he just say?"

Someone else says... "Oh, no he didn't."

30 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:40:04pm

I have an interesting question... if he did become governor, could he do it?

31 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:40:31pm

re: #29 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

One of these days, asshole politicians are going to learn that thunderous applause from adoring audiences falls off as soon as someone says, "What did he just say?"

Someone else says... "Oh, no he didn't."

Talk to the hand.

32 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:40:31pm

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

This is where we get into trouble with terms. There's the right that is conservative, and then there is the right that is batshit crazy. They have different values.

Well I'm talking about the ones who get the most airtime, and are, therefore, heard the most.

33 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:41:12pm

After carefully studying the situation and consulted with my peers I have come to the conclusion that Carl Paladino is indeed a nutburger.

34 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:41:22pm

Bill Kristol has a 3-part prescription for how Obama can "save" his presidency.
1) Extend the Bush tax cuts. 2) Drop any timeline for Afghanistan. 3) Stop Cordoba House.

Putting aside the wisdom of 1 and 2, and the fact that Kristol has a history of being wrong about nearly everything, how the hell does the president just stop the construction of a place of worship? What's the overriding national security interest?

35 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:42:15pm

re: #34 palomino

Bill Kristol has a 3-part prescription for how Obama can "save" his presidency.
1) Extend the Bush tax cuts. 2) Drop any timeline for Afghanistan. 3) Stop Cordoba House.

Putting aside the wisdom of 1 and 2, and the fact that Kristol has a history of being wrong about nearly everything, how the hell does the president just stop the construction of a place of worship? What's the overriding national security interest?

Stop Cordoba House? Seriously?

36 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:42:16pm

Well he's a special kind of douchebag isn't he?

37 CuriousLurker  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:42:55pm

re: #18 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you may have hit it with that one. Listen to some of the language about 'we need to heal' that's coming out of some of the people upset about it. They never did get any closure or symbolic moving-on about the site, and it makes them vulnerable to this craziness.

Indeed. I get angry & sad all over again every time I look at the skyline of lower Manhattan. That empty space is constant freaking reminder, an open wound. And forget about actually going to GZ. The few times I've had to go near there I couldn't even bring myself to look in it's direction.

38 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:43:10pm

re: #35 Gus 802

Stop Cordoba House? Seriously?

Yes. Kristol is nutz. This has escaped peoples attention to now?

39 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:43:17pm

After carefully studying the situation and having consulted with my peers I have come to the conclusion that Bill Kristol is indeed a nutburger.

40 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:43:20pm

re: #35 Gus 802

Stop Cordoba House? Seriously?

Yes. People will remember that in 2012. Oy.

41 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:44:15pm

re: #40 JasonA

Yes. People will remember that in 2012. Oy.

What a hoot.

42 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:44:30pm

re: #34 palomino

Bill Kristol has a 3-part prescription for how Obama can "save" his presidency.
1) Extend the Bush tax cuts. 2) Drop any timeline for Afghanistan. 3) Stop Cordoba House.

Putting aside the wisdom of 1 and 2, and the fact that Kristol has a history of being wrong about nearly everything, how the hell does the president just stop the construction of a place of worship? What's the overriding national security interest?

Then all Obama has to do is the exact opposite of Bill "almost always wrong" Kristol and all will be shiny.

Once again the question is WHY does Kristol and Noonan and David Brooks and Mo Dowd still have jobs?

43 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:44:38pm

re: #20 Cato the Elder

I don't believe the governor of New York actually has any such power of eminent domain, but let's not get hung up on technicalities, mmkay?

It comes from the legislature so he could get it done if he finds enough support. It's very unlikely but it's still a a very spooky proposal.

44 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:45:17pm

re: #41 Gus 802

What a hoot.

I can't believe the word "jobs" didn't manage to wriggle its way in there, either. Fucking Nostradamus, that guy is.

45 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:45:18pm

re: #30 Walter L. Newton

I have an interesting question... if he did become governor, could he do it?

I don't believe there is a power of eminent domain in the nation that could stop the building of a religious institution of any kind without instant First Amendment court injunctions raining down from the judiciary.

46 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:46:19pm

re: #39 Gus 802

After carefully studying the situation and having consulted with my peers I have come to the conclusion that Bill Kristol is indeed a nutburger.

Welcome to the club buddy.

47 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:46:29pm

re: #44 JasonA

I can't believe the word "jobs" didn't manage to wriggle its way in there, either. Fucking Nostradamus, that guy is.

Or tax cut. Like maybe a small business tax cut for a year or two.

48 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:46:52pm

re: #42 webevintage

Then all Obama has to do is the exact opposite of Bill "almost always wrong" Kristol and all will be shiny.

Once again the question is WHY does Kristol and Noonan and David Brooks and Mo Dowd still have jobs?

You forgot my favorite "Mr Wrong": Tom Friedman.

49 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:46:58pm

re: #42 webevintage

Then all Obama has to do is the exact opposite of Bill "almost always wrong" Kristol and all will be shiny.

Once again the question is WHY does Kristol and Noonan and David Brooks and Mo Dowd still have jobs?

Follow the money.

Beyond that i can not help you.

50 Kronocide  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:47:23pm

Paladino is insane. I think it's great that he's going clearly and un-equivocally on record with his un-American idiocy.

51 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:47:26pm

re: #48 Cato the Elder

You forgot my favorite "Mr Wrong": Tom Friedman.

God.
Yes.

52 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:48:29pm

re: #48 Cato the Elder

You forgot my favorite "Mr Wrong": Tom Friedman.

atleast Fukuyama had the good grace to recant.

53 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:48:42pm

re: #30 Walter L. Newton

I have an interesting question... if he did become governor, could he do it?

Ok... I guess it's not an interesting question. I ask it because it seems to me that all the outrage and disgust that is coming from the left and moderate/independent citizens is not amounting to jack when it comes to stopping any of this movement toward these politically questionable positions.

As the economy continues to stagnate (The Federal Reserve is set to downgrade its assessment of US economic prospects when it meets on Tuesday to discuss ways to reboot the flagging recovery.), I see the wacky far right gaining more and more steam, and all the shouting and complaining and public "outcry" about Tea Parties and Newt and Paladino is not effecting anything.

Color me wrong maybe, am I missing something, but it seems like this train is picking up steam on a weekly basis, and I can't see any way it's going to slow down.

54 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:49:08pm

re: #50 BigPapa

Paladino is insane. I think it's great that he's going clearly and un-equivocally on record with his un-American idiocy.

Amazing how much I keep hearing about this guy and almost nothing about the "Republican" candidate. I bet most of you don't even know his name off the tops of your heads.

55 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:49:18pm

re: #14 SanFranciscoZionist

Ummm...we're talking about a major commercial building in Manhattan, presumably on a par with the WTC buildings.

Oil-state based and owned companies will undoubtedly be using space there, no?

Yeah, I know...Arab firms would be likely be first in line to lease space in what could be the premier tower in Lower Manhattan. The TPers would have a shitfit...

56 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:49:51pm

re: #34 palomino

Bill Kristol has a 3-part prescription for how Obama can "save" his presidency.
1) Extend the Bush tax cuts. 2) Drop any timeline for Afghanistan. 3) Stop Cordoba House.

Putting aside the wisdom of 1 and 2, and the fact that Kristol has a history of being wrong about nearly everything, how the hell does the president just stop the construction of a place of worship? What's the overriding national security interest?

That's absolutely insane.

What president in his right mind would consider such a course of action?

57 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:50:25pm

re: #35 Gus 802

Stop Cordoba House? Seriously?

For Kristol, it's as easy as 1, 2, 3.

58 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:50:54pm

re: #45 Cato the Elder

I don't believe there is a power of eminent domain in the nation that could stop the building of a religious institution of any kind without instant First Amendment court injunctions raining down from the judiciary.

Ok... then how can he even bring this up if it's not possible. I'm not a politician, not a constitutional expert nor a lawyer. Does he know something that a lot of us don't understand. Has ED ever been used to deny a religious organization to build, or used to reclaim property from a religious organization?

59 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:51:15pm

re: #55 talon_262

Yeah, I know...Arab firms would be likely be first in line to lease space in what could be the premier tower in Lower Manhattan. The TPers would have a shitfit...

Imagine if they rented the top floor and put a mosque in it? The collective butthurt would lead to a spike in Preparation H sales heretofore unseen.

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:51:34pm

re: #37 CuriousLurker

Indeed. I get angry & sad all over again every time I look at the skyline of lower Manhattan. That empty space is constant freaking reminder, an open wound. And forget about actually going to GZ. The few times I've had to go near there I couldn't even bring myself to look in it's direction.

I cry when I see the towers in the background of older movies and TV shows set in New York.

I think we never really let ourselves heal. We went to war, and we painted everything red, white and blue, and we made ourselves go back to normal, but we didn't do a good job of mourning.

61 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:51:35pm

re: #56 SanFranciscoZionist

That's absolutely insane.

What president in his right mind would consider such a course of action?

Anybody who takes advice from Kristol must want to fail. The main is a virtual opposite-land prophet. He is so reliably wrong that the reverse of his predictions can be taken to be be very accurate.

62 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:51:51pm

re: #38 wozzablog

Yes. Kristol is nutz. This has escaped peoples attention to now?

I didn't think he was, you know, NUTZ.

63 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:51:52pm

re: #56 SanFranciscoZionist

That's absolutely insane.

What president in his right mind would consider such a course of action?

The dream President of the TPers, whether it's Palin, Gingrich, or whoever...and it would be wrong.

64 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:52:02pm

Carl Paladino ad:

Out of work? Behind on your mortgage payments or rent? Credit card companies and collection agencies calling at every hour of the day. Is you home in foreclosure?

Vote for Carl Paladino for Governor of New York State. He'll help you with you financial problems that Cuomo will ignore by preventing the construction of the Cordoba House.

//

65 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:52:19pm

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

I cry when I see the towers in the background of older movies and TV shows set in New York.

I think we never really let ourselves heal. We went to war, and we painted everything red, white and blue, and we made ourselves go back to normal, but we didn't do a good job of mourning.

Some thing shouldn't be forgotten.

66 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:52:26pm

re: #58 Walter L. Newton

Ok... then how can he even bring this up if it's not possible. I'm not a politician, not a constitutional expert nor a lawyer. Does he know something that a lot of us don't understand. Has ED ever been used to deny a religious organization to build, or used to reclaim property from a religious organization?

Politicians bring up the impossible all the time to get elected. Gitmo's still open for business. DADT is still SOP.

67 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:52:44pm

Stop the presses! I figured out why we're still in a recession.

It's the Cordoba House!

//And the gays.

/

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:52:48pm

re: #44 JasonA

I can't believe the word "jobs" didn't manage to wriggle its way in there, either. Fucking Nostradamus, that guy is.

Please note, also, I'm not entirely convinced that Mr. Kristol really wants Mr. Obama to save his presidency, so that may be worth considering as well...

69 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:52:57pm

re: #58 Walter L. Newton

Ok... then how can he even bring this up if it's not possible. I'm not a politician, not a constitutional expert nor a lawyer. Does he know something that a lot of us don't understand. Has ED ever been used to deny a religious organization to build, or used to reclaim property from a religious organization?

When did feasibility ever stop a politician from making ridiculous promises? Or have you checked your pots lately to see if there were chickens in there?

70 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:53:30pm

re: #61 Fozzie Bear

Anybody who takes advice from Kristol must want to fail. The main is a virtual opposite-land prophet. He is so reliably wrong that the reverse of his predictions can be taken to be be very accurate.

I think the sentence "The main is a virtual opposite-land prophet. " should go into the rotating headline thingee.

71 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:54:23pm

re: #62 SanFranciscoZionist

I didn't think he was, you know, NUTZ.

The Z is reserved for special cases.

Z - when S just ain't enough emphasis.

72 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:54:30pm

re: #66 JasonA

re: #69 Cato the Elder

Everyone is making my point for me. I questioned this simply to highlight just what you two are saying. I would hope someone will nicely put this idiot in his place.

73 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:54:32pm

re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist

Please note, also, I'm not entirely convinced that Mr. Kristol really wants Mr. Obama to save his presidency, so that may be worth considering as well...

Hm. You may be on to something. While most other right-wing pundits seem to be enjoying greater success right now, I think Kristol had a higher profile while we had a Republican in office. Maybe he needs to get angrier?

74 The Shadow Do  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:54:45pm

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

Color me wrong maybe, am I missing something, but it seems like this train is picking up steam on a weekly basis, and I can't see any way it's going to slow down.


If this admin made some business friendly decisions then things might just perk up for it...but that ain't gonna happen. Better to demagogue and pass out cash I guess.

75 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:54:54pm

re: #69 Cato the Elder

When did feasibility ever stop a politician from making ridiculous promises? Or have you checked your pots lately to see if there were chickens in there?

My pot has braised short ribs in it tonight.....

76 ihateronpaul  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:56:35pm

Karl Rove is guest hosting Rush "I don't hate black children, I just verbally degrade them apart mercilessly to forment racial hatred" Limbaugh's show this Monday!

Friends in low places....

77 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:56:38pm

re: #75 webevintage

My pot has braised short ribs in it tonight...

You had me at 'pot'.

78 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:57:15pm

re: #42 webevintage

Then all Obama has to do is the exact opposite of Bill "almost always wrong" Kristol and all will be shiny.

Once again the question is WHY does Kristol and Noonan and David Brooks and Mo Dowd still have jobs?

Kristol may be right on taxes, but only because tax increases, and the politics involved, are a bad bet now. Of course we have to raise taxes at some point in the not too distant future. No serious discussion of balancing budgets starts with "cut taxes forever."

On Afghanistan, Kristol is full of it. Extending that war indefinitely won't help Obama with the left or middle--they're all sick of the war. With those few conservatives who would approve, it's not like he'll get any credit.

79 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:57:29pm

re: #74 The Shadow Do

If this admin made some business friendly decisions then things might just perk up for it...but that ain't gonna happen. Better to demagogue and pass out cash I guess.

Could you point me in the direction of one of those cash-passing-out places? Seriously.

80 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:57:48pm

re: #45 Cato the Elder

I don't believe there is a power of eminent domain in the nation that could stop the building of a religious institution of any kind without instant First Amendment court injunctions raining down from the judiciary.

In general, the courts tend to defer to state interpretations of eminent domain (see Kelo, for example, the case that gives everyone heartburn), but I think this one would be hard to pull off. One building? With such a controversy surrounding it? When the gubernatorial candidate already declared he would use eminent domain, not because he needed the land, but to prevent a religious community from building a mosque/center? I doubt it could be made to hold up.

From a contest in which people were challenged to turn a well-known prose passage into single-syllable words:

The Man can take your land to make a wide road, or a park, but he has to pay. Not through the nose, just pay.

My favorite entrant, though, did the opening paragraph of "Huckleberry Finn". This paragraph mentions "the widow" and "Mary" several times. These are rephrased as "her whose mate died" and "her with the same name as her who had no sex but had a son who some say was the son of God", the whole phrase repeated as many times as Twain uses the name "Mary".

81 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:57:59pm

re: #78 palomino

Kristol may be right on taxes, but only because tax increases, and the politics involved, are a bad bet now. Of course we have to raise taxes at some point in the not too distant future. No serious discussion of balancing budgets starts with "cut taxes forever."

On Afghanistan, Kristol is full of it. Extending that war indefinitely won't help Obama with the left or middle--they're all sick of the war. With those few conservatives who would approve, it's not like he'll get any credit.

He must have missed the recent polling on the Afghanistan war but I digress.

82 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:58:11pm

re: #47 Gus 802

Or tax cut. Like maybe a small business tax cut for a year or two.

