Bailouts for Bankers, Not a Cent for Autoworkers

This is the part of our nation's surreal economic crisis that seems particularly surreal:

The US auto industry, which employs 3 million Americans in auto plants, parts and supplier networks and dealerships nationwide is broadly understood as being essential to maintaining America as an industrial force. It's financial collapse, which even critics of moves to bailout the industry suggest is imminent, would devastate workers, retirees and communities in every state of the nation. Despite the grumbling from anti-union zealots, the auto giants have radically retooled in a manner that makes the cost of producing a vehicle at a unionized plant of General Motors, Ford or Chrysler roughly equivalent to the cost of running a car off the line at a non-union plant. And to top it all off: Auto plants actually produce something that most Americans consider to be useful.

Yet, proposals to provide what now seems to be a very small bailout -- $25 billion -- are currently stalled.

At the same time, the whole of the federal government is scrambling to buy as much as $50 billion in "toxic assets" -- bad loans and other products of irresponsible financial practices that are of dubious value -- from Citigroup, a global banking concern that makes money by charging working families exorbitant interest rates for credit. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[The move to protect the banking concern] would mean taxpayers could be on the hook if Citicorp's massive portfolios of mortgage, credit cards, commercial real-estate and big corporate loans continue to sour."

Perhaps, in some wild calculation of American interest, Citicorp is worthy of a bailout.

But what mad calculus would make Citigroup more worthy than the auto industry?

And why the urgency with regard to Citigroup and the casual disengagement with regard to the industrial giants that, for all their flaws and perils, remain what Barack Obama correctly described as "the backbone of American manufacturing"?

Something is fundamentally wrong with a federal government that offers bankers a bailout and autoworkers as cold shoulder.

Comments (127)

1. And what is Citi's plan? At least the auto industry has a real infrastructure and a workforce capable of producing something of value.

   I'm not for bailing out anybody except the people who always get the bill for corporate failure, but please, Citi over GM?

   Posted by HAL9000 at 11/24/2008 @ 4:03pm

2. This one does seem to cut weirdly across some bipartisan lines.

   I've seen a few Left posters say "Let 'em go under"...seemingly dismissive of the millions of jobs lost.

   AND I've seen atleast one blogger from the Right who is STRONGLY support of the Auto bail-out...for national security reasons. Both in keeping US jobs and in not "buying our tanks from China!".

   Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:19pm

3. This one does seem to cut weirdly across some bipartisan lines.

   Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   In more ways than one.

   'Citigroup is the 16th largest political campaign contributor, out of all organizations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Members of the firm have donated over $23,033,490 from 1989-2006, 49% of which went to Democrats and 51% of which went to Republicans.[44]'

   Source: Wikipedia; Query: Citigroup

   Posted by OneVote at 11/24/2008 @ 4:47pm

4. I like Michael Moore's suggestion. Get rid of management, and takeover and use GM's workers and infrastructure to create mass transportation and green cars.

   Posted by lanzi at 11/24/2008 @ 4:47pm

5. I think it all funnels down to lending. The auto companies downfall is tied closely to the paucity of auto loans being given. If banks start loaning again, people will start buying cars. It is a chicken and egg scenario, but in this case we know that loans and the ability to procure a loan comes first. So if the banks that provide loans go under, then it would just be a matter of time before the auto industry goes belly up. First things first. Bail out the lenders, then if need be bail out the auto companies. If you bail out the auto companies, but if no one can get a loan for a car, your back to square one.

   Posted by Extraneous at 11/24/2008 @ 4:50pm

6. I'd rather we let the big 3 fail, then loan the unemployed auto workers enough money to buy into the companies themselves. See what happens when they have a real stake in the business, and real responsibility. The gov then gets to play venture capitalist with what they often refer to as "The Fundamentals of the Economy", us working stiffs. That's change I can believe in.

   Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 11/24/2008 @ 4:52pm

7. Posted by lanzi at 11/24/2008 @ 4:47pm

   I agree, but that is more of a long-term solution. It will take time before the ramifications a change in focus actually benefits the industry. We need to fix the lending, then fix the industry to become more competitive.

