Mitt Romney Signs Homophobic Marriage Pledge

Romney joins the Bigot Brigade
Wingnuts • Views: 40,348

Here’s a perfect illustration of the atavistic social conservative movement’s death grip on the Republican Party, as even the “moderate” Mitt Romney joins Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann to sign a bigoted pledge from the fundamentalist group “National Organization for Marriage,” swearing to continue oppressing gay Americans: Romney signs marriage pledge.

Bigotry: the default position for today’s GOP. Romney knows very well that he doesn’t stand a chance unless he co-signs the full agenda of the religious right.

Related
Romney’s Secret Million Dollar Donor

Jump to bottom

193 comments
1 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:37:01am

Mitt, you shit.

2 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:37:55am

How odd that this appears at just the same time that Mitt receives a $1M boost from a completely untraceable source.

How happy I am, that freedom of buying politicians speech is so valued in the USA!

3 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:39:03am

Hmm, could this be related? I guess we don’t know, and can’t know, which tells us there’s a big problem with anonymous campaign donations.

4 albusteve  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:44:03am

man, that’s a bust right there….he’s poison from here on out with me…
of he can’t resist this shit, well no guts no glory

5 jc717  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:44:35am

Oh FFS, can he possibly pander any more?

What’s next? He’ll go hunting and brag about bagging some varmint?

6 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:46:24am

NOM NOM NOM! The Tea Party is going to have fun playing with Mitt before they disembowel him, just like my cat when he catches a lizard or a cockroach.

I simply cannot understand why *most politicians seem to desperately need to cater to blocs/organizations/demographics that will never ever vote for them no matter what they do. You just can’t “fool all of the people all of the time.” (Thanks Abe)

/*and yes unfortunately I have to include Obama in that group as well.

7 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:46:47am

re: #5 jc717

Oh FFS, can he possibly pander any more?

What’s next? He’ll go hunting and brag about bagging some varmint?

He’s got a pretty good track record of keeping grizzlies out of Massachusetts that’s been kept under wraps until now…

I’ll bet candidates from the Western states have far higher levels of bear-infestation/ungodliness than Mitt.

8 elizajane  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:47:52am

Sigh. Just like last time: you think they’ve found a candidate who wouldn’t be actually deadly to the country, and then they go and do something totally assinine, like choosing Sarah Palin as their running mate, or signing an obviously bigoted and just plain stupid pledge.

Do Democrats have pledges? Or is this a particularly right-wing type of lunacy? Because honestly, I’d like somebody in office who would make decisions for themselves, based on particular circumstances and probable outcomes — not just operate on a paid-for-pledge basis.

9 bluecheese  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:47:56am

When is the next Republican debate?

seems like the last go round things were a lot more farther along than this time at this point.

10 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:48:01am

re: #4 albusteve

man, that’s a bust right there…he’s poison from here on out with me…
of he can’t resist this shit, well no guts no glory

I was a big Mitt supporter back in 2007. I voted for him in the Primary and was hoping McCain would pick him as his running mate.

No chance in hell he gets my support any more. The guy is spineless.

11 engineer cat  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:48:44am

Mitt Romney Signs Homophobic Marriage Pledge

does he guarantee that he’s in a homophobic marriage now?

12 makeitstop  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:49:15am

The sheer volume of pandering to the SoCons truly is a sight to see. It’s going to make it hard for any of these guys to run back to the center, no matter who gets the nomination.

Gov. Goodhair is abandoning his principles left and right, too.

These guys are switching positions more than I change socks.

13 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:49:50am
Romney, Bachmann, and Santorum signed on to supporting a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and to back the Defense of Marriage Act.

Adding an amendment to the constitution that takes away people’s rights.

That’s goddamn perverse.

14 jc717  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:50:27am

So what chance does Huntsman have of actually getting the nomination?
He’s been the only one thus far to not pander to the lunatic fringe.

15 makeitstop  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:51:38am

re: #9 bluecheese

When is the next Republican debate?

seems like the last go round things were a lot more farther along than this time at this point.

They’re going to attempt to be the Stealth Candidate Party this time. They’ll wait until the last minute so as not to cause mass revulsion among moderate voters.

16 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:51:46am

re: #13 Obdicut

Adding an amendment to the constitution that takes away people’s rights.

That’s goddamn perverse.

Not really. People love to cream over the constitution but it’s just a piece of paper that specifies some rights and not others, and in its original incarnation had some pretty specific discrimination built in against women and various minority groups.

It’s still pretty good but it has several weaknesses that the GOP is currently all too happy to exploit.

17 albusteve  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:52:31am

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I was a big Mitt supporter back in 2007. I voted for him in the Primary and was hoping McCain would pick him as his running mate.

No chance in hell he gets my support any more. The guy is spineless.

signing this mickey mouse, blackmail ‘pledge’….I get a real bad vibe since marriage is not even in the realm of presidential responsibility and he should have said so…so when and what will the next pledge be?….it’s sickening to watch these assholes play these twisted games…I hate em all

18 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:53:21am
…to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage…

Appointing judges. That’s why I don’t want a Republican in the White House.

19 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:53:23am

re: #14 jc717

So what chance does Huntsman have of actually getting the nomination?
He’s been the only one thus far to not pander to the lunatic fringe.

YET.

20 Ericus58  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:54:08am

My Party Has Officially Left Me.

Those who have signed this pledge will not now, not ever, receive my vote.

21 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:54:59am

re: #16 iossarian

I know the original was a compromise, both a compromise with certain political elements and with the times themselves. But it certainly is symbolically a document of rights, and not of anti-rights, not of enshrined bigotry. It changed a lot with the 14th— not coincidentally, the same amendment so many in the GOP attack these days.

22 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:55:39am

And, once again, I find myself increasingly bewildered and dismayed by the fact that I supported him (Or, at least, someone looking like him and using the same name) when he ran for governor. What the hell, Mitt? What the hell?

23 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:56:02am

re: #20 Ericus58

My Party Has Officially Left Me.

Those who have signed this pledge will not now, not ever, receive my vote.

Thanks for having principles, man. I hope there’s enough like you to manage to lasso the wild horse of GOP politics, or start some new conservative part, or something. I dunno. It’s kind of fucked when one major party decides to start using nuclear options.

24 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:56:12am

re: #21 Obdicut

But it certainly is symbolically a document of rights, and not of anti-rights, not of enshrined bigotry.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, 5 of the 9 people whose opinion actually counts do not.

25 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:58:01am

I’d really like to see him confronted over this donation and asked to identify the donor:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system.

The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website.

The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business.

Six weeks later, W Spann LLC made its million-dollar donation to Restore Our Future — a new so-called “super PAC” started by a group of former Romney political aides to boost the former Massachusetts governor’s presidential bid. It listed its address as being in a midtown Manhattan office building that has no record of such a tenant.

That looks like directly forming a for-profit company in order to make a donation Romney’s PAC.

26 kirkspencer  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:58:15am

It’s illegal to accept donations from foreign agents, but there is no way to tell if donations are from foreign agents because of the anonymity clauses.

I keep harping on this with my conservative friends as it seems to strike a stronger chord than issues of ‘fairness’.

27 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 10:59:05am

New page up about the GOP shutting down the FAA… Thousands of jobs are crippled.

28 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:01:19am

re: #27 LudwigVanQuixote

It’s great to see you! Where ya been?

29 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:01:37am

I should clarify: what gets people confused is that one can use the same language to advance opposite views. To whit: “the constitution is symbolically a document of rights”.

Now, Obdicut and Antonin Scalia could both make this assertion (I expect Scalia would make it, though I’m not aware of his documented utterances other than “pass the lard bucket”). Unfortunately, they mean very different things by it.

Obdicut means something like: “the constitution is a document that enshrines the right of people to be treated fairly and to have a more or less equal chance of making their way in the US”.

Scalia means something like: “the constitution is a document that enshrines the right of people to use whatever means available to advance their personal goals”.

These views lead to opposing positions on issues such as: should a billionaire be allowed to pass his wealth on to his family in its entirety? But they stem from the same view of the constitution as being a document that fundamentally enshrines “rights”.

30 BongCrodny  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:02:57am

re: #14 jc717

So what chance does Huntsman have of actually getting the nomination?
He’s been the only one thus far to not pander to the lunatic fringe.


IMODO, Huntsman would have been much better off waiting until 2016…and switching parties in 2012.

31 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:03:12am

re: #29 iossarian

Yeah, but there isn’t any way to interpret an amendment forbidding gay people from marrying as anything other than denying them rights.

32 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:03:57am

re: #8 elizajane

Do Democrats have pledges? Or is this a particularly right-wing type of lunacy? Because honestly, I’d like somebody in office who would make decisions for themselves, based on particular circumstances and probable outcomes — not just operate on a paid-for-pledge basis.

They have a clear ideology and a clear litmus test for what they they consider to be an acceptable position on any given topic. You sign on or you’re off the bus.

33 makeitstop  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:04:42am

re: #27 LudwigVanQuixote

New page up about the GOP shutting down the FAA… Thousands of jobs are crippled.

LVQ! How’s tricks?

34 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:05:24am

re: #20 Ericus58

My Party Has Officially Left Me.

Those who have signed this pledge will not now, not ever, receive my vote.

Agreed. I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.

“Hey guys, lets go off and embrace the craziest fucking scientific ideas, pander unabashedly to the Evangelicals, and throw in some good ole fashioned racism into the mix. That’s the way to get votes!”

Fucktards.

35 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:08:31am

re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Also, let’s claim that cutting spending in a recession somehow makes sense, but not even pretend to care about actually cutting the deficit, by blocking any tax raise, no matter how small.