That sounds better.

83 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:59:02pm

re: #55 talon_262

Yeah, I know...Arab firms would be likely be first in line to lease space in what could be the premier tower in Lower Manhattan. The TPers would have a shitfit...

Or not. How often do they actually lash out at the oil states in any form?

84 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:59:08pm

re: #74 The Shadow Do

If this admin made some business friendly decisions then things might just perk up for it...but that ain't gonna happen. Better to demagogue and pass out cash I guess.

Then the simple fact is the GOP is going to win big this fall, whether anyone likes it or not, whether by running any sane candidates or running the far right social candidates who are pandering to populist sentiment.

And all the whining and outraging and quips and cuts and barbs that can be thrown their way, by the left, by concerned moderates like myself or by independents is not going to amount to a hill of beans.

It's evidently not stopping the momentum now, and certain;y there will be no way to put the breaks on it 3 months from now.

85 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 3:59:31pm

re: #58 Walter L. Newton

Ok... then how can he even bring this up if it's not possible. I'm not a politician, not a constitutional expert nor a lawyer. Does he know something that a lot of us don't understand. Has ED ever been used to deny a religious organization to build, or used to reclaim property from a religious organization?

I think he's just campaigning.

86 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:00:14pm

re: #80 SanFranciscoZionist

From a contest in which people were challenged to turn a well-known prose passage into single-syllable words:

The Man can take your land to make a wide road, or a park, but he has to pay. Not through the nose, just pay.

My favorite entrant, though, did the opening paragraph of "Huckleberry Finn". This paragraph mentions "the widow" and "Mary" several times. These are rephrased as "her whose mate died" and "her with the same name as her who had no sex but had a son who some say was the son of God", the whole phrase repeated as many times as Twain uses the name "Mary".

Too bad every instance of "her" in those phrases should read "she"...

87 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:00:25pm

re: #63 talon_262

The dream President of the TPers, whether it's Palin, Gingrich, or whoever...and it would be wrong.

Bush would never in a million years have considered doing such a thing.

88 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:00:41pm

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

I think he's just campaigning.

Well then, a simple fool should be able to shut this idea down in one minute if it has no merit or fact behind it what so ever.

89 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:00:53pm

re: #77 wozzablog

That was funny as hell.

90 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:01:33pm

re: #88 Walter L. Newton

Well then, a simple fool should be able to shut this idea down in one minute if it has no merit or fact behind it what so ever.

We're dealing with very complicated fools...

91 Linden Arden  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:01:39pm

I believe that eminent domain must be initiated by a legislative body of some type.

In Kelo the city of New London was the plaintiff and it had nothing to do with the state.

I could be wrong though.

92 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:02:04pm

re: #84 Walter L. Newton

Then the simple fact is the GOP is going to win big this fall, whether anyone likes it or not, whether by running any sane candidates or running the far right social candidates who are pandering to populist sentiment.

And all the whining and outraging and quips and cuts and barbs that can be thrown their way, by the left, by concerned moderates like myself or by independents is not going to amount to a hill of beans.

It's evidently not stopping the momentum now, and certain;y there will be no way to put the breaks on it 3 months from now.

And that's part of what's so troubling. After big victories in Nov., the gop will quadruple down on the crazy. Talk of the party getting back on the rails of sanity is way premature.

93 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:02:14pm

re: #86 Cato the Elder

Too bad every instance of "her" in those phrases should read "she"...

Not if it's Huck Finn's version of grammar.

94 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:03:07pm

re: #83 SanFranciscoZionist

Or not. How often do they actually lash out at the oil states in any form?

This is true...mountains of money to their favorite candidates and PACs would most likely make the TPers strangely silent.

95 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:03:25pm

re: #87 SanFranciscoZionist

Bush would never in a million years have considered doing such a thing.

He disturbed his own golf game to try and save Teri Schiavo by flying back to washington in possibly the worst political stunt of his presidency.

I wouldn't put much past him.

(i'm not always down on GWB, but he had depth plumbing moments)

96 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:04:00pm

re: #84 Walter L. Newton

Then the simple fact is the GOP is going to win big this fall, whether anyone likes it or not, whether by running any sane candidates or running the far right social candidates who are pandering to populist sentiment.

And all the whining and outraging and quips and cuts and barbs that can be thrown their way, by the left, by concerned moderates like myself or by independents is not going to amount to a hill of beans.

It's evidently not stopping the momentum now, and certain;y there will be no way to put the breaks on it 3 months from now.

I fear you're right.

I also think Palin or some other slick goofball will be President come January 2013, and then we will see division, hatred, and the trampling of constitutional protections like this country has never witnessed before.

97 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:04:53pm

re: #86 Cato the Elder

Too bad every instance of "her" in those phrases should read "she"...

It's being narrated by Huck, remember, and his grammar isn't all that hot.

98 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:05:05pm

re: #93 sagehen

Not if it's Huck Finn's version of grammar.

Not even Huck Finn ever said "Her gave me a cookie."

99 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:05:22pm

re: #92 palomino

And that's part of what's so troubling. After big victories in Nov., the gop will quadruple down on the crazy. Talk of the party getting back on the rails of sanity is way premature.

Who's talking about the party getting back to "sanity." I don't think I was?

100 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:05:35pm

re: #88 Walter L. Newton

Well then, a simple fool should be able to shut this idea down in one minute if it has no merit or fact behind it what so ever.

It's so simple that a child of five could explain it.

Someone get me a child of five.

101 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:06:08pm

re: #91 Linden Arden

I believe that eminent domain must be initiated by a legislative body of some type.

In Kelo the city of New London was the plaintiff and it had nothing to do with the state.

I could be wrong though.

That's true, he would need the legislature.

102 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:06:10pm

re: #96 Cato the Elder

I fear you're right.

I also think Palin or some other slick goofball will be President come January 2013, and then we will see division, hatred, and the trampling of constitutional protections like this country has never witnessed before.

That is true - they would govern so far to the right it would make the RINO Bush troupe gag.

103 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:06:12pm

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

It's being narrated by Huck, remember, and his grammar isn't ain't all that hot.

fixt

/

104 Randall Gross  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:06:44pm

This guy is definitely trying to become the American Mussolini.

105 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:07:05pm

re: #95 wozzablog

He disturbed his own golf game to try and save Teri Schiavo by flying back to washington in possibly the worst political stunt of his presidency.

I wouldn't put much past him.

(i'm not always down on GWB, but he had depth plumbing moments)

Yes, but I think he actually bought the weird stuff around the Schiavo case.

He would have known better about this.

106 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:07:10pm

re: #100 SanFranciscoZionist

It's so simple that a child of five could explain it.

Someone get me a child of five.

The child was 4 in Ducksoup - if i recall correctly.

107 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:07:34pm

A wonderful version of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata...

Josef Bulva

108 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:07:49pm

I have a 4 hour shift starting at 6:00 pm MT... then two days off, then filling for a vacationing employee two night shifts (2:00 am to 10:30 am) in General Merchandise (boo, it's a job, but I don't have to like the two night shifts). Gonna hit the gym after work, so...

BB really late or tomorrow... bye.

109 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:08:20pm

re: #104 Thanos

Leave the mosque. Take the Cannoli.

110 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:08:30pm

re: #98 Cato the Elder

Not even Huck Finn ever said "Her gave me a cookie."

Well, all right.

111 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:08:46pm

re: #95 wozzablog

He disturbed his own golf game to try and save Teri Schiavo by flying back to washington in possibly the worst political stunt of his presidency.

I wouldn't put much past him.

(i'm not always down on GWB, but he had depth plumbing moments)

For all the shit he caught during his two terms, I think that W was being sincere and doing what he thought was right, even if it turned out later that it wasn't. I don't give Palin, Gingrich, and the other TPers and paleocons the same courtesy...

112 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:09:08pm

re: #65 Walter L. Newton

Some thing shouldn't be forgotten.

No, everything should eventually be forgotten. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the Balkanization of groups.

If the unforgotten event was the basis of a learned lesson and was free of hate then having an elephantine memory would be a good thing, but it would also be atypical for humans.

113 austin_blue  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:10:53pm

re: #87 SanFranciscoZionist

Bush would never in a million years have considered doing such a thing.

No, he wouldn't. Shrub was my Governor for a while if y'all recall, and he was relatively effective, given that the real power in Texas is vested in the Light Guv.

He was no racist. Too bad he let the Regulatory Oversight thing get completely out of whack. Also, too bad about that NeoCon foreign policy thing.

But Paladino is just bug shit gonzo nuts.

And in other Bug Shit Crazy news, I learned on Alex Jones today that Big Food is putting tailored viruses in our groceries that will not only make us accept a New World Order (with one currency!), but make us demand one.

[Cue theme from The Twilight Zone]

114 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:11:11pm

re: #111 talon_262

Infinity ding.

115 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:11:28pm

re: #96 Cato the Elder

I fear you're right.

I also think Palin or some other slick goofball will be President come January 2013, and then we will see division, hatred, and the trampling of constitutional protections like this country has never witnessed before.

I hope for success for the GOP, beyond their wildest hopes, come this November. I hope they take both houses.

Then the American people will finally see what the agenda of the "new" GOP is, as they will have to propose and craft legislation, rather than just torpedoing everything that is proposed.

I don't believe this current putsch will defuse until it has had some measure of success, and this success has, in turn, scared the living shit out of all those people who haven't been paying attention, or have thought that the GOP is just being "energetic" in their opposition.

116 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:11:37pm

re: #74 The Shadow Do

If this admin made some business friendly decisions then things might just perk up for it...but that ain't gonna happen. Better to demagogue and pass out cash I guess.

You mean something like this?
Death of small-business bill reveals depth of partisan rifts

117 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:14:01pm

re: #115 Fozzie Bear

I hope for success for the GOP, beyond their wildest hopes, come this November. I hope they take both houses.

Then the American people will finally see what the agenda of the "new" GOP is, as they will have to propose and craft legislation, rather than just torpedoing everything that is proposed.

I don't believe this current putsch will defuse until it has had some measure of success, and this success has, in turn, scared the living shit out of all those people who haven't been paying attention, or have thought that the GOP is just being "energetic" in their opposition.

You might have a point there if I didn't honestly fear their next move after that would be to elect a flag-wrapped fascist president and pass an Enabling Act.

118 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:14:09pm

re: #111 talon_262

For all the shit he caught during his two terms, I think that W was being sincere and doing what he thought was right, even if it turned out later that it wasn't

Starting with his choice of running mate. That was a very, very bad move.

119 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:14:28pm

re: #115 Fozzie Bear

The very thought of the GOP taking both houses in November disturbs me. That said, you're probably right. People need to see their true colors and what better way to see that is to see Republicans in action. Unpleasant.

120 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:14:37pm

re: #113 austin_blue

No, he wouldn't. Shrub was my Governor for a while if y'all recall, and he was relatively effective, given that the real power in Texas is vested in the Light Guv.

He was no racist. Too bad he let the Regulatory Oversight thing get completely out of whack. Also, too bad about that NeoCon foreign policy thing.

But Paladino is just bug shit gonzo nuts.

And in other Bug Shit Crazy news, I learned on Alex Jones today that Big Food is putting tailored viruses in our groceries that will not only make us accept a New World Order (with one currency!), but make us demand one.

[Cue theme from The Twilight Zone]

Not so much, he is actually doing an end-around on the dems... he is playing the friend of the working man. NYC is a union town and the majority of the working folks don't want the Mosque. Call it what ever you want but he is playing shrewed politics.

121 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:15:10pm

re: #113 austin_blue

No, he wouldn't. Shrub was my Governor for a while if y'all recall, and he was relatively effective, given that the real power in Texas is vested in the Light Guv.

He was no racist. Too bad he let the Regulatory Oversight thing get completely out of whack. Also, too bad about that NeoCon foreign policy thing.

But Paladino is just bug shit gonzo nuts.

And in other Bug Shit Crazy news, I learned on Alex Jones today that Big Food is putting tailored viruses in our groceries that will not only make us accept a New World Order (with one currency!), but make us demand one.

[Cue theme from The Twilight Zone]

Hey dude.

122 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:15:12pm

Maybe Republicans can keep going on the news shows and say BS like this:

GREGORY: You’re not being responsive to a specific point which is how can you be for cutting the deficit and also cutting taxes as well when they’re not paid for?
BOEHNER: Listen, you can’t raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy. […]
GREGORY: But tax cuts are not paid for is that correct?
BOEHNER: I am not for raising taxes on the American people in a soft economy.
GREGORY: That’s not the question. Are tax cuts paid for or not?
BOEHNER: Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there. …
GREGORY: Do you believe tax cuts pay for themselves or not?
BOEHNER: I do believe that we’ve got to get more money in the hands of small businesses.


[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

123 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:15:22pm

re: #120 brookly red

Not so much, he is actually doing an end-around on the dems... he is playing the friend of the working man. NYC is a union town and the majority of the working folks don't want the Mosque. Call it what ever you want but he is playing shrewed politics.

playing the politics of a Shrew.

124 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:16:27pm

re: #117 Cato the Elder

re: #119 eclectic infidel

Note that if this happened this November, it would be in the context of Obama still controlling the executive. I.e., with the CIC not being part of the crazypants festival of lunacy. If it happens in 2012, we are fucked.

125 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:16:59pm

And look more BS from House Republicans...on the same show:

GREGORY: This tension that I got out with Leader Boehner. Republicans want more tax cuts seems to me he acknowledged that they’re not paid for and yet at the same time they want tax cuts but they’re so worried about the deficit. How do you resolve that tension?
PENCE: Well I think the way you resolve it is you focus on jobs. …
GREGORY: But congressman, you’re asking Americans to believe that Republicans will have spending discipline when you’re saying extend the tax cuts that aren’t paid for and cut the deficit, how is that a consistent credible message?
PENCE: Well I understand the credibility problem. …
GREGORY: You acknowledge, tax cuts being extended cannot be paid for, it would be borrowed money.
PENCE: Well no I don’t acknowledge that. … I think it’s apples to oranges.
126 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:17:15pm

re: #115 Fozzie Bear

I hope for success for the GOP, beyond their wildest hopes, come this November. I hope they take both houses.

Then the American people will finally see what the agenda of the "new" GOP is, as they will have to propose and craft legislation, rather than just torpedoing everything that is proposed.

No they won't.

Give them subpoena power, and they'll be way too busy "investigating" the president to actually put any legislation on his desk. They'll investigate, and investigate, and hold hearings, and investigate some more. And maybe they'll try to impeach him. (Grounds? You think we need grounds? All we need is enough votes.)

127 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:17:37pm

re: #123 wozzablog

playing the politics of a Shrew.

perhaps so, but it is the populist position.

128 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:18:25pm

re: #100 SanFranciscoZionist

It's so simple that a child of five could explain it.

Someone get me a child of five.

You're lucky. Catholics can't make that joke anymore.

129 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:18:49pm

Another question about that ad and the way this debate's been framed. Am I wrong to think there's a distinction between "supporting the construction" of this mosque and supporting their right to build it?

130 jamesfirecat  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:19:41pm

re: #127 brookly red

perhaps so, but it is the populist position.

Which just goes to show even in a democracy, what's popular is not always what is right...

131 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:20:47pm

re: #120 brookly red

Not so much, he is actually doing an end-around on the dems... he is playing the friend of the working man. NYC is a union town and the majority of the working folks don't want the Mosque. Call it what ever you want but he is playing shrewed politics.

No, he is playing to the basest elements because he thinks it'll get him elected...and he's still batshit crazy.