   Same thing goes for the infrastructure projects I have heard mentioned. A good idea, but the effects will take some time. The economy needs a positive jolt now, infrastructure projects will help, but the rate of economic improvement will be more tempered. We need a cash infusion into the economy to get things moving now, then we need infrastructure projects that build off of that infusion, to continue the economic growth.

   What we have seen from this administration is a continued decrease in domestic spending over the last 7 years, decreased or static funding of most federal agencies and a drop in the number of federally financed domestic projects. Those that state the Bush admin is not to blame for our current situation are mistaken. Yes, the subprime loan were a major player, but had the economy continued to prosper, and wages and jobs continued to grow, the subprime issues could have been tempered or lessened, since people would be making more. Bush's polices including letting the dollar sink to historic lows, have been a major catalyst compounding the impacts from the subprime and credit crises.

   Posted by Extraneous at 11/24/2008 @ 5:03pm

8. The rational of bailing out the banks and insurance companies while ignoring the automakers is simply power speaking. The power of high finance allows it to use the taxpayers as a piggy bank, especially since Paulson and now Geithner and Summers have such close ties to Wall Street. The current big lie is that the best and brightest didn't see the credit collapse coming, as if 100:1 leveraging was a sound business practice. The automakers while not paragons of good management at least do produce something and are of strategic importance to the security of the country. Citi could potentially leave the government holding the bill for 300 billion in bad debt, but let's trust the same architects and managers that caused the problem so solve it. Let the banks and insurance companies fail, that's the risk investors take. If the government is going to guarantee 700 billion in credit let it be to manufacturers. As Henry Ford said "A business that only makes money is a poor business". Continuing down the path of the new paradigm of a service economy will only bring more of the same. The only change we will be able to count on is the few pennies the majority of us will have left in our pockets.

   Posted by kingcuke at 11/24/2008 @ 7:16pm

9. Many of the skills required to manufacture cars, trucks, buses and military vehicles could easily be reapplied to the design and construction of a host of green technologies.

   Why couldn't they (GM, Ford and Chrysler) come up with a plan to retool for the future. This is what I can't understand. Ask for money to build not only smart cars, trucks and buses, but wind turbines, undersea turbines, and other power generation systems. Plus a bunch of devices that haven't yet been invented.

   The skill sets for both include, metallurgy, engineering. industrial design, plastics, computer modeling, electronics, IT, machine tool operation and creation, assembly, painting, management and, yes, even marketing and advertising.

   It just seems so obvious.

   What are banks making, except trouble and shareholder profits?

   Posted by jackwells at 11/24/2008 @ 8:29pm

10. I agree but take it one step further, all the money that has been thrown at this debacle is aimed at ensuring a safe landing for the ones who have historically ripped, disbanded, bought-out and maximized profits on the back of worker pensions and jobs. Now, a small moment of reflection about a current drama over 'Why?'. Shall we rather say 'No more!" and demand bottom up financial stimulus.

    Posted by structurequity at 11/24/2008 @ 8:38pm

11. Posted by jackwells at 11/24/2008 @ 8:29pm

    Yeah Jack, the Big 3 could re-tool themselves. But it would spell the end for the UAW as we know it. If you haven't noticed, most of the skill sets you mentioned are anti-union. They will never cut a deal with the union.

    Posted by ACook at 11/24/2008 @ 8:59pm

12. Why didn't our Scrappy Senator discuss the well thought out Citi bank plan. Eh is it because they didn't have one? 300 billion gone, generally speaking Citi was allowed to invest in things like oil and when that went south, well you guessed it. Google chair was just on with my buddy Rachel. There you go small business is the answer, and green of course. Why are we exporting as much coal as we can mine? That's the answer producing teddy bears and exporting coal. How much does the CEO of Google get?

    Posted by julien38 at 11/24/2008 @ 9:17pm

13. I think the Citibank bailout is all about making sure they have enough money to buy naming rights and have their big shiney logo on the front of the new Mets stadium.

    (Go Mets!)

    Posted by Citizen54 at 11/24/2008 @ 10:35pm

14. And what is Citi's plan? At least the auto industry has a real infrastructure and a workforce capable of producing something of value.

    I'm not for bailing out anybody except the people who always get the bill for corporate failure, but please, Citi over GM?