36 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:08:52am

This confirms my suspicion that Michelle Bachmann is going to be able to establish herself as the party’s front runner, at which point nobody in the GOP will dare to criticize her for fear of being smacked down and forced to eat a big dish of crow.

Anyone opposing MB will be accused of misogyny, bias against motherhood and American values, etc., the same schtick that worked for Sarah until she tarnished her own brand to the point that people got tired of defending her.

We’re in cahoots, pa!

37 JEA62  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:10:16am

I wouldn’t worry. Romney has lots of time to flip flop.

38 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:11:11am

re: #28 Alouette

It’s great to see you! Where ya been?

Very busy.

39 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:11:27am

re: #37 JEA62

I wouldn’t worry. Romney has lots of time to flip flop.


His new overlords take their pledges seriously.

40 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:11:36am

re: #35 Obdicut

Also, let’s claim that cutting spending in a recession somehow makes sense, but not even pretend to care about actually cutting the deficit, by blocking any tax raise, no matter how small.

Yeah, the whole “Fuck the bottom 98% of taxpayers” hasn’t gone over well for some reason.

41 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:11:56am

re: #31 Obdicut

Yeah, but there isn’t any way to interpret an amendment forbidding gay people from marrying as anything other than denying them rights.

Sure there are.

“The right of children to be raised by loving parents shall not be infringed.”

If 75% of the population believes that gay marriage is an infringement of this right, then gay people wanting to get married are shit out of luck.

Fortunately, a majority of people do not hold this view.

Unfortunately, some guy with a million dollars to blow on Mitt Romney does.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, we don’t know who the fuckstick is.

42 mr.fusion  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:12:59am

I know they took out the part about how awesome life was for African Americans under slavery, but I don’t care…….

In my opinion if you sign that pledge you’re signing (and endorsing) the original document, not the one that was reconfigured after it was pointed out how unabashedly racist it was

43 mr.fusion  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:14:09am

re: #40 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yeah, the whole “Fuck the bottom 98% of taxpayers” hasn’t gone over well for some reason.

In reality it hasn’t…….politically they’ve been able to paint the democrats as wanting to “punish” success or of hating “job creators.” It’s a joke.

44 Ericus58  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:15:51am

re: #23 Obdicut

Thanks for having principles, man. I hope there’s enough like you to manage to lasso the wild horse of GOP politics, or start some new conservative part, or something. I dunno. It’s kind of fucked when one major party decides to start using nuclear options.

Thanks Obdicut. Means alot - Principles are all we have, our character is defined by what actions we take when times are hard or demanding.

I’m sorry to say that many in the Republican party are falling short.

45 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:17:53am

re: #42 mr.fusion

I know they took out the part about how awesome life was for African Americans under slavery, but I don’t care…

In my opinion if you sign that pledge you’re signing (and endorsing) the original document, not the one that was reconfigured after it was pointed out how unabashedly racist it was

You are in any case supporting people who still believe in those assertions, even though they withdrew them - for purely tactical reasons.

46 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:18:09am

re: #42 mr.fusion

I know they took out the part about how awesome life was for African Americans under slavery, but I don’t care…

In my opinion if you sign that pledge you’re signing (and endorsing) the original document, not the one that was reconfigured after it was pointed out how unabashedly racist it was

This is actually a different pledge. I mean, it’s pretty much just as wrongheaded and bigoted, but in the interest of making sure everything is clear, I wanted to make sure that was pointed.

47 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:18:26am

re: #41 iossarian

Sure there are.

“The right of children to be raised by loving parents shall not be infringed.”
does.

That’s not a right we even pretend to believe in, though. There are tons of parents who are demonstrably non-loving to their kids, and we don’t really do anything about it.

What we’re really talking about is “The right of children not to be raised by gay parents”. That’s all. There is no way of knowing for sure why people want that, whether it’s bigotry against gays or an actual concern for children.

If 75% of the population believes that gay marriage is an infringement of this right, then gay people wanting to get married are shit out of luck.

But it doesn’t change what it really does, which is take rights away from gay people. If what you’re saying is that a right is just a societal defined thing et al., I don’t really buy that. Those who support defining marriage as between a man and a woman know that they’re taking a right away from gay people. They’re okay with that.

Fortunately, a majority of people do not hold this view.

Which is something to be very grateful for. The younger evangelicals especially.

48 mr.fusion  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:20:50am

re: #46 Simply Sarah

This is actually a different pledge. I mean, it’s pretty much just as wrongheaded and bigoted, but in the interest of making sure everything is clear, I wanted to make sure that was pointed.

My mistake then……..not that it makes much difference. Instead of being racist AND homophobic, it’s just homophobic.

The days still young though and there’s plenty more GOP pledges to be signed…….might be able to sneak the racist one in before dinner

49 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:22:38am

-392

50 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:23:35am

Heh. On this page…

Frank says:

Get yer ass out there and register to VOTE!

re: #20 Ericus58

My Party Has Officially Left Me.

Those who have signed this pledge will not now, not ever, receive my vote.

High five. I’m saving my switch to “independent” for the day after the primary. I have just one more “write in” I want to put on the GOP primary ballot.

51 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:24:05am

-401

52 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:24:20am

re: #8 elizajane


Do Democrats have pledges? Or is this a particularly right-wing type of lunacy?

AFAIK, it’s more a Republican thing. For one thing, the Democrats are not at all indulgent of the fringe left, while the Republicans are stuck with the fringe right as a part of their expected voting block.

53 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:24:50am

re: #47 Obdicut


But it doesn’t change what it really does, which is take rights away from gay people. If what you’re saying is that a right is just a societal defined thing et al., I don’t really buy that. Those who support defining marriage as between a man and a woman know that they’re taking a right away from gay people. They’re okay with that.

I certainly agree that this is an instance where you have to jump through some pretty severe mental hoops in order to make your case, if you’re a gay marriage opponent.

Take the 2nd amendment. In Europe you have a right to expect that your neighbors don’t keep guns around the house. You don’t have that right in the US, in fact the constitution takes that right away from you.

Or take campaign finance. In Europe, you generally have a right to know who’s buying your politicians. In the US, the 1st amendment takes that right away from you.

A majority of people in the US think that people do not need, or indeed should not have, the right to live in a society that marginalizes homosexuality. But we still believe that we have a right to marginalize the insane. I don’t think you’d get much support for a “let all the sectioned patients go free” act.

And it’s not that long ago that homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder.

54 ProBosniaLiberal  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:26:42am

re: #51 Killgore Trout

What the hell is causing this?

55 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:26:52am

re: #53 iossarian

some pretty severe mental hoops

I’ll say!

Not even going to bother.

56 elizajane  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:27:19am

re: #51 Killgore Trout

-401

-407.
This is, no doubt, the sigh of relief now that it’s clear the Tea Party controls the U.S. budget.
//

57 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:27:43am

re: #53 iossarian

don’t think you’d get much support for a “let all the sectioned patients go free” act.

Er, we actually did that, under Reagan, though in a crueler way. The only people on permanent psychiatric holds are those who are a danger to themselves or others.

So I’m not quite sure you mean about marginalizing the insane. I think we do it through not giving them treatment.

I’m not sure what we’re arguing. Again: Those who want to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals are very clear that they want to take a right away from them. Yes, they make arguments about greater societal good, or that homosexuality is an abberation. I’m not contesting that. But it still, very clearly, is taking a right that impinges on on one else and infringes on the freedoms of no one else, unlike your other examples, away.

58 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:28:09am

re: #54 ProLifeLiberal

What the hell is causing this?

Not sure but it looks like something bigger than some lack luster economic reports.

59 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:28:31am

re: #54 ProLifeLiberal

What the hell is causing this?

A combination of bad financial news and the worse financial news that the government is cutting spending in the middle of a recession, contrary to all economic sense.

And that our political system may be irrevocably broken, by the hostage-taking GOP.

60 Interesting Times  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:30:00am

re: #38 LudwigVanQuixote

Great to see you back! I wanted to tell you about this - disgusting intimidation and harassment of an environmentalist/artist by the totalitarian government of…Canada??

[Link: www.frankejames.com…]

I can’t believe it’s happening in my country. Harper = our version of the Teabaggers :(

61 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:30:15am

re: #54 ProLifeLiberal

What the hell is causing this?

Wall street is voting on the debt deal. Voting with its feet and with its assets.

62 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:30:19am

re: #53 iossarian

Take the 2nd amendment. In Europe you have a right to expect that your neighbors don’t keep guns around the house. You don’t have that right in the US, in fact the constitution takes that right away from you.

Ahahahahaa!

63 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:31:11am

re: #59 Obdicut

A combination of bad financial news and the worse financial news that the government is cutting spending in the middle of a recession, contrary to all economic sense.

And that our political system may be irrevocably broken, by the hostage-taking GOP.

The FAA lockout signals clearly that the House majority party does not want deficit reduction or a continued recovery. They want a Waterloo.

64 ProBosniaLiberal  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:31:16am

re: #61 ralphieboy

In other words, a refutation of the tea-party “economics”

65 albusteve  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:31:59am

re: #54 ProLifeLiberal

What the hell is causing this?

fear

66 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:33:15am

re: #57 Obdicut


I’m not sure what we’re arguing. Again: Those who want to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals are very clear that they want to take a right away from them. Yes, they make arguments about greater societal good, or that homosexuality is an abberation. I’m not contesting that. But it still, very clearly, is taking a right that impinges on on one else and infringes on the freedoms of no one else, unlike your other examples, away.