/the TPers can't win through legal channels on Cordoba House/Park51, so they're trying block it using mob rule.

132 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:21:14pm

re: #117 Cato the Elder

You might have a point there if I didn't honestly fear their next move after that would be to elect a flag-wrapped fascist president and pass an Enabling Act.

You referring to this: Enabling Act of 1933 ?

133 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:21:45pm

re: #111 talon_262

For all the shit he caught during his two terms, I think that W was being sincere and doing what he thought was right, even if it turned out later that it wasn't. I don't give Palin, Gingrich, and the other TPers and paleocons the same courtesy...

It was a response to a movement - which at it's core had people like Randall Terry ginning up the case - Bush believed what he believed - it was all played out in the media glare, cameras to follow every move.

Watching Hannity cry "murder" and "something has to be done" on the front lawn of that Hospice - all the political involvement was fermented from the bottom in a very unpleasant head space that sought to deny the wishes of a young woman who could not fight for her self and what she had told her friend and husband.

Just because he believed in the cause doesn't make it a stunt.

134 Gus  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:21:47pm

Pfft. That flat head Paladino won't even beat Lazio. Cuomo will beat Lazio.

135 austin_blue  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:21:55pm

re: #120 brookly red

Not so much, he is actually doing an end-around on the dems... he is playing the friend of the working man. NYC is a union town and the majority of the working folks don't want the Mosque. Call it what ever you want but he is playing shrewed politics.

Sadly you are very probably correct. But that's probably just the tailored viruses I have consumed in my ConAgra chicken meal talking.

136 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:22:22pm

re: #126 sagehen

No they won't.

Give them subpoena power, and they'll be way too busy "investigating" the president to actually put any legislation on his desk. They'll investigate, and investigate, and hold hearings, and investigate some more. And maybe they'll try to impeach him. (Grounds? You think we need grounds? All we need is enough votes.)

That's my point. Apparently America didn't get the message when Clinton was president that the GOP has no agenda other than destroying their opponents. I guess a re-run of that is in order to drive the point home.

137 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:22:36pm

re: #125 webevintage

And look more BS from House Republicans...on the same show:

LOL@"apples to oranges". Precious.

138 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:23:43pm

re: #119 eclectic infidel

The very thought of the GOP taking both houses in November disturbs me. That said, you're probably right. People need to see their true colors and what better way to see that is to see Republicans in action. Unpleasant.

The party in the White House always looses some seats, but I'm just not so sure it will be this route the GOP is dreaming of.
Look at that BS above....
And hell, they actually have NO PLAN to help the economy.
Oh Mitch says they will announce it in September.
How much y'all wanna bet it is full of voodoo trickle down give the rich more money economics?

139 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:24:09pm

re: #127 brookly red

perhaps so, but it is the populist position.

'Patriotism' is the last refuge of the scoundrel - 'Populism' is the first refuge of the damned.

140 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:24:53pm

google search for site:foxnews.com "eminent domain"

The cognitive dissonance, it hurts...

until you realize that white christians are more equal and more deserving of freedom than others.

141 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:24:54pm

I'm watching a rerun of the Myth Busters' special on Duct T

142 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:25:25pm

re: #140 000G

google search for site:foxnews.com "eminent domain"

The cognitive dissonance, it hurts...

until you realize that white christians are more equal and more deserving of freedom than others.

Sarcasm, btw....

143 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:25:44pm

re: #135 austin_blue

Sadly you are very probably correct. But that's probably just the tailored viruses I have consumed in my ConAgra chicken meal talking.

hey look it probably doesn't matter much that the majorit... wait, you ate ConAgra chicken? oh gawd... is there a 911 button on this thing ?

144 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:26:02pm

re: #89 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

That was funny as hell.

I have my moments.

*hands out the batch of brownies*

145 austin_blue  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:26:40pm

re: #129 JasonA

Another question about that ad and the way this debate's been framed. Am I wrong to think there's a distinction between "supporting the construction" of this mosque and supporting their right to build it?

No, you Traitor!

146 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:26:41pm

I hate it when my computer decides I've typed enough.

What I was going to say is:

I'm watching a rerun of the Myth Busters' special on Duct Tape. Any chance the GOP problems could be fixed by a liberal application of Duct Tape?

147 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:27:05pm

re: #132 eclectic infidel

You referring to this: Enabling Act of 1933 ?

Indeed.

148 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:27:23pm

American politics seems hopelessly polarized, to the extent that rational discussion of issues is becoming virtually impossible. The NYC mosque is a perfect example.

149 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:27:26pm

re: #146 b_sharp

I hate it when my computer decides I've typed enough.

What I was going to say is:

I'm watching a rerun of the Myth Busters' special on Duct Tape. Any chance the GOP problems could be fixed by a liberal application of Duct Tape?

It can fix everything.
Can't it?

150 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:27:30pm

re: #138 webevintage

The plan is to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes and talking about cutting spending without presenting any specific proposal.

151 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:28:14pm

re: #99 Walter L. Newton

Who's talking about the party getting back to "sanity." I don't think I was?

I didn't think so. I'm the one talking about it, as in "wouldn't it be nice if there was some sign the gop would get back on track in the near future?"

But the Nov wins will be misinterpreted as an affirmation of tea party Republicanism, so this misbegotten maniacal xenophobic populism is likely to intensify over the next few years, not wind down.

152 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:28:23pm

re: #147 Cato the Elder

Indeed.

I cannot imagine, however, the dissolving of Congress by a "supreme leader," much less such a leader having that kind of support in a nation such as ours.

153 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:29:46pm

So, all this talk about mosques and I suddenly realized I have no idea where the mosques are in my town.

Googled it just now and found out that there is a Progressive Islamic Community not too far from where I live.

I think I'll go pay them a visit just to see what they're up to.

154 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:31:14pm

re: #120 brookly red

Not so much, he is actually doing an end-around on the dems... he is playing the friend of the working man. NYC is a union town and the majority of the working folks don't want the Mosque. Call it what ever you want but he is playing shrewed politics.

Is there any polling on New Yorkers not wanting the mosque, or that being divided by union or class lines?

155 austin_blue  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:31:49pm

re: #149 webevintage

It can fix everything.
Can't it?

Fixed my tanker, once. Flew it from Zaragoza to Michigan non-stop with a sheet of aluminum over a hole on the leading edge of the wing duct-taped in place (we hit a vulture on short final).

156 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:32:08pm

re: #148 Spare O'Lake

American politics seems hopelessly polarized, to the extent that rational discussion of issues is becoming virtually impossible. The NYC mosque is a perfect example.

The NYC mosque isn't a political issue. It's not that the parties are polarized, it's that things that should never even have been discussed in the context of politics are made into "issues" by ideologues.

Examples: AGW, the Mosque in Manhattan, people's private sexual practices, private contractual agreements (i.e. marriage), the teaching of evolution in schools, and many more topics.

None of these things need be discussed by politicians, because they shouldn't be considered "issues"; They are made to be issues by people who have no actual policy ideas of their own.

157 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:32:21pm

re: #120 brookly red

Not so much, he is actually doing an end-around on the dems... he is playing the friend of the working man. NYC is a union town and the majority of the working folks don't want the Mosque. Call it what ever you want but he is playing shrewed politics.

So in the interest of stirring the bigot-pot, this conservative is pretending to give a flying fuck about working people?

Curiouser and curiouser.

158 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:32:31pm

re: #152 eclectic infidel

I cannot imagine, however, the dissolving of Congress by a "supreme leader," much less such a leader having that kind of support in a nation such as ours.

no more likely the complete replacement of congress... and by btw they love the word reform in Washington... perhaps it is time to reform congress, at a approval rate of 11% I think it likely.

159 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:33:09pm

re: #153 Cato the Elder

So, all this talk about mosques and I suddenly realized I have no idea where the mosques are in my town.

Googled it just now and found out that there is a Progressive Islamic Community not too far from where I live.

I think I'll go pay them a visit just to see what they're up to.

As long as you don't show up at prayer time on Friday (when they're really busy) they will probably show you around if you ask. Sometimes it won't even be a mosque employee, just worshipers will show you the place and answer questions, etc.

160 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:33:14pm

re: #156 Fozzie Bear

The NYC mosque isn't a political issue. It's not that the parties are polarized, it's that things that should never even have been discussed in the context of politics are made into "issues" by ideologues.

Examples: AGW, the Mosque in Manhattan, people's private sexual practices, private contractual agreements (i.e. marriage), the teaching of evolution in schools, and many more topics.

None of these things need be discussed by politicians, because they shouldn't be considered "issues"; They are made to be issues by people who have no actual policy ideas of their own.

Ding ding ding

161 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:33:41pm

re: #145 austin_blue

No, you Traitor!

No, I'm not wrong? :P

162 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:33:54pm

re: #48 Cato the Elder

You forgot my favorite "Mr Wrong": Tom Friedman.

Friedman is number two in my list. He is excellent, but not the best. This guy can easily beat Tom.

163 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:34:03pm

re: #152 eclectic infidel

I cannot imagine, however, the dissolving of Congress by a "supreme leader," much less such a leader having that kind of support in a nation such as ours.

Most well-meaning Germans of the Weimar Republic could not imagine such a thing, either.

164 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:36:16pm

re: #154 SanFranciscoZionist

Is there any polling on New Yorkers not wanting the mosque, or that being divided by union or class lines?

not any officially that I know of... just the word on the street is pretty one sided. and the you "community organizers" are holding meeting & passing petitions. but of course nothing "link-able"...

165 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:37:11pm

you know "community organizers" ... PIMF

166 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:37:46pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

Most well-meaning Germans of the Weimar Republic could not imagine such a thing, either.

Weimar Germany had several attempts at Coup d'état's before 1933... the most famous the Kapp Putsch of 1920 and Hitler's own Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 (after which the Nazi Party was outlawed and when it was rebooted sought power through the legal process). People back then were generally very aware of how in danger the Republic was. The problem was not a lack of awareness, IMHO, but a lack of interest. Not enough people were interested in keeping the Republic alive...

167 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:39:52pm

re: #162 Nimed

Friedman is number two in my list. He is excellent, but not the best. This guy can easily beat Tom.

the screen, it burns!

168 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:40:01pm

re: #148 Spare O'Lake

American politics seems hopelessly polarized, to the extent that rational discussion of issues is becoming virtually impossible. The NYC mosque is a perfect example.

What we need is a good old fashioned civil war, or maybe revolution. Cuz ya gots to water that tree of liberty from time to time.//////

169 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:41:03pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

Most well-meaning Germans of the Weimar Republic could not imagine such a thing, either.

No doubt, but circumstances were much different then. But I'm always interested in possible historical scenarios, even if fiction. Do you really think that Muslims would sufficiently serve as the underclass, enough to be vilified, where such vilification is used to gather power?

170 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:41:27pm

re: #166 000G

Any successful popular revolution must first start with the premise that the people need to be convinced that there is nothing worth salvaging in the current system, in order for it to be possible to then propose and encact a "solution" to the "problem".

That work is well underway. The formerly uber-patriotic right is increasingly anti-establishment. The people who would offer up a "solution" are constantly pushing the idea that "real" America is more than just in peril, but rather that she has died, and needs to be resurrected.

171 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:42:09pm

re: #168 palomino

Case in point for my premise in #170.

172 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:42:16pm

re: #156 Fozzie Bear

The NYC mosque isn't a political issue. It's not that the parties are polarized, it's that things that should never even have been discussed in the context of politics are made into "issues" by ideologues.

Examples: AGW, the Mosque in Manhattan, people's private sexual practices, private contractual agreements (i.e. marriage), the teaching of evolution in schools, and many more topics.

None of these things need be discussed by politicians, because they shouldn't be considered "issues"; They are made to be issues by people who have no actual policy ideas of their own.


The polarization is the problem, because it makes resolution of the issues virtually impossible. It also leads to increasingly extreme positions being taken, as everything becomes an all-or-nothing proposition and compromise is not even attempted. Gridlock and deadlock result, making fertile ground for political extremists.
Very very scary.

173 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:43:27pm

re: #170 Fozzie Bear

You guys are comin' on a little strong maybe, there are a number of things that make the more over-the-top examples pretty damn unlikely to happen again.

174 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:43:29pm

g'night.

my neck is really giving me gip again, may be back in a bit if i can't sleep

175 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:43:43pm

re: #154 SanFranciscoZionist

Is there any polling on New Yorkers not wanting the mosque, or that being divided by union or class lines?

People in the outer boroughs are split, people in Manhattan support it.

The Upper West Side has the JCC, the Upper East Side has the 92nd St Y, downtown doesn't have any kind of community center (or swimming pool) and really needs one. People who don't live here don't understand what it means in a densely populated city to have an affordable event space, plus low-cost activities like lecture series, film series, day care, senior socials, and so on.

176 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:44:00pm

re: #172 Spare O'Lake

*cough*wedgeissue*cough*

177 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:44:30pm

re: #172 Spare O'Lake

The polarization is the problem, because it makes resolution of the issues virtually impossible. It also leads to increasingly extreme positions being taken, as everything becomes an all-or-nothing proposition and compromise is not even attempted. Gridlock and deadlock result, making fertile ground for political extremists.
Very very scary.

I am past the point of fear... what does not bend breaks.

178 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:45:39pm

Slightly OT. There's some grounds for thinking that protestations notwithstanding, the legal arguments used to justify gay marriage apply to the matter of polygamy. If the ruling stands, and its logic stands with it, how can the state justify forbidding polygamy?

Anyone can see which way the wind is blowing. Proponents of gay marriage are on track to get their way. Please reflect: is winning by any means necessary, and never mind the consequences, the plan? Will you be happy with what you have got when you get it? Or would it be better to proceed with an eye to minimizing collateral damage?

Please grant, explicitly, that polygamy is different. Argue your case with logic that does not include by its very broadness a tacit insistence on the legitimacy of polygamy.

Polygamy ought to be illegal here, because its legalization would undercut equality between men and women, and it would intensify the already rising gap between the haves and the have nots.

It's bad enough that the haves have so much more money than the have nots. But with money, when a rich man makes more, if he does it by being a good producer, the supply of goods increases and his gain need not be another's loss. If unequal wealth didn't have some such silver lining, we would craft our tax code differently.

With wives, when a rich man takes a second, third, and fourth wife, the supply of women does not increase and his gain is necessarily another's loss.

Opposition to polygamy is not rooted in opposition to Islam; historically, Americans reacted violently to Mormon polygamy, at a time when Islam was not an issue.

article discusses both sides...

179 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:45:46pm

re: #172 Spare O'Lake

The polarization is the problem, because it makes resolution of the issues virtually impossible. It also leads to increasingly extreme positions being taken, as everything becomes an all-or-nothing proposition and compromise is not even attempted. Gridlock and deadlock result, making fertile ground for political extremists.
Very very scary.

There is no reason to compromise on something like the Manhattan Mosque. There is no reason to compromise on the legality of Homosexual bahavior. There is no reason to compromise on the veracity of AGW.

These are not legitimate political issues. These are not things about which politicians should need to concern themselves. The issue isn't that the parties refuse to compromise, the issue is that the things they are discussing are absurd.

You don't compromise on basic human rights. There is nothing there to discuss, no matter how many times the GOP tries to make these things into "issues".

180 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:46:50pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

You sound very very... concerned.

181 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:47:07pm

re: #170 Fozzie Bear

Any successful popular revolution must first start with the premise that the people need to be convinced that there is nothing worth salvaging in the current system, in order for it to be possible to then propose and encact a "solution" to the "problem".