To be perfectly clear, I agree with you on all points except that the anti-gay marriage crowd (“antis” for short) are “very clear that they want to take a right away from them”.

At the most, I would say that the antis say that marriage is a right which gay people should not have, in the same way that criminals should not have the right to go free. In fact I would hazard a guess that for many antis, this would be a way of rationalizing their opposition. “Do you let a criminal go free? No! Then why would you let a similarly deviant person abuse the sacred institution of marriage?”

But in general, I would guess that they don’t even see marriage as a “right” that gay people could have, just as they don’t see healthcare as a “right” that poor people have, or equal access to education as a “right” that ethnic minorities have.

67 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:33:18am

re: #53 iossarian

Okay, I’ll bother: You have to differentiate rights. Rights that protect the individual from other individuals. Rights that protect the individual from the state. Rights that enable the individual to cooperate with other individuals. Rights that enable the individual to participate in the state. Rights of the state in order to guarantee the functioning of its obligations, etc. Your argument mixes all of these together, and I think that’s for the worse because actual legislation in a democratic republic usually has to do with balancing all of these legitimate claims to rights.

68 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:34:34am

Hey look:

0.5%.

Meanwhile, it should come as no surprise that in the U.S., investors flocked to assets perceived as low-risk, including U.S. Treasuries and gold.
Treasury prices rose, pushing the yield on the 10-year note down to 2.48% from 2.6% late Wednesday,

Good thing we’re not spending more and taking advantage of those incredibly low interest rates, huh? Boy, I’d hate to be able to borrow as much money as I wanted at 2.48%. The private market is so much better than the government, that’s why people are selling stocks like mad and buying US debt.

But US debt is bad and terrible and it’s much better not to keep that money flowing through the economy. Much better for people to just create a big gold bubble with that. I’m sure that has no problems to it.


For fuck’s sake.

69 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:35:57am

re: #67 000G

Okay, I’ll bother: You have to differentiate rights. Rights that protect the individual from other individuals. Rights that protect the individual from the state. Rights that enable the individual to cooperate with other individuals. Rights that enable the individual to participate in the state. Rights of the state in order to guarantee the functioning of its obligations, etc. Your argument mixes all of these together, and I think that’s for the worse because actual legislation in a democratic republic usually has to do with balancing all of these legitimate claims to rights.

Again, I agree. The whole point is that people disagree on which rights supersede others.

Do I have a right to healthcare, yes or no?

Do I have a right to know who’s funding political campaigns?

Do I have a right to refuse to serve black people coffee?

Ask Rand Paul those questions, and you’ll get three different answers to the ones I would give.

70 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:36:19am

re: #66 iossarian

At the most, I would say that the antis say that marriage is a right which gay people should not have, in the same way that criminals should not have the right to go free. In fact I would hazard a guess that for many antis, this would be a way of rationalizing their opposition. “Do you let a criminal go free? No! Then why would you let a similarly deviant person abuse the sacred institution of marriage?”

But in general, I would guess that they don’t even see marriage as a “right” that gay people could have, just as they don’t see healthcare as a “right” that poor people have, or equal access to education as a “right” that ethnic minorities have.

Marriage is nothing more or less than a special kind of contract between individuals. Freedom of contract, including individuals having the right to establish contracts with each other, is one of the most important fundamental rights in a civil society. You have to present damn good reasons to restrict such a right. That someone is a criminal and has abused the legal system previously may be a good reason. Sexual preferences cannot be a good reason, ever.

71 lizardofid  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:36:47am

re: #65 albusteve

fear

I find it useful to think of it like a game of musical chairs. Any kind of little skip or bump in the record and, well….you get it.

72 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:37:31am

re: #66 iossarian

To be perfectly clear, I agree with you on all points except that the anti-gay marriage crowd (“antis” for short) are “very clear that they want to take a right away from them”.

Oh. Well, have you talked to many of them?

At the most, I would say that the antis say that marriage is a right which gay people should not have, in the same way that criminals should not have the right to go free.

Criminals do have the right to go free, though. In order for them to be imprisoned, you’ve got to do this whole trial thing. And even after that, they get to go free after awhile. And it’s dependent on an action, not an attribute. The analogy really doesn’t work, and why it doesn’t work is demonstrative.

But in general, I would guess that they don’t even see marriage as a “right” that gay people could have, just as they don’t see healthcare as a “right” that poor people have, or equal access to education as a “right” that ethnic minorities have.

‘could’? You can point to a country with gay marriage, and show them. Did you mean ‘should’?

73 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:37:32am

re: #70 000G

Marriage is nothing more or less than a special kind of contract between individuals. Freedom of contract, including individuals having the right to establish contracts with each other, is one of the most important fundamental rights in a civil society. You have to present damn good reasons to restrict such a right. That someone is a criminal and has abused the legal system previously may be a good reason. Sexual preferences cannot be a good reason, ever.

You are making subjective statements here: “sexual preferences are not a good reason for discrimination”. I agree with that, but other people don’t, and you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is” (or vice versa for that matter).

74 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:37:41am

re: #57 Obdicut

I am interested: Do you consider marriage to be a natural right?

75 albusteve  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:38:30am

re: #71 lizardofid

I find it useful to think of it like a game of musical chairs. Any kind of little skip or bump in the record and, well…you get it.

I’m not too worried about it…I have far more important stuff to think about

76 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:38:51am

re: #74 000G

I am interested: Do you consider marriage to be a natural right?

Marriage specifically? No. I’m not sure what ‘natural right’ means, though.

77 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:39:10am

re: #73 iossarian

You are making subjective statements here: “sexual preferences are not a good reason for discrimination”. I agree with that, but other people don’t, and you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is” (or vice versa for that matter).

I am not making any such derivation, and I am not arguing subjectively. People who want to restrict rights need to be present good reasons, the onus is on them. “Sexual preference” is simply not a good reason, on its own. How could it be? Show me, if you know.

78 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:39:14am

re: #72 Obdicut


‘could’? You can point to a country with gay marriage, and show them. Did you mean ‘should’?

By pointing to Iran, can I make the case that religious oppression is a right that someone can have?

“I have the right to be religiously oppressed, because people in Iran are religiously oppressed”?

How is that different from the statement “gay people can have the right to be married, because in some countries gay people get married”?

79 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:39:38am

re: #76 Obdicut

Marriage specifically? No. I’m not sure what ‘natural right’ means, though.

As opposed to being explicitly or implicitly codified in positive law.

80 Jack Burton  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:39:53am

re: #54 ProLifeLiberal

What the hell is causing this?

Tea Party “economics” is bi-winning™ in Congress right now. Job growth outlook was bad before, now it is really bad with all these cuts and no investment or incentives. There are also some shenanigans going on with Japan and Switzerland’s central banks. USD/JPY is up 3% just today.

81 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:40:40am

re: #78 iossarian

By pointing to Iran, can I make the case that religious oppression is a right that someone can have?

“I have the right to be religiously oppressed, because people in Iran are religiously oppressed”?

How is that different from the statement “gay people can have the right to be married, because in some countries gay people get married”?

Gay people CAN get married. It happens every day.

People CAN be religiously oppressed. It also happens every day.

If we move past ‘can’ into ‘should’, or ‘can under our system of governance’, then we get different answers.

82 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:41:49am

re: #77 000G

I am not making any such derivation, and I am not arguing subjectively. People who want to restrict rights need to be present good reasons, the onus is on them. “Sexual preference” is simply not a good reason, on its own. How could it be? Show me, if you know.

You say “good reason”. If you define what a “good reason” is, I will A) believe that you are not making a subjective argument, and B) attempt to satisfy your definition of a “good reason” for restricting rights in the case of sexual preference.

83 mr.fusion  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:42:19am

re: #56 elizajane

-407.
This is, no doubt, the sigh of relief now that it’s clear the Tea Party controls the U.S. budget.
//

I’m no fire-breathing liberal……but the business community (job creators) are doing their best to turn me into one.

I’m so fucking sick of this. We can’t end subsidies for the oil companies even though they’re the most profitable companies in the history of man? Apple has more money than the American government, but they manufacture their goods with Chinese slave labor? A generation ago CEO’s were making 40 times what their employees are making and now it’s nearly 400 times what their employees make? $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines and for what? More “certainty”? Screw you. Invest in the country that made you rich, you assholes

84 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:43:47am

re: #81 SanFranciscoZionist

Gay people CAN get married. It happens every day.

People CAN be religiously oppressed. It also happens every day.

If we move past ‘can’ into ‘should’, or ‘can under our system of governance’, then we get different answers.

Of course, and this is my point. These are subjective questions, and not objective truths that can be determined by logical derivation from unarguable first principles.

85 lizardofid  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:43:54am

re: #75 albusteve


Same here, just an observation.

86 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:43:59am

re: #83 mr.fusion

…snip Screw you. Invest in the country that made you rich, you assholes

Countries are for ‘little people’.

87 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:44:01am

re: #78 iossarian

By pointing to Iran, can I make the case that religious oppression is a right that someone can have?

No. You missed the point of that entirely. Gay marriage, as a right, can exist. It’s a possibility. You can point to people getting gay married. I think you just mean ‘should’ and not ‘could’.

“I have the right to be religiously oppressed, because people in Iran are religiously oppressed”?

That’s not a right, though.

How is that different from the statement “gay people can have the right to be married, because in some countries gay people get married”?

Because it describes a right, and a real situation.


Unless you’re descending to full cultural relativity— that someone could consider it’s their ‘right’ that all Jews be shot in the face on sight, etc— your argument doesn’t hold together, because gay marriage is a right that doesn’t affect anyone else. You’re comparing two entirely different subjects; rights that can infringe on or affect others, and rights that can’t.