Well, that is one part of the deal. In reality, the people propagating the popular revolution have their own political ideals, opinions, stances and goals. And that means there are people who do not share them. And only if these opponents become just as extreme or the polar opposite of the extreme becomes massive enough, only then will society tip over into revolution (of which kind, who knows beforehand?).

The Nazis never had an elected absolute majority in the Reichstag parliament. But take a look at the national election results of Weimar Germany. By July 1932, the seats for the Nazis and the Communists (the actual ones) made up more than 50%. This was the tipping point. Politics became really freaky and frightening from this point on.

182 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:47:34pm

re: #178 lostscaifehiker

There are no "both sides" to that "issue". Congratulations, you just unwittingly served up a perfect example of the point I was trying to make.

183 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:47:49pm

Moderates must not lose their temper. It's easy to give in to the crazy if your opponent is crazy AND being successful with being crazy.

184 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:48:00pm

re: #182 Fozzie Bear

Hey, you've gotta admit they're really good at ginning up peoples fears!

185 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:51:51pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

With wives, when a rich man takes a second, third, and fourth wife, the supply of women does not increase and his gain is necessarily another's loss.

I really love the amount of faith you have in women to, you know, respect themselves. "Takes." Heh.

186 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:52:30pm

re: #185 JasonA

I pay for all my wives!

Its only respectful.

187 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:52:37pm

re: #179 Fozzie Bear

There is no reason to compromise on something like the Manhattan Mosque. There is no reason to compromise on the legality of Homosexual bahavior. There is no reason to compromise on the veracity of AGW.

These are not legitimate political issues. These are not things about which politicians should need to concern themselves. The issue isn't that the parties refuse to compromise, the issue is that the things they are discussing are absurd.

You don't compromise on basic human rights. There is nothing there to discuss, no matter how many times the GOP tries to make these things into "issues".

Your saying so does not make it so.
There is every reason to compromise.
You are even in denial that there are issues in connection with these matters.
Unwittingly, you illustrate my point.

188 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:53:31pm

re: #186 windsagio

I pay for all my wives!

Its only respectful. obvious

fify.

189 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:53:54pm

re: #187 Spare O'Lake

You're like the golden child of targeted political advertising aren't you?

The reason there are 'issues' on these things is because they looked at what people have irrational fear/hate about, and decided to use it for political gain.

Its not that hard.

190 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:54:09pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

Just curious -- why do you assume that poligamy==poligyny?

191 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:54:34pm

re: #188 brookly red

lol :D

You're mistaken, that's girlfriends. I figure real and paid is better than imaginary >>

192 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:55:05pm

re: #190 Nimed

There's only one form of multiple marriage? >

193 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:56:06pm

NFL football is very close
I'm a happy camper

194 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:56:36pm

re: #186 windsagio

I pay for all my wives!

Its only respectful.

You know, we could impose a progressive tax on the number of spouses...

/conforming to liberal caricature

195 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:56:50pm

re: #191 windsagio

lol :D

You're mistaken, that's girlfriends. I figure real and paid is better than imaginary >>

hmmmm not a good time for a stimulus fund joke I guess...

196 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:57:15pm

re: #194 Nimed

damn, I was hoping you'd say 'wives' so I could nail ya ;(

197 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:57:38pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

Please grant, explicitly, that polygamy is different. Argue your case with logic that does not include by its very broadness a tacit insistence on the legitimacy of polygamy.


The overwhelming government interest in marriage, the reason the law recognizes it at all instead of just leaving it as a religious ritual, is that it provides a clear chain of responsibility.

Who speaks for you when you're unconscious? Who gets your stuff if you die without a will? Who's responsible for your debts if you skip out on them? How are doctors and bankers and tax collectors and other people who've never even met you supposed to know who to turn to as an acceptable surrogate when they can't speak to you directly? Who is your chosen next-of-kin?

A pairbond answers all these questions. A triad just makes it more confusing, and places a huge investigative burden on people who really have better things to do with their time.

198 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:57:55pm

re: #192 windsagio

There's only one form of multiple marriage? >

There's polyandry too. And of course polyamory.

199 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:58:46pm

re: #198 eclectic infidel

That was the joke, sorry if I wasn't clear ;)

BTW I am for all forms of polyamorous marriage being 100% legal.

Why the hell not?

200 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:09pm

*wonders why it wasn't recognized that a woman could have more than one husband...?*

201 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:13pm

re: #156 Fozzie Bear

The NYC mosque isn't a political issue. It's not that the parties are polarized, it's that things that should never even have been discussed in the context of politics are made into "issues" by ideologues.

Examples: AGW, the Mosque in Manhattan, people's private sexual practices, private contractual agreements (i.e. marriage), the teaching of evolution in schools, and many more topics.

None of these things need be discussed by politicians, because they shouldn't be considered "issues"; They are made to be issues by people who have no actual policy ideas of their own.

Private contractual agreements? First, marriage involves not just the parties getting married, but their children in due course, and the state, right from the start. There are consequences in tax law, social security law, and more. The state, for instance, forbids persons already married from marrying again while already married.

Second, you surely cannot mean to say that any contract any number of parties agree to enter into ought to be legit?

What if I decide to sell a kidney? What if I decide to sell myself into slavery, or to indenture myself for a time. What if I want to buy a slave, a servant, or a kidney?

Suppose I want to buy medical plutonium, which by ancient wisdom cures toothache?

Or, turning to AGW, the scientific reality of the thing is well established. But it's not a scientific question what we should do about it. There's a political side. Should we build many nuclear power plants, or rely instead more on wind power? Should we invest billions or even trillions in solar? What about conservation? Should we have a carbon tax, or ration electricity, or ration home heating oil? Should homes be required to have higher R-value insulation? How much more, and should there be regional differences?

Should New Orleans be rebuilt, or just written off as indefensible because the seas are destined to rise high enough to flood it even without hurricanes?

Even if we ever do get serious about mitigating and adjusting to global warming, these types of questions cannot be answered in peer reviewed scientific journals. A free society isn't really free if the citizenry doesn't get a vote in such matters.

202 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:16pm

re: #196 windsagio

damn, I was hoping you'd say 'wives' so I could nail ya ;(

That will be very hard, my friend. I'm leftier and more PC than thou.
/

203 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:22pm

re: #193 albusteve

NFL football is very close
I'm a happy camper

Do you know what Channel? I'm at the hotel

204 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:22pm

re: #197 sagehen

not really, you just have 2 people with all those rights instead of 1.

205 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:40pm

re: #202 Nimed

No frickin' way!

206 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:47pm

re: #194 Nimed

You know, we could impose a progressive tax on the number of spouses...

/conforming to liberal caricature

well that would be like fixing welfare benefits to the proximity of a potentially work-able spouse. didn't work so good last time...

207 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:59:48pm

re: #199 windsagio

That was the joke, sorry if I wasn't clear ;)

BTW I am for all forms of polyamorous marriage being 100% legal.

Why the hell not?

Society will unravel. Assuming there's any left after all the gays get hitched.

208 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:00:19pm

re: #207 JasonA

And then they'll be marrying poodles and 8 year olds I know.


ITS A SLIPPERY SLOPE!

209 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:00:32pm

re: #203 HoosierHoops

Do you know what Channel? I'm at the hotel

NBC
it's on now

210 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:00:53pm

re: #199 windsagio

That was the joke, sorry if I wasn't clear ;)

BTW I am for all forms of polyamorous marriage being 100% legal.

Why the hell not?

/put yer hand in the air step away from my dog...

211 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:01:03pm

re: #209 albusteve

NBC
it's on now

Found it..Thanks Steve

212 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:01:26pm

re: #187 Spare O'Lake

Your saying so does not make it so.
There is every reason to compromise.
You are even in denial that there are issues in connection with these matters.
Unwittingly, you illustrate my point.

What compromise should be offered in regards to the Mosque?
What compromise should be offered in regards to Gay Rights?

213 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:02:21pm

re: #208 windsagio

re: #210 brookly red

Youtube Video
214 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:03:13pm

re: #189 windsagio

You're like the golden child of targeted political advertising aren't you?

The reason there are 'issues' on these things is because they looked at what people have irrational fear/hate about, and decided to use it for political gain.

Its not that hard.

You have a very cynical view of politics and politicians...there may yet be a glimmer of hope for you. You should however recognize that most issues in life are hopelessly intertwined with human emotions which are largely irrational. That's why politics is more of an art than a science.

215 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:03:18pm

re: #212 Fozzie Bear

What compromise should be offered in regards to the Mosque?


/WTF is this Israel now...

216 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:03:43pm

re: #205 windsagio

No frickin' way!

Way. I went through a left libertarian phase and shit.

217 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:03:47pm

re: #214 Spare O'Lake

its not cynical to recognize what the bad guys are doing :p

218 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:04:09pm

re: #216 Nimed

Oh God, dunno if I can beat that >

219 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:04:14pm

re: #180 JasonA

You sound very very... concerned.

Thanks. I couldn't quite think of the right word.

So, it's not that opponents of gay marriage are against gay marriage per se, it's just that there could be all sorts of collateral damage.

220 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:05:04pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

How did I know that the guy who screams out "Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick" in the previous thread would also be anti-gay marriage? His stupidity is not concentrated into one area.

221 Amory Blaine  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:05:09pm

Thank God the Teabaggers have been presenting thoughtful, intelligent patriots and not raving lunatic bigots as candidates.

222 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:05:54pm

re: #190 Nimed

Just curious -- why do you assume that poligamy==poligyny?

The word polygamy includes both, but polyandry is far less common than polygyny. If polygamy were legalized, polygyny would constitute the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages.

I assume this based on history and on the current incidence worldwide of polygyny and the near-zero incidence of polyandry.

223 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:07:48pm

re: #219 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks. I couldn't quite think of the right word.

So, it's not that opponents of gay marriage are against gay marriage per se, it's just that there could be all sorts of collateral damage.

actually I am investing in a start up, a law firm that will handle gay divorces ... I expect a rather large collateral return.

224 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:08:20pm

re: #200 JasonA

*wonders why it wasn't recognized that a woman could have more than one husband...?*

Given my desire for solitude, and the fact that I'm not a jealous freak, and the fact that I've practiced polyamory before, I could see myself being husband #2, or #1 with a #2 in the mix. I'm just not convinced I'm wired for monogamy. That's just me.

225 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:08:20pm

Hell I think people should be allowed to marry their dog if they want to, with the understanding that animals don't really have legal rights :p

Even kids, as long as they're not boning them, I can't think of a scenario where that would come up tho'. Arranged marriages maybe?

226 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:08:30pm

re: #199 windsagio

That was the joke, sorry if I wasn't clear ;)

BTW I am for all forms of polyamorous marriage being 100% legal.

Why the hell not?

I have practical concerns. (Next of kin status, joint property, et al.)

Beyond that, I can't come up with a sound reason why, although I suspect that legal or no it's unlikely to become a common practice in the United States for basic reasons of tradition and demographics.

227 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:08:55pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

And also, how do you go from "Two consenting non-related adults should be given the same rights and benefits we give other pairs of consenting non-related adults" to this being the same argument as "Groups of 3 or more people should be allowed to marry each other?"

Why do I even bother, this blockhead can't be reasoned with.

228 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:09:13pm

re: #201 lostlakehiker

Private contractual agreements? First, marriage involves not just the parties getting married, but their children in due course, and the state, right from the start. There are consequences in tax law, social security law, and more. The state, for instance, forbids persons already married from marrying again while already married.

Second, you surely cannot mean to say that any contract any number of parties agree to enter into ought to be legit?

What if I decide to sell a kidney? What if I decide to sell myself into slavery, or to indenture myself for a time. What if I want to buy a slave, a servant, or a kidney?

Suppose I want to buy medical plutonium, which by ancient wisdom cures toothache?

Or, turning to AGW, the scientific reality of the thing is well established. But it's not a scientific question what we should do about it. There's a political side. Should we build many nuclear power plants, or rely instead more on wind power? Should we invest billions or even trillions in solar? What about conservation? Should we have a carbon tax, or ration electricity, or ration home heating oil? Should homes be required to have higher R-value insulation? How much more, and should there be regional differences?

Should New Orleans be rebuilt, or just written off as indefensible because the seas are destined to rise high enough to flood it even without hurricanes?

Even if we ever do get serious about mitigating and adjusting to global warming, these types of questions cannot be answered in peer reviewed scientific journals. A free society isn't really free if the citizenry doesn't get a vote in such matters.

I can't even respond to most of this crap.

You got a point? Make it.

229 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:09:33pm

re: #224 eclectic infidel

I have some friends who had a poly relationship go down in flames at the start of the year... the disadvantage is that the breakups are more painful :P (*note*2 guys)

230 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:09:56pm

re: #227 JamesWI

And also, how do you go from "Two consenting non-related adults should be given the same rights and benefits we give other pairs of consenting non-related adults" to this being the same argument as "Groups of 3 or more people should be allowed to marry each other?"

Why do I even bother, this blockhead can't be reasoned with.

you have no imagination, you're a boring bockhead

231 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:10:00pm

re: #201 lostlakehiker

Word salad from an extremist. What a fucking surprise.

232 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:10:16pm

re: #212 Fozzie Bear

What compromise should be offered in regards to the Mosque?
What compromise should be offered in regards to Gay Rights?

What 'compromise' do the people against these things offer on their personal and social liberties?

233 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:10:29pm

re: #226 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh yeah, that's a totally different discussion. It'll never be common around here, just yeah it shouldn't be illegal.

234 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:11:27pm

re: #230 albusteve

you have no imagination, you're a boring bockhead

I have no imagination because I refuse to entertain boring, stupid slippery slope arguments?

235 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:11:32pm

re: #223 brookly red

actually I am investing in a start up, a law firm that will handle gay divorces ... I expect a rather large collateral return.

Hardy har har.

236 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:12:17pm

re: #229 windsagio

I have some friends who had a poly relationship go down in flames at the start of the year... the disadvantage is that the breakups are more painful :P (*note*2 guys)

I've watched monogamous relationships go down in flames as well. Any breakup has the potential for that sort of thing.

Regarding your other post about it being "ok" for a person to wed a canine friend, well, that's the sort of example used to cheapen the strives made by gay Americans for legal equality regarding marriage. Just sayin'.

237 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:12:25pm

re: #234 JamesWI

I have no imagination because I refuse to entertain boring, stupid slippery slope arguments?

correct...can you smile?

238 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:12:28pm

re: #204 windsagio

not really, you just have 2 people with all those rights instead of 1.

So the funeral home releases the body to the wife. Next day, another wife shows up, outraged that the body's gone. How was the funeral home supposed to know?

Terry Schiavo has two husbands. They disagree about what should be done. Who makes the call?

239 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:12:32pm

re: #227 JamesWI

And also, how do you go from "Two consenting non-related adults should be given the same rights and benefits we give other pairs of consenting non-related adults" to this being the same argument as "Groups of 3 or more people should be allowed to marry each other?"

Why do I even bother, this blockhead can't be reasoned with.

You go there because it's too embarassing to admit that you really just don't want same-sex marriage to be allowed, so there has to be some noble reason why.

240 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:13:04pm

re: #235 SanFranciscoZionist

Hardy har har.

you think I jest? I am serious as a heart attack.

241 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:13:45pm

re: #22 JasonA

I totally thought this was the kind of government intervention that the right was supposed to fight against.

Not when its being used to attack Muslims. Then its OK. Paladino is a loon, and I hope Cuomo wins. Woe is me, that should have to endorse a liberal Democrat.

242 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:14:03pm

re: #238 sagehen

Your scenario is like asking what to do if the ex-wife comes out of the woodwork to complain.

If there is that kind of conflict, its not really a relationship. We're not talking about guys who secretly 2-time here.

Also lol Schaivo >>

243 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:14:42pm

re: #229 windsagio

I have some friends who had a poly relationship go down in flames at the start of the year... the disadvantage is that the breakups are more painful :P (*note*2 guys)

Due to years of high drama, the very term 'polyamory' makes me pound my head on the walls. I do know what you mean.

244 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:14:57pm

Now what about people who want to marry a cantaloupe? What do we do if the spouse of a cantaloupe eats his/her spouse? What about property issues? How you do you get a bank account in the name of a comestible?

These are pressing issues. Therefore, gay marriage should be illegal.

245 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:15:18pm

re: #222 lostlakehiker

The word polygamy includes both, but polyandry is far less common than polygyny. If polygamy were legalized, polygyny would constitute the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages.

I assume this based on history and on the current incidence worldwide of polygyny and the near-zero incidence of polyandry.

Poligyny is historically far less common, and we can go all pop evolutionary here. I do think that at least a part of it was due to the fact that women always had far less economic power than men, which there's good reason to believe won't be the case in our society, say, 30 years from now. So I wouldn't rely too much on historical evidence here.

246 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:15:24pm

re: #237 albusteve

correct...can you smile?

Huh?

247 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:15:41pm

re: #219 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks. I couldn't quite think of the right word.

So, it's not that opponents of gay marriage are against gay marriage per se, it's just that there could be all sorts of collateral damage.

I'm against it but I can see I'm likely to lose. You're likely to win. These are surrender negotiations. Will you settle for a new arrangement in which any two unrelated consenting adults can marry, but only two?

Yeah, I know. My camp is weak, and your camp can do whatever it likes and my camp can't stop it. This is an appeal to your prudence rather than your mercy.

248 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:16:25pm

re: #247 lostlakehiker

I'm against it but I can see I'm likely to lose. You're likely to win. These are surrender negotiations. Will you settle for a new arrangement in which any two unrelated consenting adults can marry, but only two?

Yeah, I know. My camp is weak, and your camp can do whatever it likes and my camp can't stop it. This is an appeal to your prudence rather than your mercy.

Actually, it's a stupid fucking attempt at distraction from the issue at hand.

249 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:17:16pm

re: #233 windsagio

Oh yeah, that's a totally different discussion. It'll never be common around here, just yeah it shouldn't be illegal.

The argument against it, like the argument against gay marriage, often seems to revolve around the idea that everyone would do it if given an option.

But we have options. I know people who have multiple partners sharing a household. Not many, because, even in a community where being polyamorous is acceptable, most of us do like we were taught as kids, and pair up. The strength of cultural norms is strong, and polygyny is not common even in cultures where it is permitted.

People aren't going to turn gay because they can get married to a same-sex partner, and people aren't going to start experimenting with new family structures just because they're available.

250 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:17:35pm

re: #241 Dark_Falcon

Not when its being used to attack Muslims. Then its OK. Paladino is a loon, and I hope Cuomo wins. Woe is me, that should have to endorse a liberal Democrat.

You could root for Lazio, you know.

251 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:18:15pm

re: #249 SanFranciscoZionist

lol of all the things that might turn me gay, 'opportunity' isn't high on the list ;D

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:18:19pm

re: #240 brookly red

you think I jest? I am serious as a heart attack.

Why do you think you can compete with established divorce firms?

253 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:18:54pm

re: #201 lostlakehiker

Private contractual agreements? First, marriage involves not just the parties getting married, but their children in due course, and the state, right from the start. There are consequences in tax law, social security law, and more. The state, for instance, forbids persons already married from marrying again while already married.

Second, you surely cannot mean to say that any contract any number of parties agree to enter into ought to be legit?

What if I decide to sell a kidney? What if I decide to sell myself into slavery, or to indenture myself for a time. What if I want to buy a slave, a servant, or a kidney?

Suppose I want to buy medical plutonium, which by ancient wisdom cures toothache?

Or, turning to AGW, the scientific reality of the thing is well established. But it's not a scientific question what we should do about it. There's a political side. Should we build many nuclear power plants, or rely instead more on wind power? Should we invest billions or even trillions in solar? What about conservation? Should we have a carbon tax, or ration electricity, or ration home heating oil? Should homes be required to have higher R-value insulation? How much more, and should there be regional differences?

Should New Orleans be rebuilt, or just written off as indefensible because the seas are destined to rise high enough to flood it even without hurricanes?

Even if we ever do get serious about mitigating and adjusting to global warming, these types of questions cannot be answered in peer reviewed scientific journals. A free society isn't really free if the citizenry doesn't get a vote in such matters.

Uhhh, what?

254 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:19:00pm

re: #250 JasonA

You could root for Lazio, you know.

What ticket is he running under?

255 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:19:00pm

re: #244 Fozzie Bear

Now what about people who want to marry a cantaloupe? What do we do if the spouse of a cantaloupe eats his/her spouse? What about property issues? How you do you get a bank account in the name of a comestible?

These are pressing issues. Therefore, gay marriage should be illegal.

What if it's a straight cantaloupe?

256 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:19:25pm

re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist

Why do you think you can compete with established divorce firms?

marketing...

257 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:19:51pm

re: #212 Fozzie Bear

What compromise should be offered in regards to the Mosque?
What compromise should be offered in regards to Gay Rights?

Legislative compromise is always possible if both parties are willing and determined to do so.
Of course individuals then have the right to go to Court to challenge the laws, but even then in the case of property development the individual litigants always have the option of voluntarily resolving the issues themselves instead of having the Court decide.

258 sagehen  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:19:58pm

re: #245 Nimed

Poligyny is historically far less common, and we can go all pop evolutionary here. I do think that at least a part of it was due to the fact that women always had far less economic power than men, which there's good reason to believe won't be the case in our society, say, 30 years from now. So I wouldn't rely too much on historical evidence here.

When people reach marriageable age in bronze-age society, there's way more women than men (wars, hunting injuries, etc). And after marriage, half the women are going to die in childbirth. In those circumstances, 2 or 3 wives per husband seemed pretty reasonable.

259 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:20:48pm

re: #241 Dark_Falcon

Not when its being used to attack Muslims. Then its OK. Paladino is a loon, and I hope Cuomo wins. Woe is me, that should have to endorse a liberal Democrat.

Sometimes, in the realm of politics, it comes down to the devil you know...and it sucks.

260 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:20:59pm

re: #168 palomino

What we need is a good old fashioned civil war, or maybe revolution. Cuz ya gots to water that tree of liberty from time to time.///

I wonder if Jefferson was ever sorry he wrote that? He should have known how it would be seized on as an excuse by people who wanted to destroy the country.

261 swamprat  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:21:06pm

re: #256 brookly red

marketing...

The law firm of Pat and Pat.

262 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:21:40pm

re: #255 SanFranciscoZionist

What if it's a straight cantaloupe?

Straight cantaloupes, like all non-gay melons, should have the full protection afforded by the constitution, as they form the bedrock of our society.

It's those dirty fucking degenerate faggot melons you have to watch out for. They'll rape your cat if you give them half a chance.

263 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:22:07pm

re: #250 JasonA

You could root for Lazio, you know.

You're Italian-American, right? You should know about this.

I was a pretty fanatical soccer fan in my teens. This Lazio talk is driving me crazy...

264 Amory Blaine  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:22:52pm

I always thought the cantaloupe was i little fruity

265 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:24:35pm

re: #264 Amory Blaine

I always thought the cantaloupe was i little fruity

did you mean "a" little fruity...

266 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:24:42pm

re: #254 Dark_Falcon

What ticket is he running under?

Republican.

267 swamprat  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:25:11pm

re: #262 Fozzie Bear

Straight cantaloupes, like all non-gay melons, should have the full protection afforded by the constitution, as they form the bedrock of our society.

It's those dirty fucking degenerate faggot melons you have to watch out for. They'll rape your cat if you give them half a chance.

They entice our good American cats to deplete their precious bodily fluids.

268 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:25:17pm

re: #263 Nimed

You're Italian-American, right? You should know about this.

I was a pretty fanatical soccer fan in my teens. This Lazio talk is driving me crazy...

I know nothink!

269 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:26:02pm

re: #247 lostlakehiker

I'm against it but I can see I'm likely to lose. You're likely to win. These are surrender negotiations. Will you settle for a new arrangement in which any two unrelated consenting adults can marry, but only two?

Yeah, I know. My camp is weak, and your camp can do whatever it likes and my camp can't stop it. This is an appeal to your prudence rather than your mercy.

OK. I'm about to angry. Do you know how whiny and moronic you sound?

My 'camp' is the camp of people who believe that everyone should be permitted to marry the person they love.

Mercy? You have the fucking gall to act as though I represent some body of people you should ask for MERCY? Tell me, oh victim, what exactly are we gonna do to you? Make you live in a society where everyone has equal rights? Do you think you can stand it?

I have friends who have lost custody of their children, who could not make decisions for a lover on the verge of death because they could not marry legally, and you're asking for MERCY, because a law you like got overturned by a Republican judge?

You think anyone is going to be fooled by this concern about polygamy? No one's fooled. If it comes up, we'll deal with as a societal issue. But you know what? I'm not scared.

Seriously, dude. Get over yourself. And don't ever talk to me as though I'm the general of some fucking conquering army. You are not going to be hurt by whatever this society decides about the status of marriage, and as I already stated, I know some people who have been very, very badly hurt.

Your pretense of powerlessness is complete crap. Get over yourself.

270 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:26:17pm

re: #262 Fozzie Bear

Straight cantaloupes, like all non-gay melons, should have the full protection afforded by the constitution, as they form the bedrock of our society.

It's those dirty fucking degenerate faggot melons you have to watch out for. They'll rape your cat if you give them half a chance.

and all this time I thought you were just partisan... wow.

271 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:26:21pm

re: #267 swamprat

They entice our good American cats to deplete their precious bodily fluids.

Too bad cats can't hold their rainwater and grain alcohol...

272 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:26:52pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

You go!
*clapping in approval*

273 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:26:52pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

A million billion updings. Bravo!

274 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:28:19pm

re: #256 brookly red

marketing...

I think you're WELL behind the curve, but hell, give it a try.

You got a license?

You got a license in a state that permits same-sex marriages?

275 Kruk  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:28:21pm

re: #22 JasonA

I totally thought this was the kind of government intervention that the right was supposed to fight against.

They're against the Government trampling on the rights of the American people. Muslims are neither Americans or people, so it's perfectly alright for the Government to trample on their rights.

(I thought about putting a sarc tag there, but sadly that's how some people do thing.)

276 Mocking Jay  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:28:32pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

*backs away slowly*

Bravo!

277 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:28:59pm

re: #270 brookly red

and all this time I thought you were just partisan... wow.

I'm just concerned about the rights of good god-fearing comestibles everywhere. I am just being a patriot, for I love my country.

God bless America, and the delicious juiciness for which it stands.

278 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:29:07pm

re: #257 Spare O'Lake

Legislative compromise is always possible if both parties are willing and determined to do so.
Of course individuals then have the right to go to Court to challenge the laws, but even then in the case of property development the individual litigants always have the option of voluntarily resolving the issues themselves instead of having the Court decide.

There is no such thing as 'legislative compromise' over equal rights under the law.

279 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:30:12pm

re: #260 Romantic Heretic

I wonder if Jefferson was ever sorry he wrote that? He should have known how it would be seized on as an excuse by people who wanted to destroy the country.

Jefferson, remember, defended the French Revolution long after it became clear that the inmates were running the asylum. He wasn't always good about recognizing political excess in himself or others.

280 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:30:24pm

re: #274 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you're WELL behind the curve, but hell, give it a try.

You got a license?

You got a license in a state that permits same-sex marriages?

I can't discuss I am just an investor... and like any investor I go in for the long haul.

281 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:31:20pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

OK. I'm about to angry. Do you know how whiny and moronic you sound?

My 'camp' is the camp of people who believe that everyone should be permitted to marry the person they love.

Mercy? You have the fucking gall to act as though I represent some body of people you should ask for MERCY? Tell me, oh victim, what exactly are we gonna do to you? Make you live in a society where everyone has equal rights? Do you think you can stand it?

I have friends who have lost custody of their children, who could not make decisions for a lover on the verge of death because they could not marry legally, and you're asking for MERCY, because a law you like got overturned by a Republican judge?

You think anyone is going to be fooled by this concern about polygamy? No one's fooled. If it comes up, we'll deal with as a societal issue. But you know what? I'm not scared.

Seriously, dude. Get over yourself. And don't ever talk to me as though I'm the general of some fucking conquering army. You are not going to be hurt by whatever this society decides about the status of marriage, and as I already stated, I know some people who have been very, very badly hurt.

Your pretense of powerlessness is complete crap. Get over yourself.

Quoted for agreement, and so everyone else can see this total ass-kicking a second time.

282 pharmmajor  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:31:36pm

Paladino: Italian for "failure as a human being".

283 brookly red  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:33:30pm

re: #282 pharmmajor

Paladino: Italian for "failure as a human being".

foul. illegal use of translation, 5 yards, repeat first down.

284 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:33:51pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

If federal and state legislation could be crafted whereby equality for gays was fully guaranteed with respect to custody, property rights and succession, that might be a pretty good compromise.

285 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:35:06pm

re: #284 Spare O'Lake

If federal and state legislation could be crafted whereby equality for gays was fully guaranteed with respect to custody, property rights and succession, that might be a pretty good compromise.

They're Americans. No need to compromise.

286 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:35:26pm

re: #281 JamesWI

Quoted for agreement, and so everyone else can see this total ass-kicking a second time.

TOTAL ass kicking...not partial...
dude...we can read
hahaha
READ!

287 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:35:28pm

re: #284 Spare O'Lake

If federal and state legislation could be crafted whereby equality for gays was fully guaranteed with respect to custody, property rights and succession, that might be a pretty good compromise.

That sounds great! The marriage equality movement is working on it right now!

288 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:36:47pm

re: #266 JasonA

Republican.

Cool. I could happily vote for him.

289 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:36:53pm

y'all should kiss and make up...
watch some football

290 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:38:34pm

re: #278 SanFranciscoZionist

There is no such thing as 'legislative compromise' over equal rights under the law.

Legislative compromise is how most laws get passed, including laws relating to children, succession and property rights.

291 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:40:12pm

We should really consider compromising over this whole women's suffrage thing. And the abolition of slavery? I think maybe that was a bit hasty. Perhaps we can come up with a compromise on that one as well. Perhaps some kind of fraction would do the trick. I like math. It's very compelling, and truthy, and God made numbers so it has to be good.

As for all these Muslims, running around and doing Muslimy things such as breathing and eating, I propose a camp-based solution, whereby we can concentrate them all into a small area. That way we can easily keep track of them until such time as we can come up with a solution which would once and for all deal with the Muslim problem.

Sure, it starts with letting them own private property, build buildings, worship as they please. But that, my good Christian friends, is just the beginning, the tip of the iceberg. Let them do that, and they will enslave us all.

Now, you may feel that I am being a bit overly forceful. I say I am being generous, but in the interests of being fair, I offer a compromise. Perhaps the Muslims could just not build a mosque in Manhattan, women could stop trying overbearing and controlling about their own reproductive systems in exchange for being allowed to continue to vote, and black people could stop being so uppity and running for political offices and stuff.

I think I am being eminently fair here. After all, compromise is a virtue.

292 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:41:14pm

re: #289 albusteve

y'all should kiss and make up...
watch some football

Eh, as happy as I am that it is almost football season, preseason is just brutal to watch. One quarter of the starters playing with a simplified playbook (with you hoping that your players, or the ones on your fantasy team, aren't the ones that get the inevitable season-ending injury) and 3 quarters of watching the Rex Grossmans of the world play some horrible football.