88 Ericus58  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:44:31am

re: #83 mr.fusion

I’m no fire-breathing liberal…but the business community (job creators) are doing their best to turn me into one.

I’m so fucking sick of this. We can’t end subsidies for the oil companies even though they’re the most profitable companies in the history of man? Apple has more money than the American government, but they manufacture their goods with Chinese slave labor? A generation ago CEO’s were making 40 times what their employees are making and now it’s nearly 400 times what their employees make? $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines and for what? More “certainty”? Screw you. Invest in the country that made you rich, you assholes

Well said. And I fully believe that more people are coming to this same conclusion.

89 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:44:48am

re: #84 iossarian

Of course, and this is my point. These are subjective questions, and not objective truths that can be determined by logical derivation from unarguable first principles.

But nobody’s making that claim. There is, however, a gigantic difference between a right that doesn’t possibly negatively affect others, and one that does.

That is the distinction you’re ignoring.

90 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:46:12am

re: #82 iossarian

You say “good reason”. If you define what a “good reason” is, I will A) believe that you are not making a subjective argument, and B) attempt to satisfy your definition of a “good reason” for restricting rights in the case of sexual preference.

I laid out things that can be a good reason in #67: Restricting one specific right can be justified with the protection of a superceding right. Just arguing against sexual preferences is not about any legal concern, it is simply appealing to popular opinions about sexuality.

Keep in mind that restriction of rights ultimatively implies a harm (otherwise there would be no such thing as “legal standing”). What harm would society in general or specific groups or individuals suffer from if gay marriage was legal?

91 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:47:02am

re: #82 iossarian

You say “good reason”. If you define what a “good reason” is, I will A) believe that you are not making a subjective argument, and B) attempt to satisfy your definition of a “good reason” for restricting rights in the case of sexual preference.

OK, if that’s the direction you are going to insist on taking, then tell me. On what grounds would you deny this right to same-sex couples, based on existing case law in the U.S.? I’ll even make it easy on you and assume, arguendo, that you only need to meet a rational basis bar for the grounds to be valid.

92 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:47:24am

re: #83 mr.fusion

We’ve engaged with the myth of the corporation-as-person for too long. Corporations won’t act like people. They may be made up by people, but in general, over the long term, a corporation will act in its own self-interest, and not that of the country in which it ostensibly resides.

We gave rights to corporations and based them on those of individuals, but if there’s anything that’s become clear in the modern day, it’s that corporations are nothing like individuals.

There’s no way to shame a corporation into doing the right thing. You can make it a PR disaster for them not to, but you can’t go after the conscience of a corporation. It can’t exist.

93 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:47:27am

re: #87 Obdicut

The shortest way for me to answer your post is to say that I do believe in full cultural relativity.

Obviously I believe that my view on what is right and wrong is, well, right. And I try to persuade people to agree with me. That’s what everyone does.

Ultimately, though, everything is relative.

You say “rights that can infringe on or affect others, and rights that can’t”. But it’s all shades of gray. There are (sadly) people who genuinely think that the right of gay people to get married infringes on their right to live in a country free of gay marriage. Liberals like me like to laugh at their ignorance, but now they’ve gone and put five of their ilk on the Supreme Court, so who’s laughing now?

94 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:48:15am

re: #84 iossarian

Of course, and this is my point. These are subjective questions, and not objective truths that can be determined by logical derivation from unarguable first principles.

Please don’t take this as an attack on you, because it isn’t in the slightest: to hell with logical derivation from unarguable first principles.When people talk in those terms, 99.9% of the time they’ve already stacked the ‘first principles’ and what they mean in favor of the argument they plan to make.

95 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:50:35am

re: #93 iossarian

You say “rights that can infringe on or affect others, and rights that can’t”. But it’s all shades of gray.

It’s not. You really can classify them to in one way or another. You can show that there’s negative effects from some personal rights— like, if I mainline heroin, it may cause the state to spend resources on me— but I’m still not taking the right of anyone else away.

In the end, if you engage in full cultural relativity, and pure definition-by-convention, then nothing can actually have any meaning, not distinctions can be made, since they’re all just arbitrary distinctions. And you can’t talk about anything.

For some reason, you thought I— or others— were arguing from inarguable first principles. I’m not. In our definition of ‘rights’, our subjective one, there is still always the distinction between rights that can impinge on another’s and those that can’t, that cannot possible affect the rights of another.

96 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:50:40am

Ehh, don’t worry about petty things like elections, debt, or good governance. You should worry even less about the environment, global warming, and depletion of all forms of life in the Oceans.

Haven’t you heard the “Good News” yet? Jesus is coming back any day now to remake the entire earth as a paradise for 1000 years! (and then kill everyone, admittedly a “minor downside” in some skeptics view.)

There is simply no point in caring about ANYTHING that is of this earth, the only thing that matters is what happens to you after you die.

///

It isn’t just the GOP that has gone completely of the rails, bounced out of the ditch and gone over a cliff. The “modern” evangelical movement got there first, and it has turned into a “death cult.”

97 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:51:30am

re: #93 iossarian

I’m a bit curious at, exactly, why type of liberal you consider yourself to be. I ask because, to me, thinking that there is full cultural relativity doesn’t strike me as a particularly liberal standpoint, at least not in the sense most self-described liberals see it.

98 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:51:34am

re: #93 iossarian

Ultimately, though, everything is relative.

That’s a false statement because it is a contradictio in adiecto. Because if it was true, it could not be absolutely true since it denies the truthfulness of anything absolute. And since it applies to everything, there is no mitigating circumstance that could make it at least contingently true.

Logic fail.

99 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:52:01am

re: #41 iossarian

If 75% of the population believes that gay marriage is an infringement of this right, then gay people wanting to get married are shit out of luck.

Baloney, there are many ways civil rights have been won, some of which have never depended on the good will of bigoted majorities.

100 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:53:15am

re: #96 ausador

Not Of This World. Heh.

Youtube Video

How’re ya holding up bro?

101 Ericus58  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:53:15am

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

Please don’t take this as an attack on you, because it isn’t in the slightest: to hell with logical derivation from unarguable first principles.When people talk in those terms, 99.9% of the time they’ve already stacked the ‘first principles’ and what they mean in favor of the argument they plan to make.

A lesson I learned in grade school… don’t rile up the teacher when she’s holding a ruler behind her back to whack your knuckles
/

102 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:53:24am

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

Please don’t take this as an attack on you, because it isn’t in the slightest: to hell with logical derivation from unarguable first principles.When people talk in those terms, 99.9% of the time they’ve already stacked the ‘first principles’ and what they mean in favor of the argument they plan to make.

Of course. I agree 100% with this statement. There’s no such thing in human interaction as objective truth; even 2 + 2 = 4 is true because of convenience rather than of some kind of eternal movement of clanging spheres (see, I could have saved Russell a lot of trouble).

I can’t answer everyone’s points at once, unfortunately. For me, the distinction between “infringing” and “non-infringing” rights is itself subjective and meaningless, because you can always find people to claim they’re being oppressed by the gay agenda or whatever. Laughing at their stupidity is what has got the US to where we are today, when the idiots we mock in flyover states have figured out how to wield political power.

103 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:53:26am

re: #97 Simply Sarah

I’m a bit curious at, exactly, why what type of liberal you consider yourself to be. I ask because, to me, thinking that there is full cultural relativity doesn’t strike me as a particularly liberal standpoint, at least not in the sense most self-described liberals see it.

PIMF

104 so.cal.swede  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:53:31am

i don’t know if anyone mentioned this lately (probably) but Fjordman was reportedly held by police for questioning in Norway.

105 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:55:10am

re: #102 iossarian

For me, the distinction between “infringing” and “non-infringing” rights is itself subjective and meaningless, because you can always find people to claim they’re being oppressed by the gay agenda or whatever.

You can find people claiming that a rock is a secret portal to another world, too; that’s meaningless. In the prop 8 fight, the anti-gay marriage proponents have admitted that they cannot actually show how gay marriage negatively affects them. Seriously. It is not a claim that can ever be substantiated.

x

106 mr.fusion  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:55:13am

re: #92 Obdicut

We’ve engaged with the myth of the corporation-as-person for too long. Corporations won’t act like people. They may be made up by people, but in general, over the long term, a corporation will act in its own self-interest, and not that of the country in which it ostensibly resides.

Absolutely……and I’ve never faulted them for that. It’s what they’re supposed to do……just like it’s the governments job to look out for the Americans.

But now it’s just a giant cash grab. Companies used to understand that employing Americans meant they were putting money in their customers pockets. It’s like we lost that somehow.

Link

In 1905, when Henry Ford paid his workers the unheard of high wage of $5 per day, it wasn’t simply out of generosity. It was because he was investing in the prosperity of the very people he needed to be his customers for the new mass-produced Model T.

It’s a concept known today as “shared value creation” — a strategy for aligning a company’s long-term business success with the success of the people and places in which it operates and on which it depends.

107 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:55:14am

re: #95 Obdicut

It’s not. You really can classify them to in one way or another. You can show that there’s negative effects from some personal rights— like, if I mainline heroin, it may cause the state to spend resources on me— but I’m still not taking the right of anyone else away.

Great example.

Say you and I are marooned on a desert island. If we both work to build a raft we can get off it before we starve. Or one of us can just eat the mold that grows on the driftwood, which will be briefly pleasurable, but then we both die.

Does your decision to eat the mold affect my rights in any way?