293 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:41:37pm

re: #287 SanFranciscoZionist

That sounds great! The marriage equality movement is working on it right now!

Right, and if all the nuts and bolts are agreed then what does it matter if you call it marriage or something else? That would be a very nice compromise if it was acceptable to gays and heteros.

294 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:42:01pm

re: #290 Spare O'Lake

Legislative compromise is how most laws get passed, including laws relating to children, succession and property rights.

Spare, the law that says you can build a mosque in Lower Manhattan has already been passed. Hence, there is no legal 'compromise' needed or possible.

Now, if you're talking about marriage law, we are, of course, in process with that.

295 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:42:23pm

re: #280 brookly red

Your slip is sooo showing with this >>

296 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:43:59pm

re: #247 lostlakehiker

I'm against it but I can see I'm likely to lose. You're likely to win. These are surrender negotiations. Will you settle for a new arrangement in which any two unrelated consenting adults can marry, but only two?

Yeah, I know. My camp is weak, and your camp can do whatever it likes and my camp can't stop it. This is an appeal to your prudence rather than your mercy.

Man up, you passive-aggressive ninny...if, tomorrow, gay people had the right to "marry" each other in a civil ceremony, the institution of marriage would survive just fine (in the religious sense) and a lot of the legal issues SFZ brought up would be addressed (power of attorney, inheritance, guardianship, etc). I have a brother who's gay and his SO is as much a part of our family as anyone else...I also work for and with more than a couple of gay folks and have for years. They are the best evidence I have that gay people are born, not made...anyone who says differently is either ignorant or pushing a religious agenda.

297 albusteve  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:44:11pm

re: #292 JamesWI

Eh, as happy as I am that it is almost football season, preseason is just brutal to watch. One quarter of the starters playing with a simplified playbook (with you hoping that your players, or the ones on your fantasy team, aren't the ones that get the inevitable season-ending injury) and 3 quarters of watching the Rex Grossmans of the world play some horrible football.

not a true fan eh?...how else can you see the new kids play?...the is a purpose in all things, and after all, it's football

298 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:44:15pm

re: #293 Spare O'Lake

Right, and if all the nuts and bolts are agreed then what does it matter if you call it marriage or something else? That would be a very nice compromise if it was acceptable to gays and heteros.

Ah. Now we make sense. Spare's idea of 'compromise' is to extend state and federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but not call it marriage. Sure. You run with that.

One note: you presume the compromise here is between gays and heteros. It is not.

299 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:44:27pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

OK. I'm about to angry. Do you know how whiny and moronic you sound?

My 'camp' is the camp of people who believe that everyone should be permitted to marry the person they love.

Mercy? You have the fucking gall to act as though I represent some body of people you should ask for MERCY? Tell me, oh victim, what exactly are we gonna do to you? Make you live in a society where everyone has equal rights? Do you think you can stand it?

I have friends who have lost custody of their children, who could not make decisions for a lover on the verge of death because they could not marry legally, and you're asking for MERCY, because a law you like got overturned by a Republican judge?

You think anyone is going to be fooled by this concern about polygamy? No one's fooled. If it comes up, we'll deal with as a societal issue. But you know what? I'm not scared.

Seriously, dude. Get over yourself. And don't ever talk to me as though I'm the general of some fucking conquering army. You are not going to be hurt by whatever this society decides about the status of marriage, and as I already stated, I know some people who have been very, very badly hurt.

Your pretense of powerlessness is complete crap. Get over yourself.

You win the Internet!

300 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:45:33pm

re: #298 SanFranciscoZionist

Its between normal people and bigots.

301 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:45:34pm

re: #270 brookly red

Someone's sarcasm detector is on the fritz, I see.

302 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:45:45pm

re: #294 SanFranciscoZionist

Spare, the law that says you can build a mosque in Lower Manhattan has already been passed. Hence, there is no legal 'compromise' needed or possible.

Now, if you're talking about marriage law, we are, of course, in process with that.

A new bipartisan law could be passed.

303 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:46:27pm

re: #302 Spare O'Lake

A new bipartisan law could be passed.

I think you've finally crossed the line into self-parody >>

304 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:47:31pm

re: #293 Spare O'Lake

Right, and if all the nuts and bolts are agreed then what does it matter if you call it marriage or something else? That would be a very nice compromise if it was acceptable to gays and heteros.

If that's the easiest way to guarantee the equal rights to same-sex couples, fine. But it's pretty bizarre, and basically a concession to bigotry, to give different names to the exact same legal contract.

305 JamesWI  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:48:42pm

re: #297 albusteve

not a true fan eh?...how else can you see the new kids play?...the is a purpose in all things, and after all, it's football

The fact that it is necessary for the game doesn't mean it is entertaining. Sort of like a Raiders vs. Rams game. It has to be played, but that doesn't mean I'm going to watch it :)

306 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:49:57pm

re: #298 SanFranciscoZionist

Spare's

Who is SFZ addressing?

307 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:50:03pm

re: #302 Spare O'Lake

A new bipartisan law could be passed.

Saying what, exactly?

308 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:50:32pm

re: #306 Spare O'Lake

Who is SFZ addressing?

The board at large.

309 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:50:35pm

re: #304 Nimed

If that's the easiest way to guarantee the equal rights to same-sex couples, fine. But it's pretty bizarre, and basically a concession to bigotry, to give different names to the exact same legal contract.

That is exactly what it would be.

Hey everybody, let's compromise in the name of hatred and bigotry!

310 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:50:48pm

re: #302 Spare O'Lake

A new bipartisan law could be passed.

Keep digging, Polly...

311 samuraishake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:52:26pm

re: #304 Nimed

If that's the easiest way to guarantee the equal rights to same-sex couples, fine. But it's pretty bizarre, and basically a concession to bigotry, to give different names to the exact same legal contract.


Sounds like "separate but equal." Of course, we all know how well that worked out for equality...

312 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:52:49pm

re: #304 Nimed

If that's the easiest way to guarantee the equal rights to same-sex couples, fine. But it's pretty bizarre, and basically a concession to bigotry, to give different names to the exact same legal contract.

It would shut up most of the religious whackos while at the same time guaranteeing substantive equality to all. I think it's something that Obama would support.

313 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:54:02pm

re: #269 SanFranciscoZionist

OK. I'm about to angry.

All excellent points, but not nearly savage enough. If you really want to Angry, you're going to have to take some classes in Brutalism.

It just so happens that I run a small school for internet misanthropes, and we take great pride in transforming our students from frustrated milquetoast "respectful disagreers" into terrifying venomous juggernauts capable of mercilessly laying waste to their opponent's very concept of reality. In cooperation with the Texas prison system, we pit our students against hardened sociopaths in a tiered system in which students graduate to each successive level by demonstrating the ability to make successively more hardened convicts cry.

You seem to be just the type of student we're looking for. You have a significant degree of natural talent, but with proper guidance this talent could be developed into a thing of dangerous beauty; sort of like a Helmut Newton photograph.

If you're interested in enrolling, or if you just want more information, call 1-800-FUCK-YOU. The call is free; shouldn't you be too?

314 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:54:57pm

re: #308 SanFranciscoZionist

The board at large.

I find that unacceptable. Go find another sounding board.

315 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:56:32pm

re: #304 Nimed

If that's the easiest way to guarantee the equal rights to same-sex couples, fine. But it's pretty bizarre, and basically a concession to bigotry, to give different names to the exact same legal contract.

re: #309 Fozzie Bear

That is exactly what it would be.

Hey everybody, let's compromise in the name of hatred and bigotry!

There are very good unbigoted people who, for religious reasons, would prefer to see the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony, with the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and granting civil unions, and those who wish to be married would need the state civil union AS WELL AS the religious marriage.

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.

So be it.

316 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:57:52pm

re: #312 Spare O'Lake

It would shut up most of the religious whackos while at the same time guaranteeing substantive equality to all. I think it's something that Obama would support.

You think it would go through? Federal recognition, the whole ball of wax?

317 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:58:28pm

lostlakehiker has vanished from the discussion..

318 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:59:10pm

re: #314 Spare O'Lake

I find that unacceptable. Go find another sounding board.

I'm still waiting for the new bipartisan law.

319 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 5:59:26pm

re: #314 Spare O'Lake

I find that unacceptable. Go find another sounding board.

You can cordially go piss off.

320 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:00:18pm

re: #315 reine.de.tout

There are very good unbigoted people who, for religious reasons, would prefer to see the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony, with the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and granting civil unions, and those who wish to be married would need the state civil union AS WELL AS the religious marriage.

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.

So be it.

I have no issue with the state getting out of the marriage business, and the term marriage being reserved to the religious contract.

I have more issue with the idea that straight people should get 'married' by the state, and gay people should get 'civilly contracted'.

321 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:00:32pm

re: #178 lostlakehiker

So we should not let millions of gays get married because a tiny tiny fraction of that number wants polygamy?

Here's the 1950 version of your argument: if you let uppity blacks marry our wholesome white folks, then some day one of them will be president.

322 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:00:56pm

re: #317 eclectic infidel

lostlakehiker has vanished from the discussion..

Maybe he's going to find the proof of Al Franken stealing the election that I've been waiting for six months.

323 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:03:46pm

re: #315 reine.de.tout

There are very good unbigoted people who, for religious reasons, would prefer to see the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony, with the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and granting civil unions, and those who wish to be married would need the state civil union AS WELL AS the religious marriage.

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.

So be it.


I have no problem with that in principle. Anything less than absolute and total equality under the law is completely unacceptable, however.

If all marriages were to become "civil unions", sure, whatever. It still seems a completely ridiculous concession to me, but I will admit I am not a religious man, and I do generally find religion to be absurd, so I shouldn't speak to that.

I also find it somewhat offensive that some subset of the religious community would get to change the definition of words to demean and degrade the meaning of marriage to gays, just so they don't "get any gay on them".

However, this may be more perception than reality. I don't know. Frankly, this issue pisses me off, so I don't know.

324 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:03:48pm

re: #316 SanFranciscoZionist

You think it would go through? Federal recognition, the whole ball of wax?

You have nicely taken us back to my original concern about the very scary current degree of polarization in America which makes passage of any substantive legislation almost impossible.
The answer is: Under the current crop of political partisan hacks, no.

325 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:04:35pm

re: #320 SanFranciscoZionist

I have no issue with the state getting out of the marriage business, and the term marriage being reserved to the religious contract.

I have more issue with the idea that straight people should get 'married' by the state, and gay people should get 'civilly contracted'.

No.
Whatever the state "contract" is called, should be the same for all.

There are churches that will marry gay couples. Wonderful, I'm all for it.

But I would prefer to see "marriage" refer to the religious ceremony, with the state out of the marriage business altogether.

That makes me, in addition to an eeeeebil conservative from the last thread, a bigoted compromiser compromising in the name of hatred and bigotry, according to the wonderfully tolerant folks here.

This is not a good day for me to be posting comments, I think.

I read somewhere that liberals don't just disagree with conservatives, they think conservatives are evil mean people.

NO! I said to myself. I communicate daily with a lot of folks who are liberal, and they aren't like that at all.

It's beginning to appear to me as if I was sadly sadly mistaken.

326 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:04:56pm

re: #315 reine.de.tout

There are very good unbigoted people who, for religious reasons, would prefer to see the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony, with the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and granting civil unions, and those who wish to be married would need the state civil union AS WELL AS the religious marriage.

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.

So be it.

I could accept this, just so long as it gets done and is effective in all 50 states and the territories and commonwealths..."civil unions" would cover the legal stuff and that's all anyone really needs to conduct business as a family, an actual wedding would be gravy.

327 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:05:33pm

re: #318 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm still waiting for the new bipartisan law.

SFZ wants me to negotiate and draft bipartisan legislation.
What a silly thing.

328 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:06:01pm

re: #312 Spare O'Lake

It would shut up most of the religious whackos while at the same time guaranteeing substantive equality to all. I think it's something that Obama would support.

I'm far from convinced it would shut up most of the religious whackos.

But even looking at this from a cynical realpolitik standpoint, there's very little to gain by compromising on this. Time is definitely on the side of gay marriage. Scroll down and look at the table that shows support of gay marriage by age in this link.

[Link: voices.washingtonpost.com...]

More and more people will either change their minds or, well, die; the issue will be a political loser even for the Republican base in a matter of years (I would venture less than a decade).

329 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:06:42pm

re: #323 Fozzie Bear

I have no problem with that in principle. Anything less than absolute and total equality under the law is completely unacceptable, however.

If all marriages were to become "civil unions", sure, whatever. It still seems a completely ridiculous concession to me, but I will admit I am not a religious man, and I do generally find religion to be absurd, so I shouldn't speak to that.

I also find it somewhat offensive that some subset of the religious community would get to change the definition of words to demean and degrade the meaning of marriage to gays, just so they don't "get any gay on them".

However, this may be more perception than reality. I don't know. Frankly, this issue pisses me off, so I don't know.

Religious people see MARRIAGE as being the religious convenant FIRST; with the state contract secondary. So our view is that the term marriage is being changed. But, what the fuck, I'm an eeeeebil intolerant religious conservative, what the hell do I know?

330 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:06:46pm

re: #325 reine.de.tout

No.
Whatever the state "contract" is called, should be the same for all.

There are churches that will marry gay couples. Wonderful, I'm all for it.

But I would prefer to see "marriage" refer to the religious ceremony, with the state out of the marriage business altogether.

That makes me, in addition to an eeebil conservative from the last thread, a bigoted compromiser compromising in the name of hatred and bigotry, according to the wonderfully tolerant folks here.

This is not a good day for me to be posting comments, I think.

I read somewhere that liberals don't just disagree with conservatives, they think conservatives are evil mean people.

NO! I said to myself. I communicate daily with a lot of folks who are liberal, and they aren't like that at all.

It's beginning to appear to me as if I was sadly sadly mistaken.

Bullshit. Those who want to argue that gays should have less rights can go fuck themselves. It just so happens that it is some conservatives that make that argument. If you don't like it, call them out, or disassociate, or just ignore.

Don't cry victim, it doesn't suit you.

331 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:07:07pm

re: #325 reine.de.tout

No.
Whatever the state "contract" is called, should be the same for all.

There are churches that will marry gay couples. Wonderful, I'm all for it.

But I would prefer to see "marriage" refer to the religious ceremony, with the state out of the marriage business altogether.

That makes me, in addition to an eeebil conservative from the last thread, a bigoted compromiser compromising in the name of hatred and bigotry, according to the wonderfully tolerant folks here.

Don't see why. RogueOne was promoting that same idea a few days ago, and while I don't see it having a great deal of traction, it suits me fine.

332 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:07:11pm

re: #319 talon_262

Ess dreck.

333 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:07:17pm

re: #330 Fozzie Bear

Bullshit. Those who want to argue that gays should have less rights can go fuck themselves. It just so happens that it is some conservatives that make that argument. If you don't like it, call them out, or disassociate, or just ignore.

Don't cry victim, it doesn't suit you.

Nor you.

334 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:08:05pm

re: #330 Fozzie Bear

Bullshit. Those who want to argue that gays should have less rights can go fuck themselves. It just so happens that it is some conservatives that make that argument. If you don't like it, call them out, or disassociate, or just ignore.

Don't cry victim, it doesn't suit you.

And, I'm not arguing that gays should have fewer rights.
I'm arguing that the state should not be in the marriage business whatsoever.

335 samuraishake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:08:23pm

re: #315 reine.de.tout

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.


Everyone has a line that cannot be crossed. While I am tolerant of most individuals, I cannot tolerate those who would separate humans into different groups, some granted lesser rights. Am I "bigoted" because I hate Fred Phelps? I suppose you're entitled to that opinion...

336 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:09:28pm

re: #325 reine.de.tout

With the state out of the marriage business altogether, everyone will be able to define marriage for themselves anyway. No harm, no foul.

I wish more religious conservatives would speak out in support of ending state recognized marriage. Promote contract law as the basis and be done with it. Everyone would benefit and everyone would be equal.

337 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:09:41pm

re: #329 reine.de.tout

Might want to peel back the victimhood a little here, ma'am.

Nobody's calling you an intolerant hater on this thread that I can see :p

Other people yes, but they deserve it :P

338 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:10:07pm

re: #315 reine.de.tout

There are very good unbigoted people who, for religious reasons, would prefer to see the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony, with the state getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and granting civil unions, and those who wish to be married would need the state civil union AS WELL AS the religious marriage.

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.

So be it.

Do those same people object to the word "marriage" when talking about a civil marriage not accompanied by any religious ceremony? Because I'm not aware of anyone protesting the fact that the term "marriage" has been used outside of a religious context for a long time now. For this reason, have doubts about the sincerity of those people.

339 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:10:16pm

re: #328 Nimed

I'm far from convinced it would shut up most of the religious whackos.

But even looking at this from a cynical realpolitik standpoint, there's very little to gain by compromising on this. Time is definitely on the side of gay marriage. Scroll down and look at the table that shows support of gay marriage by age in this link.

[Link: voices.washingtonpost.com...]

More and more people will either change their minds or, well, die; the issue will be a political loser even for the Republican base in a matter of years (I would venture less than a decade).

That's their call, it takes two to tango.

340 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:10:21pm

re: #327 Spare O'Lake

SFZ wants me to negotiate and draft bipartisan legislation.
What a silly thing.

Let's back up.

I said that the 'issue' regarding the mosque was settled law. I also said that changes to marriage law were an ongoing process. These things seem, to my point of view, entirely true.

You said that there could be a new, bipartisan law. I am trying to figure out what you envision this law doing. I don't need a formal draft. Just a one-sentence idea would be great.

Now, if that was a sort of general, 'there could be a new, bipartisan law about anything' kind of statement, I can cope with that as well. Sooner or later there will be.

341 samuraishake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:10:30pm

re: #335 samuraishake

Oops, messed up my quotes. Should have read:

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks

The rest was just my commentary...

342 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:11:10pm

re: #338 Nimed

I decided I liked the 'state gets out of the marriage word' angle years ago, it really does just make sense.

343 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:12:24pm

re: #329 reine.de.tout

But, what the fuck, I'm an eeebil intolerant religious conservative, what the hell do I know?

Cute. Also kind of sad.

If someone has attacked you, then have out with it. Preemptive statements like this are absurd. Nobody has insulted you, or called you a bigot.

344 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:12:27pm

re: #339 Spare O'Lake

Its a free blog of course, but I find it kinda painful, you holding forth so strongly on US politics and culture issues sometimes.

345 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:12:50pm

re: #335 samuraishake

But, it seems it's perfectly OK to hate and be bigoted toward those folks.


Everyone has a line that cannot be crossed. While I am tolerant of most individuals, I cannot tolerate those who would separate humans into different groups, some granted lesser rights. Am I "bigoted" because I hate Fred Phelps? I suppose you're entitled to that opinion...

I don't like Fred Phelps either.

And I have nowhere argued that gay couples should not have the same state contractual rights as hetero couples.

And you will see me on these threads decrying the Catholic Church's piss-poor travesty of handling pedophile priests as loudly as anyone.

But Fozzzzzzzzzzzzzie believes I'm a bigoted eeeeeeevvvvvillll person because I would prefer to see "Marriage" reserved for a religious ceremony (held in addition to the civil ceremony by whatever church suits a person's fancy).

Again - It seems I was sadly sadly mistaken in my belief that hell no, liberals don't hate us! They think the very worst of us at all times, won't give one FUCKING inch . . .

346 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:13:36pm

re: #345 reine.de.tout

I don't think I ever saw fozzie call you a bigot. In fact he's specifically said he didn't, so it must be a misunderstanding.

347 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:14:14pm

re: #345 reine.de.tout

Everybody loves you, its not worth raging out any more than it was worth Mcspiff raging out over the UN >>

348 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:14:27pm

re: #329 reine.de.tout

Religious people see MARRIAGE as being the religious convenant FIRST; with the state contract secondary. So our view is that the term marriage is being changed. But, what the fuck, I'm an eeebil intolerant religious conservative, what the hell do I know?

That's where this gets complicated, though.

I spent years in a situation where no state recognized same-sex marriages, but many churches and synagogues within my area did. I have friends who are now 'engaged' following Prop 8 being struck down. They've been religiously married for fifteen years.

Those of us who are blessed to have the two go together without any confusion or conflict often don't take the pieces apart in our heads. We get married legally and religiously, usually on the same day, or as part of the same event.

Now, the fact is, marriage through the state has a clear legal status, whereas a kiddushin, or the sacrament of marriage or what have you, does not.

So, when the term changes...

As I said, I'd be fine just splitting the two up completely. I think it would content many people, I think it would NOT content those who truly just don't want same-sex couples to have the legal status that presently goes with state-sanctioned marriage.

349 samuraishake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:14:30pm

re: #342 windsagio

I decided I liked the 'state gets out of the marriage word' angle years ago, it really does just make sense.

It could be a good idea. But with hospitals, insurance companies, employers, etc all using the word "marriage" we'd have to find a universal standard to define it. Otherwise it'd be chaos, and ever-changing to screw people over. Or, the government could ban the use of that word, but then we'd be back to square one with the government getting involved in defining it...

350 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:14:47pm

re: #342 windsagio

I decided I liked the 'state gets out of the marriage word' angle years ago, it really does just make sense.

Oh, for gawd's sake, don't tell me we agree on this?

LOLOLOL!

351 webevintage  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:14:47pm

re: #262 Fozzie Bear

It's those dirty fucking degenerate faggot melons you have to watch out for. They'll rape your cat if you give them half a chance.

I want to go on record that I am completely against cat rape even if I have no problem with melons and cats marrying if they are both consenting adults.

352 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:15:04pm

re: #325 reine.de.tout

reine, as a friend, I suggest you take a short break tonight and do something calming.

353 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:15:21pm

re: #339 Spare O'Lake

That's their call, it takes two to tango.

And to marry. Hopefully, soon it will be all that it takes. :)

354 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:15:31pm

re: #346 windsagio

I don't think I ever saw fozzie call you a bigot. In fact he's specifically said he didn't, so it must be a misunderstanding.

Fozzie called people who think like I do bigots.
Same thing.

355 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:15:59pm

re: #345 reine.de.tout

But Fozzzie believes I'm a bigoted eeevvvilll person because I would prefer to see "Marriage" reserved for a religious ceremony (held in addition to the civil ceremony by whatever church suits a person's fancy).

Again - It seems I was sadly sadly mistaken in my belief that hell no, liberals don't hate us! They think the very worst of us at all times, won't give one FUCKING inch . . .

Actually no, but I am beginning to think you are a little too thin-skinned for this.

There is no need to give an inch to bigotry. If you want to change the term used to describe legal unions to appease those who can't handle sharing a name with gays, fine, I already agreed.

I also expressed my distaste for compromising on civil rights. However, a semantic compromise is not damaging in the way an actual difference under the law would be, as I agreed above.

356 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:16:16pm

re: #302 Spare O'Lake

A new bipartisan law could be passed.

What makes you think that most republicans are interested in passing a law allowing same sex marriage, or anything similar to it?

In 20 states, not only is same sex marriage prohibited, but so are civil unions and anything resembling them.

The left is gonna win this, but it's still gonna be a while.

357 samuraishake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:16:36pm

re: #345 reine.de.tout

Again - It seems I was sadly sadly mistaken in my belief that hell no, liberals don't hate us! They think the very worst of us at all times, won't give one FUCKING inch

I wasn't giving commentary on your views, I was giving commentary on your sarcasm. And I was being sarcastic (sort of). I've been asked before - how can you be so tolerant, but hate people like Fred Phelps? My answer is that I have a line, just like everyone else.

358 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:16:50pm

re: #351 webevintage

I want to go on record that I am completely against cat rape even if I have no problem with melons and cats marrying if they are both consenting adults.

This bizarre post belongs in the universe of Douglas Adams.

359 Cato the Elder  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:16:57pm

re: #169 eclectic infidel

No doubt, but circumstances were much different then. But I'm always interested in possible historical scenarios, even if fiction. Do you really think that Muslims would sufficiently serve as the underclass, enough to be vilified, where such vilification is used to gather power?

I never thought that. I think poor people, blacks, gays, and other "asocial elements", as the Nazis called them, would do nicely, though.

360 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:17:14pm

re: #354 reine.de.tout

Fozzie called people who think like I do bigots.
Same thing.

What's the quote? I'm sorry, you're clearly really not happy about what he said, and I don't quite understand what it is. There's been a lot of weird red herrings getting dragged through here for about an hour.

361 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:17:32pm

re: #350 reine.de.tout

Let me fix it for you :P

My favorite catch phrase: "All sides should give up on the word 'marriage'"

362 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:18:05pm

re: #361 windsagio

Let me fix it for you :P

My favorite catch phrase: "All sides should give up on the word 'marriage'"

My favorite t-shirt from last fall:

"What sacrament are we going to let the state define next?"

363 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:18:33pm

re: #312 Spare O'Lake

It would shut up most of the religious whackos while at the same time guaranteeing substantive equality to all. I think it's something that Obama would support.

Given the "extreme polarization" you've been talking about, you think a bipartisan bill is possible? On this issue?

364 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:18:50pm

re: #350 reine.de.tout

But yeah, hardcore people don't like it as a solution (because its not take no prisoners), but its just so sensical!

PS: to fix the legal questions you do what WA did, and have the law say 'civil partnerships have all the stated and unstated rights associated with marriage'.

Problem solved :D

365 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:19:14pm

re: #338 Nimed

Do those same people object to the word "marriage" when talking about a civil marriage not accompanied by any religious ceremony? Because I'm not aware of anyone protesting the fact that the term "marriage" has been used outside of a religious context for a long time now. For this reason, have doubts about the sincerity of those people.

Doubt away.

Before the idea of having gay people have the same contractual rights as marrried heterosexual couples became an issue (and I am all FOR THAT, by the way - I have a gay brother who suffered greatly because there IS no such thing) - then the term marriage automatically referred to heterosexual couples. And frankly, I have to get a license from the State in addition to getting married by a Priest. So already, we do TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It's always been that way.

I'm suggesting naming the state civil part of it a civil union; and people, hetero or homosexual, who wish to get married in a church and belong to a church that performs marriages, would get married in the church in addition to the civil union.

366 samuraishake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:19:39pm

re: #362 SanFranciscoZionist

What sacrament are we going to let the state define next?

I'll agree to prevent the government from defining marriage if the religious right agrees to stop calling this a "christian nation."

367 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:19:55pm

re: #345 reine.de.tout

reine, forgive me for saying this, but you're being a tad melodramatic here. See my #338.

368 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:19:57pm

re: #344 windsagio

Its a free blog of course, but I find it kinda painful, you holding forth so strongly on US politics and culture issues sometimes.

Is that all you got?
Just think of me as an illegal if it helps your pain.

369 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:20:01pm

re: #365 reine.de.tout

Doubt away.

Before the idea of having gay people have the same contractual rights as marrried heterosexual couples became an issue (and I am all FOR THAT, by the way - I have a gay brother who suffered greatly because there IS no such thing) - then the term marriage automatically referred to heterosexual couples. And frankly, I have to get a license from the State in addition to getting married by a Priest. So already, we do TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It's always been that way.

I'm suggesting naming the state civil part of it a civil union; and people, hetero or homosexual, who wish to get married in a church and belong to a church that performs marriages, would get married in the church in addition to the civil union.

So if you agree with me, completely, why the victim thing up above? I don't get it.

370 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:20:38pm

re: #364 windsagio

But yeah, hardcore people don't like it as a solution (because its not take no prisoners), but its just so sensical!

PS: to fix the legal questions you do what WA did, and have the law say 'civil partnerships have all the stated and unstated rights associated with marriage'.

Problem solved :D

Exactly.
And this would be a good thing.
Not to mention, it would get rid of whatever objections the real religious fanatics have. What could they say? and the protections would be there for all couples.
It's a win-win.

371 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:20:56pm

Apparently we must disagreeably agree?

372 windsagio  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:21:06pm

re: #368 Spare O'Lake

lol, I think I just got internet-chestbumped.

Unfortunately, spineless wimp that I am, I have to take off and get ready for my hot Sunday night :D

Peaces all! Don't let the bastards grind ya down!

373 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:21:49pm

re: #356 palomino

Epic context fail.

374 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:22:14pm

re: #369 Fozzie Bear

So if you agree with me, completely, why the victim thing up above? I don't get it.

Expressing my opinion isn't playing victim.

Maybe you see it that way when a person has a different opinion than yours.
But it's truly not.

If you make a general statement about people who think like I do, that they are all bigots, then you have called me a bigot. So - why would YOU want to do that?

375 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:23:08pm

re: #367 Nimed

reine, forgive me for saying this, but you're being a tad melodramatic here. See my #338.

Perhaps so.

And perhaps it's the time to do it.

376 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:23:11pm

re: #367 Nimed

re: #365 reine.de.tout

Oops, strike my last comment. If you want to rename the marriage contract for everybody, I'm down with that.

But I don't believe your position on this is representative of that of most conservatives.

377 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:23:52pm

re: #367 Nimed

reine, forgive me for saying this, but you're being a tad melodramatic here. See my #338.

And I answered you 338.

378 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:25:17pm

Ok folks. Be well. I've a couple episodes of The Shield, Season 7 to consume. G'night.

379 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:25:22pm

re: #370 reine.de.tout

Exactly.
And this would be a good thing.
Not to mention, it would get rid of whatever objections the real religious fanatics have. What could they say? and the protections would be there for all couples.
It's a win-win.

I agree, but we know that some people on the hard right would NEVER accept anything giving gay couples the right to marry/join in civil unions and the legal rights normally associated with marriage/civil unions.

380 What, me worry?  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:26:37pm

re: #348 SanFranciscoZionist

That's where this gets complicated, though.

I spent years in a situation where no state recognized same-sex marriages, but many churches and synagogues within my area did. I have friends who are now 'engaged' following Prop 8 being struck down. They've been religiously married for fifteen years.

This is what bothers me. They are living like marrieds, the state should recognize it. And I think it's very important to do so.

Marriage is about law that effects your life. You assume a certain number of legal rights to that person. To make life or death decisions, to be bound by contracts, property, children (most importantly). If anyone doesn't believe me, go talk to a person who has been through divorce.

Even in the ancient world, marriage was necessary to determine paternity, mostly because you want to know your heir is your own blood. Now society may be different, but marriage determines tax status, it's important when purchasing property. It's hugely important in probate, which includes property and possessions. You can't ignore those real life things and were the state is actually a benefit.

That doesn't mean that a spiritual ceremony is meaningless. It's not, but marriage is more than just love.

381 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:26:47pm

re: #345 reine.de.tout

You're not bigoted and evil, but maybe a tad old-fashioned.

If you tell gays they can pretend to be married and have most of the same rights, but they can't call it marriage, then you've just insulted them and relegated their relationships to a second class status.