108 so.cal.swede  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:55:30am

here’s a translated link.

[Link: translate.google.com…]

109 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:56:08am

re: #107 iossarian

Does your decision to eat the mold affect my rights in any way?

Nope.

110 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:56:37am

re: #102 iossarian

Of course. I agree 100% with this statement. There’s no such thing in human interaction as objective truth; even 2 + 2 = 4 is true because of convenience rather than of some kind of eternal movement of clanging spheres (see, I could have saved Russell a lot of trouble).

The truth of math does not depend on human interaction, though. The truth of 2+2=4 has nothing to do with convenience. To discern things and facts that are relative and historical from those that are not has nothing to do with invoking eternity, either.

I can’t answer everyone’s points at once, unfortunately. For me, the distinction between “infringing” and “non-infringing” rights is itself subjective and meaningless, because you can always find people to claim they’re being oppressed by the gay agenda or whatever.


That you can always find someone to claim something has nothing to do with the validity of what it is that is proposed.

111 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:58:32am

re: #86 Decatur Deb

Countries are for ‘little people’.


Remember that the Royal families of Europe never thought in terms of countries, the English kinds held territories in France, the Spanish kings held territories in the Netherlands, etc.

Nation-states are a relatively recent development in human history. And they were simply created so that the little people would have a closer identification with the rulers were being sent to fight for

112 webevintage  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:58:38am

re: #27 LudwigVanQuixote

New page up about the GOP shutting down the FAA… Thousands of jobs are crippled.

For the GOP that’s a feature, not a bug.
/

113 zora  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:58:41am

re: #104 so.cal.swede

i don’t know if anyone mentioned this lately (probably) but Fjordman was reportedly held by police for questioning in Norway.

[Link: www.newsinenglish.no…]

The anonymous blogger “Fjordman,” who is repeatedly referenced in the manifesto of Oslo and Utøya terrorist attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik, was being questioned by Norwegian police on Thursday afternoon after authorities found out his real identity. The international links between Breivik and other far right groups have also continued to be revealed, as well as the suspect’s financial details and a number of other new facts about the case.

114 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:59:24am

re: #97 Simply Sarah

I’m a bit curious at, exactly, why type of liberal you consider yourself to be. I ask because, to me, thinking that there is full cultural relativity doesn’t strike me as a particularly liberal standpoint, at least not in the sense most self-described liberals see it.

I think that, as a liberal, you have to be somewhat tolerant of intolerance (but not too much!).

That’s the glib way of saying that, there will always be a point, however minor, at which you disagree with someone, and eventually you just have to live with that. This for me is the antithesis of the view that is currently described as “conservatism”, which is that everyone has to agree on everything (which is why all the Republican candidates have to sign the pledge).

But on major policy points I am basically a tax and spend, socially liberal, pro-gay, pro-woman, pro-minority pacifist.

115 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 11:59:57am

I am in favor of gay marriage. But before all of your heads explode in anger, keep in mind that even Barack Obama’s position on this issue is far from clear.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

Romney is walking the line for political reasons … Obama is doing the same.

116 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:00:31pm

re: #100 Slumbering Behemoth

How’re ya holding up bro?

Ok I guess, but it is very tough going. Staying sober is not a lot of fun when pretty much all your social interaction with others is built around drinking.

Then again that is what the meetings are for, to build a new social group that are all also sober, I’m working on it.

117 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:00:44pm

re: #102 iossarian

For me, the distinction between “infringing” and “non-infringing” rights is itself subjective and meaningless, because you can always find people to claim they’re being oppressed by the gay agenda or whatever. Laughing at their stupidity is what has got the US to where we are today, when the idiots we mock in flyover states have figured out how to wield political power.

There is no reason outside of baldfaced supremacy issues to give special rights to heterosexual couples. In recent years, the rationales given have been shown to be false and non-compelling. That’s the issue with Prop 8 right now and was also the issue with rulings like Griswold vs Connecticut (1965) and Loving vs Virginia (1967).

So distinction above between “infringing” and “non-infringing” is going the way of the dodo bird. The Constitution and legal precedent decides that, not the personal hangups of bigoted majorities.

118 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:00:48pm

re: #92 Obdicut


Corporations cannot be thrown in prison and sodomized…

119 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:01:48pm

re: #109 Obdicut

Nope.

Well, we disagree! Even within your definition of infringing and non-infringing rights, I think that your right to eat the mold infringes on my right to expect a certain amount of cooperation from people who make up the world around me.

So who is right, and who is wrong?

120 lawhawk  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:01:51pm

The DJIA continues dropping, along with the other averages, and it’s once again the result of the Eurozone mess. The debt crisis is spreading beyond Greece, Ireland, and Portugal:

In a letter to European governments, [European Commission President Jose Manuel] Mr Barroso warned that the eurozone debt crisis was spreading beyond the so-called periphery nations of Greece, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland.

He said markets “remain to be convinced that we are taking appropriate steps to resolve the crisis”.

He called on them to give their “full backing” to the euro, and urged leaders to take swift action to implement the changes to the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) agreed at last month’s summit of eurozone leaders.

The EFSF is essentially Europe’s rescue fund, which leaders agreed should be able to buy government debt in “exceptional financial market circumstances”.

Reports suggested that the European Central Bank (ECB) had already begun buying government bonds to help support countries with high borrowing costs.

At a press conference to announce the bank was keeping eurozone rates on hold at 1.5%, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet merely said the process of buying bonds was “ongoing” and fully transparent.

As kludgy as people think the US efforts were to deal with the debt crisis, it’s far more difficult in the EU (think of it as though each individual US state had its own fiscal and monetary policy with all tied to the debt of each other and the US Dollar). That’s one of the reason that so many people are spooked in the markets. They’re running out of “safe havens”. Not even oil is safe - prices are dropping on lower demand.

Moreover, you’re seeing programmed selling that reinforces the perception that things are going to hell in a handbasket.

121 Ming  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:01:58pm

I believe that when gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was the governor there.

If persecuting people of a different sexual orientation is really that important to the right-wing base, Romney may be too much for them to swallow. When the guy was governor, his state approved gay marriage, and implemented a health-care system that looks a lot like Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

But I could be wrong. The right-wing base may still support Romney, if they think he can win, simply because they hate Obama so much.

I’m afraid that Romney may have a decent chance to be next President. The economy isn’t going to get much better by November 2012.

122 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:02:18pm

re: #105 Obdicut

In the prop 8 fight, the anti-gay marriage proponents have admitted that they cannot actually show how gay marriage negatively affects them.

qft

123 Gus  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:02:19pm

Oh yeah. Really important. Gay marriage is going to eat America and destroy it’s moral fabric! I know gay marriage is immoral because the Spaghetti Monster told some idiot in the desert thousands of years ago while he was as high as kite…

One step forward [with Obama] and two steps back with the Republican Party. Romney has officially lost any inkling of support or benefit of the doubt I’ve given him in the past. He can officially shove it.

124 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:02:53pm

re: #113 zora

[Link: www.newsinenglish.no…]

Even more interesting:

Broadcaster TV2 has reported that it has emerged that Breivik had met Russian neo-Nazi Vjatjeslav Datsik in Oslo, who was previously rejected when he attempted to apply for asylum in Norway after running away from a Russian psychiatric institute. Datsik was jailed in Norway and eventually deported for various offences. Breivik has reportedly had close links with Datsik’s organization, Slavic Union, who were found to possess knives, guns and firebombs when police raided an Oslo tattoo enterprise operated by the group. Breivik is believed to have bought much of his equipment from Russia.

125 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:02:57pm

re: #102 iossarian

I’m finding your positions, or, at least, what I’m understanding them to be, quite honestly a bit disturbing. You seem to be saying that rights and the infringing of said rights are all totally subjective and that, in the end, they all rely on the support of the majority to exist and be interpreted. This goes beyond tolerating other viewpoints and, instead, goes directly into majority (Or even mob) rule. It basically excuses racism, slavery, genocide, etc. as subjectively being OK, so long as the majority wants to interpret rights in that way. I apologize if I’m reading too far into this, but this is how you’re sort of coming off to me.

126 Gus  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:03:02pm

re: #120 lawhawk

The DJIA continues dropping, along with the other averages, and it’s once again the result of the Eurozone mess. The debt crisis is spreading beyond Greece, Ireland, and Portugal:

As kludgy as people think the US efforts were to deal with the debt crisis, it’s far more difficult in the EU (think of it as though each individual US state had its own fiscal and monetary policy with all tied to the debt of each other and the US Dollar). That’s one of the reason that so many people are spooked in the markets. They’re running out of “safe havens”. Not even oil is safe - prices are dropping on lower demand.

Moreover, you’re seeing programmed selling that reinforces the perception that things are going to hell in a handbasket.

The GOP can fix that.

//

127 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:03:02pm

re: #115 _RememberTonyC

I am in favor of gay marriage. But before all of your heads explode in anger, keep in mind that even Barack Obama’s position on this issue is far from clear.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

Romney is walking the line for political reasons … Obama is doing the same.

There is twenty miles of distance between them. Obama has instructed his administration not to defend DOMA. Romney supports DOMA. Obama doesn’t support an amendment defining marriage as between man and a woman.

The line isn’t fine. It’s very broad, and they’re very far from each other.

128 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:03:24pm

re: #119 iossarian

Well, we disagree! Even within your definition of infringing and non-infringing rights, I think that your right to eat the mold infringes on my right to expect a certain amount of cooperation from people who make up the world around me.

So who is right, and who is wrong?

The Constitution and legal precedent decides that, not someone’s or even a group of people’s social hangups.