Same sex marriage exists in 4 states and 10 foreign countries with no apparent disastrous effect on straight marriage, morality, national security or the price of gold.

382 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:26:58pm

Fozzie -
Spare said, what does it matter if it's called something other than marriage?

And then you and Nimed chimed in with your "bigots".


re: #293 Spare O'Lake

Right, and if all the nuts and bolts are agreed then what does it matter if you call it marriage or something else? That would be a very nice compromise if it was acceptable to gays and heteros.

re: #304 Nimed

If that's the easiest way to guarantee the equal rights to same-sex couples, fine. But it's pretty bizarre, and basically a concession to bigotry, to give different names to the exact same legal contract.

re: #309 Fozzie Bear

That is exactly what it would be.

Hey everybody, let's compromise in the name of hatred and bigotry!

383 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:27:13pm

re: #377 reine.de.tout

Yeah, sorry. That was posted 40 seconds after your reply. :p

384 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:27:51pm

re: #379 talon_262

I agree, but we know that some people on the hard right would NEVER accept anything giving gay couples the right to marry/join in civil unions and the legal rights normally associated with marriage/civil unions.

They probably would not WANT to.
But get that loaded term out of the mix, marriage, and there's nothing much they have to object to without sounding like COMPLETE idiots, IMO.

385 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:28:25pm

re: #374 reine.de.tout

Expressing my opinion isn't playing victim.

Maybe you see it that way when a person has a different opinion than yours.
But it's truly not.

If you make a general statement about people who think like I do, that they are all bigots, then you have called me a bigot. So - why would YOU want to do that?

I never said that you were a bigot. Please quote me where I called you a bigot.

386 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:28:39pm

re: #374 reine.de.tout

Expressing my opinion isn't playing victim.

Maybe you see it that way when a person has a different opinion than yours.
But it's truly not.

If you make a general statement about people who think like I do, that they are all bigots, then you have called me a bigot. So - why would YOU want to do that?

But reine, some of those people do not think like you do, and those are the ones being denigrated. If I read your post right you believe that gays can be married in a church if the church is willing. The proponents of proposition #8 do not want even that. They want it to be impossible for gays to get married, period.

387 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:28:52pm

re: #314 Spare O'Lake

I find that unacceptable. Go find another sounding board.

Who the FUCK made you blog umpire?

388 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:30:30pm

re: #382 reine.de.tout

Fozzie -
Spare said, what does it matter if it's called something other than marriage?

And then you and Nimed chimed in with your "bigots".

OK, but Reine, I think that was said when we thought that was a proposal to give same-sex couples marriage rights, but call it something else.

You're proposing calling it something else for everyone, and you've given sound reasons why.

389 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:31:42pm

re: #387 palomino

Who the FUCK made you blog umpire?

Do you really expect an answer?

390 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:31:45pm

re: #382 reine.de.tout

Grumble. Reine, I stand by that comment. I am calling "bigot" to someone who defends the existence of different names for the same civil contract. CIVIL, ok?

And that's not your position! What are you complaining about here?

391 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:32:02pm

re: #386 b_sharp

But reine, some of those people do not think like you do, and those are the ones being denigrated. If I read your post right you believe that gays can be married in a church if the church is willing. The proponents of proposition #8 do not want even that. They want it to be impossible for gays to get married, period.

Exactly.
The thing is- my church will not marry a gay couple.
There are churches that will, if such is desired.
My church as zero control over what other churches do.

And again, getting the loaded word out of there, the "marriage" word, takes away whatever objections those folks can possibly have to the civil laws that grant the protections of couple-hood.

392 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:33:31pm

re: #373 Spare O'Lake

Epic context fail.

Sorry if I confused your imbecilic rants on the mosque with your cretinous "arguments" on same sex marriage.

Please, contextualize it all for us. We're all so interested in your insights.

393 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:34:01pm

re: #390 Nimed

Grumble. Reine, I stand by that comment. I am calling "bigot" to someone who defends the existence of different names for the same civil contract. CIVIL, ok?

And that's not your position! What are you complaining about here?

I may just be having a really really bad day.
I got upset that a couple of people were nasty to DF for admitting that he has reassessed his position on Afghanistan.

I reassess my positions DAILY, based on whatever new information is available on any particular issue. Sometimes I end up with the same opinion; sometimes it changes. I think reassessment is necessary and a GOOD THING. And it pissed me off royally that someone got all over DF earlier for it.

394 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:34:43pm

re: #382 reine.de.tout

Fozzie -
Spare said, what does it matter if it's called something other than marriage?

And then you and Nimed chimed in with your "bigots".

And if you can't see that changing the legal definition of words that represent legal unions to appease those who oppose hay "marriage" is a concession to bigotry, even if it is a practical one, then I don't know what else to say.

Why would the word "marriage" need to be redefined, legally, in order to allow gays legal access to the same institution, unless it is to appease those who do not want to be associated with gays?

It is what it is. If it is a practical solution to a problem, then it works. It doesn't make sense to legislate regarding marriage at all, but to change that definition, now, in reference to this issue... can you not see how that is a slap in the face of religious gays? Do you not see the insult buried in the gift?

It IS bigotry compelling the opposition to gay marriage. Redefining terms to appease IS a concession to bigotry, in this context. Is it possibly necessary to make it politically possible? Yes, I think so. Is it a shame that words like marriage get redefined the instant gay people gain access? Yes, damn right, and it's fucking insulting to boot.

Is that so hard to understand?

395 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:35:15pm

re: #388 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, but Reine, I think that was said when we thought that was a proposal to give same-sex couples marriage rights, but call it something else.

You're proposing calling it something else for everyone, and you've given sound reasons why.

My bad, then.
Serves me right for coming in at the tail end of a thread, when I'm already in a bad mood, and not going back and reading the entire "conversation".

396 palomino  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:35:19pm

re: #389 b_sharp

Do you really expect an answer?

Not a coherent one.

397 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:35:23pm

re: #393 reine.de.tout

I may just be having a really really bad day.
I got upset that a couple of people were nasty to DF for admitting that he has reassessed his position on Afghanistan.

I reassess my positions DAILY, based on whatever new information is available on any particular issue. Sometimes I end up with the same opinion; sometimes it changes. I think reassessment is necessary and a GOOD THING. And it pissed me off royally that someone got all over DF earlier for it.

Then why shit on me over it?

398 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:36:19pm

Do you lefties know that I am in favour of full rights for gays, including gay marriage?
I was talking about the scary degree of polarization in America and the desireability of compromise instead of gridlock and confrontation.
And for this I am called a bigot.
Oh irony, thy name is prog.

399 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:37:39pm

re: #395 reine.de.tout

My bad, then.
Serves me right for coming in at the tail end of a thread, when I'm already in a bad mood, and not going back and reading the entire "conversation".

S'okay. It's been a kind of high-octane couple of days.

400 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:38:48pm

re: #394 Fozzie Bear

And if you can't see that changing the legal definition of words that represent legal unions to appease those who oppose hay "marriage" is a concession to bigotry, even if it is a practical one, then I don't know what else to say.

Why would the word "marriage" need to be redefined, legally, in order to allow gays legal access to the same institution, unless it is to appease those who do not want to be associated with gays?

It is what it is. If it is a practical solution to a problem, then it works. It doesn't make sense to legislate regarding marriage at all, but to change that definition, now, in reference to this issue... can you not see how that is a slap in the face of religious gays? Do you not see the insult buried in the gift?

It IS bigotry compelling the opposition to gay marriage. Redefining terms to appease IS a concession to bigotry, in this context. Is it possibly necessary to make it politically possible? Yes, I think so. Is it a shame that words like marriage get redefined the instant gay people gain access? Yes, damn right, and it's fucking insulting to boot.

Is that so hard to understand?

If what is desired, is the same contractual rights for all, and the biggest problem some people have with it is the use of the term "marriage", I see no reason to give them that term which forever and day has referred to a heterosexual couple.

It has the added benefit of destroying their objections to it.

401 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:39:10pm

re: #397 Fozzie Bear

Then why shit on me over it?

Because you were handy?

402 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:40:01pm

re: #401 reine.de.tout

Because you were handy?

LOL ok I'll accept that.

Cheer up reine, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything. I just have a strong opinion on this one.

403 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:41:00pm

re: #398 Spare O'Lake

Do you lefties know that I am in favour of full rights for gays, including gay marriage?
I was talking about the scary degree of polarization in America and the desireability of compromise instead of gridlock and confrontation.
And for this I am called a bigot.
Oh irony, thy name is prog.

Now you're just throwing bombs.

404 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:41:21pm

re: #388 SanFranciscoZionist

You're proposing calling it something else for everyone, and you've given sound reasons why.

I have to say I'm fine with a law that says something like "the civil contract commonly known as 'marriage' will henceforth be called 'Tuna Salad'", as long as there is full equality under the law for gay couples.

405 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:41:38pm

re: #398 Spare O'Lake

Do you lefties know that I am in favour of full rights for gays, including gay marriage?
I was talking about the scary degree of polarization in America and the desireability of compromise instead of gridlock and confrontation.
And for this I am called a bigot.
Oh irony, thy name is prog.

Your concern for the scary degree of polarization in America would have been far, far more convincing if you showed any actual familiarity with the issues, or had been willing to expand on your ideas, or respond reasonably to questions or criticism.

Now, having totally not done that, we've gotten to the name-calling stage.

This is an irony-free zone.

406 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:43:19pm

re: #402 Fozzie Bear

LOL ok I'll accept that.

Cheer up reine, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything. I just have a strong opinion on this one.

OK,
I apologize for coming on so strong.

I also have a strong opinion on this.
I am FOR civil union protections for all.
I am also FOR reserving the term "marriage" for the religious ceremony.

That seems to be a sticking point with those who do not any recognition at all for gay couples. Since there is already a two-part process ( civil license, then civil or religious ceremony), just - call one thing one name, and the religious ceremony a different name.

407 Nimed  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:44:38pm

re: #398 Spare O'Lake

Oh Spare, you always have such benign intentions, and yet you are misinterpreted again and again on comment threads. How can we progs ever make it up to you?

408 Fozzie Bear  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:45:43pm

re: #406 reine.de.tout

OK,
I apologize for coming on so strong.

I also have a strong opinion on this.
I am FOR civil union protections for all.
I am also FOR reserving the term "marriage" for the religious ceremony.

That seems to be a sticking point with those who do not any recognition at all for gay couples. Since there is already a two-part process ( civil license, then civil or religious ceremony), just - call one thing one name, and the religious ceremony a different name.

As always, you are gracious under pressure.

I agree like 99.9% with you on this. That's as good as it gets, I guess.

{{reine}}

409 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:45:59pm

(as an aside - sure wish y'all could have heard me pounding on the keyboard, here!)

410 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:46:36pm

re: #408 Fozzie Bear

As always, you are gracious under pressure.

I agree like 99.9% with you on this. That's as good as it gets, I guess.

{{reine}}

{{the Fozz}}
Kiss and make up!
*smooch*

411 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:50:11pm

re: #405 SanFranciscoZionist

Your concern for the scary degree of polarization in America would have been far, far more convincing if you showed any actual familiarity with the issues, or had been willing to expand on your ideas, or respond reasonably to questions or criticism.

Now, having totally not done that, we've gotten to the name-calling stage.

This is an irony-free zone.

The obvious polarization and emotional drek peddled by some right here is ironic to me.

412 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:51:39pm

re: #407 Nimed

Oh Spare, you always have such benign intentions, and yet you are misinterpreted again and again on comment threads. How can we progs ever make it up to you?

It's OK, I know you can't help it.

413 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:53:33pm

re: #408 Fozzie Bear

re: #410 reine.de.tout

And this is one reason why I love LGF...whenever people get their wires crossed and tempers flare, it all works out in the end and all is groovy again.

414 Interesting Times  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:55:39pm

re: #409 reine.de.tout

(as an aside - sure wish y'all could have heard me pounding on the keyboard, here!)

Just so long as you didn't wind up like this guy ;)

415 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 7:07:22pm

re: #414 publicityStunted

Just so long as you didn't wind up like this guy ;)

LOL.
Not quite, but almost.

416 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 7:13:06pm

re: #406 reine.de.tout

OK,
I apologize for coming on so strong.

I also have a strong opinion on this.
I am FOR civil union protections for all.
I am also FOR reserving the term "marriage" for the religious ceremony.

That seems to be a sticking point with those who do not any recognition at all for gay couples. Since there is already a two-part process ( civil license, then civil or religious ceremony), just - call one thing one name, and the religious ceremony a different name.

Waiter's have been marrying ketchup bottles as long as there have been restaurants that serve ketchup, sans ceremony. The word is a homonym for union, it means the same thing because it is the same thing. If it's good enough for your condiments then it's good enough for the gays.

417 funky chicken  Sun, Aug 8, 2010 9:06:23pm

re: #34 palomino

Bill Kristol has a 3-part prescription for how Obama can "save" his presidency.
1) Extend the Bush tax cuts. 2) Drop any timeline for Afghanistan. 3) Stop Cordoba House.

Putting aside the wisdom of 1 and 2, and the fact that Kristol has a history of being wrong about nearly everything, how the hell does the president just stop the construction of a place of worship? What's the overriding national security interest?

1) Deficits forever! 2) War forever! 3) Uh, no private sector construction?

418 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:44:13am

re: #13 wozzablog


A lot of the misdirected anger at P51 is the pent up frustration at not having a proper monument or grieving place on site by now.

I'd like to unleash a P-51 at Paladino and some of the other idiots fighting this project.

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

This is where we get into trouble with terms. There's the right that is conservative, and then there is the right that is batshit crazy. They have different values.

Unfortunately the former has largely disappeared in an era in which emotions have largely superseded the use of reason. It's ironic that after all their battles, liberalism didn't kill conservatism; it was conservatism's idiot children.

re: #42 webevintage

Then all Obama has to do is the exact opposite of Bill "almost always wrong" Kristol and all will be shiny.

Once again the question is WHY does Kristol and Noonan and David Brooks and Mo Dowd still have jobs?

Inertia, plus it's easier to keep them than to oust them.

re: #89 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

That was funny as hell.

How funny is Hell? Always wondered about that one.

re: #106 wozzablog

The child was 4 in Ducksoup - if i recall correctly.

You do. "Why, this report is so simple a four-year-old child could understand it. Go get me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it."

re: #135 austin_blue

Sadly you are very probably correct. But that's probably just the tailored viruses I have consumed in my ConAgra chicken meal talking.

Why do you think I bought some ConAgra stock? If I'm going to be brainwashed via my food, I at least want to make some money on it.

re: #146 b_sharp

I hate it when my computer decides I've typed enough.

What I was going to say is:

I'm watching a rerun of the Myth Busters' special on Duct Tape. Any chance the GOP problems could be fixed by a liberal application of Duct Tape?

If liberals apply the duct tape, the GOP would be against it solving any problems.

re: #149 webevintage

It can fix everything.
Can't it?

Theater 101--"If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape. If it doesn't move and should, use WD-40." I've used duct tape to solve a lot of theatrical problems, even down to holding a costume together. My favorite use in theater is to close the mouths of stage mothers and their progeny.

re: #169 eclectic infidel

No doubt, but circumstances were much different then. But I'm always interested in possible historical scenarios, even if fiction. Do you really think that Muslims would sufficiently serve as the underclass, enough to be vilified, where such vilification is used to gather power?

The scapegoat must be large enough to be fairly common, different enough to be identifiable, and small or weak enough to be subjugated. Take the largest locally available powerless group and that's where you start, be it blacks, Hispanics, gays, Asians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, atheists, liberals, conservatives, Communists, etc.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 115 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 276 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1