129 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:05:17pm

re: #119 iossarian

Well, we disagree! Even within your definition of infringing and non-infringing rights, I think that your right to eat the mold infringes on my right to expect a certain amount of cooperation from people who make up the world around me.

But you’re just making up ad hoc ‘rights’ with no structure whatsoever.


So who is right, and who is wrong?

Yeah. Like I said, if you want to go full cultural relativist— even inside a system— then there’s no point in us talking. You can always just disagree that the word ‘no’ means ‘no’, and I can’t talk you out of it.

But who cares? That’s not how humans actually operate.

130 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:05:45pm

re: #123 Gus 802


That is the argument. It runs like this: America owes its esceptional status to the fact that its laws reflect God’s laws, and therefore he favors us and our undertakings.

As soon as we fall away from God’s laws, he wil start punishing us.

Or as folks like the Westboro Baptist Church believe, he already has.

131 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:06:50pm

re: #130 ralphieboy

That is the argument. It runs like this: America owes its esceptional status to the fact that its laws reflect God’s laws, and therefore he favors us and our undertakings.

As soon as we fall away from God’s laws, he wil start punishing us.

Or as folks like the Westboro Baptist Church believe, he already has.

Hence, all the grizzly bear attacks.

132 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:06:53pm

re: #127 Obdicut

There is twenty miles of distance between them. Obama has instructed his administration not to defend DOMA. Romney supports DOMA. Obama doesn’t support an amendment defining marriage as between man and a woman.

The line isn’t fine. It’s very broad, and they’re very far from each other.

THat is in the eye of the beholder … Obama and Romney are both pandering in their behavior. They are politicians. That is what they do. They can have at it in the 2012 debates and let the public decide.

133 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:07:39pm

re: #115 _RememberTonyC

I am in favor of gay marriage. But before all of your heads explode in anger, keep in mind that even Barack Obama’s position on this issue is far from clear.

His personal position on it doesn’t matter. That’s part of the point that say, Obdi and me are arguing.

He can think marriage = man + woman all he wants, but the administration, otoh, is no longer defending DOMA.

One would think all these supposed states righters would be against DOMA and also a Constitutional marriage amendment that has the feds imposing a flat edict on all states.

But then, states righters are full of shyt when it comes to the rights of minorities, anyway. When those issues are at stake, suddenly the loudest purveyors of group rights in the country start yelling “group rights!!!!!”

134 zora  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:07:57pm

re: #115 _RememberTonyC

I am in favor of gay marriage. But before all of your heads explode in anger, keep in mind that even Barack Obama’s position on this issue is far from clear.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

Romney is walking the line for political reasons … Obama is doing the same.

i’m a liberal in favor of gay marriage. i can’t tell if obama’s stance on gay marriage is pandering or not. he really isn’t that liberal. while i am pleased with the revocation of dadt and the fact that the obama doj won’t try to uphold doma, i have to say that i wish that the democratic party along with obama would be fully supportive of gay marriage. in the meantime, i don’t see any democratic presidential candidate taking a pro gay marriage stand for another eight years or so. btw, i’d like to be wrong about that.

135 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:09:45pm

re: #104 so.cal.swede

i don’t know if anyone mentioned this lately (probably) but Fjordman was reportedly held by police for questioning in Norway.

Wow.

136 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:09:57pm

re: #116 ausador

Hang tough dude, I’m rooting for ya.

137 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:10:15pm

re: #132 _RememberTonyC

THat is in the eye of the beholder …

No, it’s actual fact. Obama opposes DOMA. Romney supports it.

That’s an actual distinction. Not a subjective one.

138 Gus  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:10:43pm

re: #130 ralphieboy

That is the argument. It runs like this: America owes its esceptional status to the fact that its laws reflect God’s laws, and therefore he favors us and our undertakings.

As soon as we fall away from God’s laws, he wil start punishing us.

Or as folks like the Westboro Baptist Church believe, he already has.

Yeah. And you can’t argue with anybody who thinks God is on his/her side while they’re looking at you thinking to themselves, “it’s pretty obvious that God isn’t on your side.” Now the reason I’m ragging on this of course is because this pledge was concocted by exactly those kinds of people. Religious radicals of the American sort.

139 teleskiguy  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:12:40pm

I did notice watching this Romney ad that it was paid for by Romney For President, Inc.

The government does kind of seem bought and paid for.

140 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:13:08pm

re: #127 Obdicut

There is twenty miles of distance between them. Obama has instructed his administration not to defend DOMA. Romney supports DOMA. Obama doesn’t support an amendment defining marriage as between man and a woman.

The line isn’t fine. It’s very broad, and they’re very far from each other.

Beyond that, I am not going to condemn a Republican candidate for opposing same-sex marriage. I am going to disagree, vehemently, but I am not going to pretend that coming out in favor is a safe move in politics, even among Democrats.

However, signing a piece of crap like this, that I will condemn.

141 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:13:45pm

re: #114 iossarian

I think that, as a liberal, you have to be somewhat tolerant of intolerance (but not too much!).

I don’t have to be tolerant of intolerant laws against my person. No one does. If that were true, there would have been no liberal social movements like women’s suffrage or civil rights, veteran’s rights, labor rights, or disability rights.

Issue remains for supporters of pledges like NOMNOM’s: why must it be the law of the land that opposite-sex couples have special marriage rights, and same-sex couples have none.

142 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:13:47pm

re: #125 Simply Sarah

I’m finding your positions, or, at least, what I’m understanding them to be, quite honestly a bit disturbing. You seem to be saying that rights and the infringing of said rights are all totally subjective and that, in the end, they all rely on the support of the majority to exist and be interpreted. This goes beyond tolerating other viewpoints and, instead, goes directly into majority (Or even mob) rule. It basically excuses racism, slavery, genocide, etc. as subjectively being OK, so long as the majority wants to interpret rights in that way. I apologize if I’m reading too far into this, but this is how you’re sort of coming off to me.

It doesn’t excuse anything, it explains it. If a bunch of people decide that it’s OK to persecute a minority, then to them it’s OK. Sad but true. Happens all the time. Should it happen? I don’t think so, and I try to persuade others that it shouldn’t.

re: #129 Obdicut

But you’re just making up ad hoc ‘rights’ with no structure whatsoever.

Yeah. Like I said, if you want to go full cultural relativist— even inside a system— then there’s no point in us talking. You can always just disagree that the word ‘no’ means ‘no’, and I can’t talk you out of it.

But who cares? That’s not how humans actually operate.

Actually, your “structure” is itself completely arbitrary. I’m happy to argue within that structure as long as we first acknowledge its arbitrariness.

We’re quite able to communicate here: we’re both using language and I understand the points that you’re making.

You haven’t explained how your right to take drugs (or whatever) differs from my right to expect you to pull your weight in society (or whatever), other than by appealing to a “structure” which is itself the product of social norms that have evolved over a long period of time. Now, if you want to take a certain set of values as your starting point, then I’m happy to do that, but we have to decide which values to pick, and why.

143 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:14:18pm

re: #131 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hence, all the grizzly bear attacks.

You ain’t kidding. When I went hunting for a quote I recalled, when we were talking about Fischer, I found a small handful of ‘end times’ websites, talking about bear attacks.

It’s a thing, apparently.

144 Gus  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:14:39pm

But yeah. The GOP can fix the Euro and the Yen. They can also fix the budgetary problems in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, etc. They have magical powers that will instantly fix the overall global financial mess that’s adding to America’s woes and continued recession. All you have to do is fire a bunch of government workers, get rid of the unions, and pray more just like all of the holy roller GOP presidential candidates tell us to. Problem solved!

145 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:17:02pm

re: #121 Ming

I believe that when gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was the governor there.

If persecuting people of a different sexual orientation is really that important to the right-wing base, Romney may be too much for them to swallow. When the guy was governor, his state approved gay marriage, and implemented a health-care system that looks a lot like Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

But I could be wrong. The right-wing base may still support Romney, if they think he can win, simply because they hate Obama so much.

I’m afraid that Romney may have a decent chance to be next President. The economy isn’t going to get much better by November 2012.

Well, I’m not sure how much the gay marriage thing here will hurt him. He most certainly wasn’t supportive of the ruling and pushed pretty damn hard to get an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, including going to the state Supreme Judicial Court to get a ruling stating the legislature had to vote on it (sorta), as well as pushing enforcement of the Jim Crow era law preventing people from out of state getting married if it wouldn’t be recognized there. He may not have won, but it wasn’t because he didn’t try.

146 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:17:27pm

re: #144 Gus 802

Hail Satan.

/what? did I pick the wrong god? damnit!

147 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:17:31pm

re: #142 iossarian

It doesn’t excuse anything, it explains it. If a bunch of people decide that it’s OK to persecute a minority, then to them it’s OK. Sad but true. Happens all the time. Should it happen? I don’t think so, and I try to persuade others that it shouldn’t.

Frank opinion: You should read up more on civil rights history before trying to persuade others because your arguments aren’t sound.

148 Gus  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:18:11pm

re: #146 Slumbering Behemoth

Hail Satan.

/what? did I pick the wrong god? damnit!

This is not about religion!!

//

149 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:18:15pm

re: #142 iossarian


Actually, your “structure” is itself completely arbitrary. I’m happy to argue within that structure as long as we first acknowledge its arbitrariness.

I already did. I have no idea why you got an idea otherwise. It’s arbitrary, but it’s still a system.


We’re quite able to communicate here: we’re both using language and I understand the points that you’re making.

But the logical extension of what you’re saying is that the definition of anything is simply subjective.

You haven’t explained how your right to take drugs (or whatever) differs from my right to expect you to pull your weight in society (or whatever), other than by appealing to a “structure” which is itself the product of social norms that have evolved over a long period of time.

Well, I’d say it’s a philosophical structure. Is that the part you’re disagreeing about, or what?

Now, if you want to take a certain set of values as your starting point, then I’m happy to do that, but we have to decide which values to pick, and why.

Enlightenment values, of course. That’s what our society is founded on. And I don’t need to pick them; that’s the basis of our society and government. That’s the point, here.

150 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:19:28pm

re: #141 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I don’t have to be tolerant of intolerant laws against my person. No one does. If that were true, there would have been no liberal social movements like women’s suffrage or civil rights, veteran’s rights, labor rights, or disability rights.

What is a law “against my person”? Is it a law that prevents me from enjoying some kind of “natural right”?

If so, you have to say what those “natural rights” are and where they come from.

re: #147 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Frank opinion: You should read up more on civil rights history before trying to persuade others because your arguments aren’t sound.

Frank opinion: “your arguments aren’t sound” is not a terribly convincing rebuttal of my position.

151 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:19:37pm

re: #145 Simply Sarah

Well, I’m not sure how much the gay marriage thing here will hurt him. He most certainly wasn’t supportive of the ruling and pushed pretty damn hard to get an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, including going to the state Supreme Judicial Court to get a ruling stating the legislature had to vote on it (sorta), as well as pushing enforcement of the Jim Crow era law preventing people from out of state getting married if it wouldn’t be recognized there. He may not have won, but it wasn’t because he didn’t try.

Those laws tell us everything we need to know about the roots of heteros-only marriage

MA 1913 law

Broader context:

Anti miscegenation laws

152 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:20:59pm

re: #150 iossarian

A position of pure cultural relativism doesn’t need rebutting; it’s self-rebutting. It’s the statement that there can’t be anything to argue about, ever.

153 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:21:13pm

re: #148 Gus 802

This is not about religion!!

//

Hail Bootstraps?

154 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:21:38pm

re: #137 Obdicut

No, it’s actual fact. Obama opposes DOMA. Romney supports it.

That’s an actual distinction. Not a subjective one.

I view this issue differently … I strongly support gay marriage. Any politician who secretly supports gay marriage but stops short of saying so publicly is doing it for political reasons. That would be Obama. And anyone who secretly favors gay marriage but equivocated or does what Romney did is doing it for political reasons as well. That is why I see very little difference between the two men on this issue.

155 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:22:20pm

re: #154 _RememberTonyC

Why are you ignoring the actual difference of their stance on DOMA?

156 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:23:36pm

re: #142 iossarian

re: #129 Obdicut

Actually, your “structure” is itself completely arbitrary.

No, it isn’t. He has a much better understanding of why our civil rights laws are the way they are (and probably how they got that way.) It’s not arbitrary at all. That’s part of the point of civil rights activism, is showing how arbitrary socially-based discrimination is, and why that’s inconsistent with the Constitution.

157 Gus  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:24:12pm

re: #153 Slumbering Behemoth

Hail Bootstraps?

The GOP is a secular political party!

//

158 recusancy  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:24:53pm

re: #154 _RememberTonyC

I view this issue differently … I strongly support gay marriage. Any politician who secretly supports gay marriage but stops short of saying so publicly is doing it for political reasons. That would be Obama. And anyone who secretly favors gay marriage but equivocated or does what Romney did is doing it for political reasons as well. That is why I see very little difference between the two men on this issue.

You think Romney secretly favors gay marriage??

159 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:27:35pm

re: #150 iossarian

What is a law “against my person”? Is it a law that prevents me from enjoying some kind of “natural right”?

No, it’s a law that arbitrarily favors my peers based on arbitrary characteristics or social hangups.

E.g., only men have the right to vote or the state has the right to tell married couples whether or not they can use contraception (see reference to Griswold vs Connecticut, in #117 above.)


If so, you have to say what those “natural rights” are and where they come from.

Straw man. I’m not making a “natural rights” argument.

re: #147 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Frank opinion: “your arguments aren’t sound” is not a terribly convincing rebuttal of my position.

Were that the only rebuttal, you’d be right. But it’s not. Scroll up for more.

160 Ericus58  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:28:38pm

re: #120 lawhawk

The DJIA continues dropping, along with the other averages, and it’s once again the result of the Eurozone mess. The debt crisis is spreading beyond Greece, Ireland, and Portugal:

As kludgy as people think the US efforts were to deal with the debt crisis, it’s far more difficult in the EU (think of it as though each individual US state had its own fiscal and monetary policy with all tied to the debt of each other and the US Dollar). That’s one of the reason that so many people are spooked in the markets. They’re running out of “safe havens”. Not even oil is safe - prices are dropping on lower demand.

Moreover, you’re seeing programmed selling that reinforces the perception that things are going to hell in a handbasket.

Italian Prosecutors Seize Documents from Moody’s, S&P
[Link: www.cnbc.com…]

“The measure is aimed at “verifying whether these agencies respect regulations as they carry out their work,” Carlo Maria Capistro, who heads the prosecutors’ office in the southern town of Trani which is leading the probe, told Reuters.”

Let the witch hunts begin…

161 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:29:42pm

re: #156 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

No, it isn’t. He has a much better understanding of why our civil rights laws are the way they are (and probably how they got that way.) It’s not arbitrary at all. That’s part of the point of civil rights activism, is showing how arbitrary socially-based discrimination is, and why that’s inconsistent with the Constitution.

Two quick questions:

A) Do you think that women have the right to an abortion?

B) In the event that your response to A) is “yes”, why do you think that many intelligent constitutional lawyers, versed as they are in the origins of the constitution in “enlightenment values”, do not agree with you?

162 blueraven  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:30:51pm

re: #132 _RememberTonyC

THat is in the eye of the beholder … Obama and Romney are both pandering in their behavior. They are politicians. That is what they do. They can have at it in the 2012 debates and let the public decide.

AFAIK Obama hasn’t signed any pledges. He has ended DADT and stopped defending DOMA. These are facts in evidence and not “in the eye of the beholder”.

163 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:31:00pm

By the way, if the US had been colonized by France, our Constitution might well have been radically different.

That’s accidents of history for you.

164 Simply Sarah  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:33:51pm

re: #154 _RememberTonyC

I view this issue differently … I strongly support gay marriage. Any politician who secretly supports gay marriage but stops short of saying so publicly is doing it for political reasons. That would be Obama. And anyone who secretly favors gay marriage but equivocated or does what Romney did is doing it for political reasons as well. That is why I see very little difference between the two men on this issue.

It may be for political reasons, but,as Obdi says, I don’t think that in any way negates differences in actual policy. There can be rather huge differences behind that sort of thing.

Let’s look at a very extreme example. King Juan Carlos I of Spain, before Franco died, basically sat there publicly and nodded at everything Franco said and did. This, it turns out, was entirely political, as once Franco was dead, he had secured the throne, and gotten some support, he basically pulled the rug out from under the fascists and shifted Spain towards being a liberal democracy, despite his public positions otherwise. This is far different than if he had played politics to become the new dictator.

I’m not saying Obama in Juan Carlos, but I think you need to be more careful about just dismissing things as being for political reasons.

165 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:33:52pm

re: #152 Obdicut

A position of pure cultural relativism doesn’t need rebutting; it’s self-rebutting. It’s the statement that there can’t be anything to argue about, ever.

I disagree (obviously). I think it’s the statement that, in the end, you can’t force someone else to agree with you, even though you believe that your position is unassailable.

166 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:34:16pm

re: #161 iossarian

Two quick questions:

A) Do you think that women have the right to an abortion?

B) In the event that your response to A) is “yes”, why do you think that many intelligent constitutional lawyers, versed as they are in the origins of the constitution in “enlightenment values”, do not agree with you?

Then they can take it up with the SCOUTS, which ruled otherwise in 1973. You may be confusing the post with what Obdi said about “enlightenment values”. I didn’t mention them.

BTW, there are people who believe all manner of things, e.g. states have the right to criminalize the use of contraception within the bounds of marriage. They can also take it up with the SCOTUS but they will lose. Their best bet is to simply not use contraception within their own marriage.

167 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:35:11pm

re: #163 iossarian

By the way, if the US had been colonized by France, our Constitution might well have been radically different.

That’s accidents of history for you.

But since it wasn’t, and we have 200+ years of civil rights law on the books — some of it quite negative which has had to be overturned — the point is moot.

168 Eclectic Cyborg  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:36:02pm

I used to think it would be a Romney/Bachmann ticket…now I’m worried it will be a Bachmann/Romney ticket.

Next election cycle should be really interesting. You’d think the GOP would be in trouble because they have to try and sell crazy to mainstream America.

But they’re not going to. They’re going to bury all the social conservatism stuff and hit as hard as they can on “Obama has ruined the economy, vote for us instead!”

And you know what the scary thing is? It just might work.

169 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:36:06pm

re: #159 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

No, it’s a law that arbitrarily favors my peers based on arbitrary characteristics or social hangups.

But who are your peers? The definition of “peer” itself has changed over time.

White male with money
White male with slightly less money
White male
White person of either sex
Person of any color (excludes gays)
…

170 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:37:44pm

re: #165 iossarian

I disagree (obviously). I think it’s the statement that, in the end, you can’t force someone else to agree with you, even though you believe that your position is unassailable.

That’s not cultural relativism in the least.

171 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:38:25pm

re: #165 iossarian

I disagree (obviously). I think it’s the statement that, in the end, you can’t force someone else to agree with you, even though you believe that your position is unassailable.

But that’s not necessary. Because this is a free country, people can disagree to their heart’s content. Their personal agreement or disagreement with same-sex marriage is irrelevant as regards the law. Unless they can find a compelling reason to keep opposite-sex marriage only as the law, they are on the losing end of the battle.

That’s exactly where discriminatory marriage laws have been going since at least Perez vs Sharp (1947).

172 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:40:50pm

re: #169 iossarian

But who are your peers?

This is why I said earlier you need to read up on civil rights history.

Issue: what is the compelling reason for states to make and enforce discriminatory laws.

173 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:46:59pm

re: #172 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

This is why I said earlier you need to read up on civil rights history.

Issue: what is the compelling reason for states to make and enforce discriminatory laws.

Because they are often favored by enough people to get politicians elected.

We’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about logic, and “enlightenment values” (which no one can agree on) and legal systems.

I’m talking about how, if someone tells you that gay people getting married is offensive to them, you’re not going to be able to argue logically with that person to get them to change their mind. Which is why some guy is possibly flinging money at Romney in the hope that he’ll get elected and tip the playing field back against the dreaded gay people.

174 RadicalModerate  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:47:57pm

re: #163 iossarian

By the way, if the US had been colonized by France, our Constitution might well have been radically different.

That’s accidents of history for you.

Not necessarily. For example, a great deal of Louisiana law is based off of French Napoleonic codes versus the US Constitution - only in civil matters do they significantly diverge. Because of this the Bar exam in Louisiana is much, much different from other states, and reciprocity for lawyers from other states is not available.

175 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:50:58pm

re: #174 RadicalModerate

Not necessarily. For example, a great deal of Louisiana law is based off of French Napoleonic codes versus the US Constitution - only in civil matters do they significantly diverge. Because of this the Bar exam in Louisiana is much, much different from other states, and reciprocity for lawyers from other states is not available.

OK, I am certainly not a legal expert, but isn’t this kind of my point, that if US law was based on French rather than British law, it would look quite different?

176 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:52:09pm

re: #173 iossarian

I’m talking about how, if someone tells you that gay people getting married is offensive to them, you’re not going to be able to argue logically with that person to get them to change their mind. Which is why some guy is possibly flinging money at Romney in the hope that he’ll get elected and tip the playing field back against the dreaded gay people.

In the end, we’re not arguing two different things, because the Constitution (and laws derived from it) don’t depend on the good will of frightened bigots.

Romney can sign these pledges until the cows come home, and these opportunists making money off of bigots promising them a return to Jim Crow social norms are perfectly free to exploit their fears.

You’re right, though, their pov is rooted in irrational fear. Doesn’t matter if they ever change their mind about same sex marriage or not; doesn’t matter if it offends them or not.

177 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:57:25pm

re: #176 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

In the end, we’re not arguing two different things, because the Constitution (and laws derived from it) don’t depend on the good will of frightened wealthy bigots.

I wish that were true, but Citizens United suggests rather the opposite.

I mean seriously, how do you square the ability to buy politicians away with any “plausible” definition of “enlightenment values”? And yet, 5 of 9 Supremes are quite happy to do so.

178 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:58:10pm

re: #176 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

In the end, we’re not arguing two different things, because the Constitution (and laws derived from it) don’t depend on the good will of frightened bigots.
…snip

That’s only true in the short term. Frighten enough of them long enough and you get Prohibition. Your safety and mine reside in the minds of properly educated fellow-citizens of good will, not a document that was designed to be altered.

179 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 12:58:52pm

re: #178 Decatur Deb

That’s only true in the short term. Frighten enough of them long enough and you get Prohibition. Your safety and mine reside in the minds of properly educated fellow-citizens of good will, not a document that was designed to be altered.

More or less exactly my view, thanks for expressing it much better than I was able to!

180 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:05:05pm

re: #177 iossarian

I wish that were true, but Citizens United suggests rather the opposite.

I mean seriously, how do you square the ability to buy politicians away with any “plausible” definition of “enlightenment values”? And yet, 5 of 9 Supremes are quite happy to do so.

You’re arguing against stuff I haven’t said.

The issue for groups like NOM is, show the reason for legally privileging opposite-sex marriage over same sex marriage. They are losing that issue, because they can’t show any reason that is consistent with the Constitution.

The more they lose, the more they will fund drive, the more they flail and scream like a toddler who needs a nap. Then they’ll wake up and start all over again. Let them. This is really a very old pattern in the US.

181 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:09:58pm

re: #178 Decatur Deb

That’s only true in the short term. Frighten enough of them long enough and you get Prohibition. Your safety and mine reside in the minds of properly educated fellow-citizens of good will, not a document that was designed to be altered.

Bad example. Prohibition was overturned, as were many other laws, including laws that harass people based on who they want to marry, that were passed based on feelings and emotions of bigots.

Many of those bigots are well-educated, themselves. If their rationales for keeping discriminatory laws can’t cut the mustard, history tells us they are headed for the dump.

182 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:14:24pm

re: #180 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

You’re arguing against stuff I haven’t said.

The issue for groups like NOM is, show the reason for legally privileging opposite-sex marriage over same sex marriage. They are losing that issue, because they can’t show any reason that is consistent with the Constitution.

I have to go now (hate it when that happens) but, basically, on this and any other issue:

- the constitution can be changed (see Prohibition)
- the constitution can be reinterpreted (see abortion)

I agree they’re losing in the courts on gay marriage. Hence attempts to make legislative gains, and executive gains that may change the nature of the courts.

To be honest, though, I think gay marriage will happen. I’m far more worried about abortion.

183 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:14:41pm

re: #181 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Bad example. Prohibition was overturned, as were many other laws, including laws that harass people based on who they want to marry, that were passed based on feelings and emotions of bigots.

Many of those bigots are well-educated, themselves. If their rationales for keeping discriminatory laws can’t cut the mustard, history tells us they are headed for the dump.

The bad laws are overturned precisely because most of our countrymen are not as ill-educated and ill-willed as they might seem. If President Bachmann slips by them, and names the next 3 SCOTUS justices, the Constitution will not mean what you and I hope it means.

184 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:15:17pm

re: #181 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin


Many of those bigots are well-educated, themselves. If their rationales for keeping discriminatory laws can’t cut the mustard, history tells us they are headed for the dump.

Abortion, abortion, abortion. We’ll see how that turns out over the next 10, 50, 100 years.

Anyway, I’ve got to go. Thanks for the discussion!

185 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:15:31pm

re: #183 Decatur Deb

The bad laws are overturned precisely because most of our countrymen are not as ill-educated and ill-willed as they might seem. If President Bachmann slips by them, and names the next 3 SCOTUS justices, the Constitution will not mean what you and I hope it means.

Excuse me a moment, I’m over on the other thread saying good-bye to my retirement income.

186 iossarian  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:15:38pm

re: #183 Decatur Deb

The bad laws are overturned precisely because most of our countrymen are not as ill-educated and ill-willed as they might seem. If President Bachmann slips by them, and names the next 3 SCOTUS justices, the Constitution will not mean what you and I hope it means.

Exactamundo.

187 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:24:59pm

re: #183 Decatur Deb

The bad laws are overturned precisely because most of our countrymen are not as ill-educated and ill-willed as they might seem. If President Bachmann slips by them, and names the next 3 SCOTUS justices, the Constitution will not mean what you and I hope it means.

That’s a big “if”, but backlash has always been the threat against rights gains, be they by all those “activist judges” the rightwing whimpers about, or legislative action or something like an EO.

Those threats have never deterred the work, and never will. It’s what makes the socons so nervous.

188 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:28:58pm

re: #184 iossarian

Abortion, abortion, abortion. We’ll see how that turns out over the next 10, 50, 100 years.

Anyway, I’ve got to go. Thanks for the discussion!

Ty also. Parting shot: people versed in civil rights are in it for the long term, as are those committed to limiting or overturning them. One can’t do the work very well unless one starts with this understanding.

In the long run we’re all dead, but these struggles will just continue, and the strategies to keep equal rights intact will just morph and grow.

189 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:29:38pm

re: #187 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

That’s a big “if”, but backlash has always been the threat against rights gains, be they by all those “activist judges” the rightwing whimpers about, or legislative action or something like an EO.

Those threats have never deterred the work, and never will. It’s what makes the socons so nervous.

It’s a thousand year war, and I’ve never doubted that I’ve picked the winning side. Backlash is real—most noticeable now in the anti-union crap flying around. It would have seemed retrograde in the post-FDR era—now it’s hip.

190 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:35:41pm

re: #189 Decatur Deb

It’s a thousand year war, and I’ve never doubted that I’ve picked the winning side. Backlash is real—most noticeable now in the anti-union crap flying around. It would have seemed retrograde in the post-FDR era—now it’s hip.

Lol as a direct target of backlash on many fronts, I know exactly how real it is. Sorry for the cliché, but historically it’s only strengthened the resolve. So let them comfort themselves with their backlash behavior and die miserable for all I care.

Youtube Video
191 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:40:21pm

re: #190 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Lol as a direct target of backlash on many fronts, I know exactly how real it is. Sorry for the cliché, but historically it’s only strengthened the resolve. So let them comfort themselves with their backlash behavior and die miserable for all I care.

[Video]

Never Tire of the Road

Youtube Video
192 Amory Blaine  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 1:56:37pm

Republicans are such scumbags.

193 HappyWarrior  Thu, Aug 4, 2011 3:41:35pm

So much for small government and individual liberties huh Mitt.


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
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
3 weeks ago
Views: 434 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1