    Posted by HAL

    If Citicorp's plan goes anything like the plans of the other finanical institutions who received bail out money so far, then they will be paying dividends to share holders with it, acquiring more assets, paying out huge bonuses to xecutives...In short, nothing to benefit the economy. The voo-doo economics of trickle down doesn't account for obscene, shameless greed.

    Also, as far as naming rights of, as well as corporate boxes in the new stadium...What a crock! They need taxpayer money to stay in business, yet they buy luxury boxes and blow money on the naming rights.

    They should have "tar and Feathers" night at the new Met's park, and put the Citicorp box sections on the Jumbo-tron. Pass out containers of hot tar & feathers at the gate and granting public access to the Citicorp section.

    Posted by koroviev at 11/25/2008 @ 12:01am

15. I agree with this article. There is a double standard at work here. White collar workers are saved, blue collar workers are expendable. Union busting is so in vogue now!! The average UAW worker makes 27 dollars an hour, or about 60,000 per year, which is not a lot of money, considering most have families, The big three have already laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, and, by the way, I own a Ford Focus. And they make stuff, big stuff. A Cadillac beats a solar panel any day of the week. We can't export our cars, that's one problem (trade policy), they have been hit by the credit crunch as have all businesses, big and small, and the fact that people don't have the money to buy cars now. So I guess it is smart to lay off 3 million more people to not have the money to buy cars anymore. It's classism. People were buying those SUV's, like crazy, until oil prices went up. GM has put billions into the Chevy Volt, they are trying..they need a bridge loan, a new plan, and better trade agreements. They don't need union busting. Busting unions is just management's greed; then they end up shipping the job overseas, because why pay even eight dollars an hour when you can get somebody to do it for one dollar? What is the average salary of these bankers and stockbrokers? Their jobs are being saved.

    Posted by jonnirae at 11/25/2008 @ 05:04am

16. This is because those in Treasury and the Fed and Congress and White House only care about the banking and investment business, not about anything else.

    And, the Obama financial team is made up of similar individuals.

    Robert Rubin worked for Citi Group for example. Do you think he suddenly has compassion for American Main Street? Has he invited YOU to one of those cocktail parties on the Street? Do you think Larry Summers cares about Main Street?

    And clearly, Congress is all about satisfying the banks and investment houses too---we've seen no effort at all from Congress to regulate, protect pensions, 401k's. (What about restoring 401k's to their pre-crisis levels? As opposed to throwing half the GDP at banks to bail them out?)

    We're about to see more of the same, given the cast of characters Obama has appointed. A very rocky ride ahead, with focus on letting the bankers keep their bonuses and big houses in the Caribbean, while Americans shiver.

    Posted by ActualWorker at 11/25/2008 @ 05:52am

17. Posted by ACook at 11/24/2008 @ 8:59pm

    Tool. Fool.

    -------

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/24/2008 @ 10:42pm |

    Do you have ANY facts to back up your fantasy comments? I think in your mind I am a "librool". I drive a Lincoln and a Ranger. bzzzt, pop, bzzz, grind, does not fit preconceived notions...grind, zap. Don't let your head explode.

    ----

    Why didn't CItigroup have to come back with a plan? Why do I get 5 mailers a week from Citigroup promising me cheap money, while they are hat in hand asking me (and the Japanese and Chinese) for free money? Why are they still issuing $5,000 credit to "liberals on campus", HAPPYMORONCOWARD? Kids with zero income, zero assets.

    How did Citigroups managers get to Capitol Hill? Did they drive their Scions? Did anybody ask?

    Simply said, you cons are fucked in the head. So scared of unions and fair wages that you seek any opportunity to attack, with zero knowledge of the industry and what they have done in the past decade to compete .

    Why is Citigroup losing money? A couple of reasons are: Bad Management and.... people are losing their jobs!!! So what do the clowns want to do? Put more people out of work because they think those people make too much money. Imagine HAPPY the investor coward griping about someone that works for a living EARNING too much and taking his dividends away from him.

    ONEVOTE is dead on.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 07:54am

18. Extraneous said:

    If banks start loaning again, people will start buying cars. It is a chicken and egg scenario, but in this case we know that loans and the ability to procure a loan comes first. So if the banks that provide loans go under, then it would just be a matter of time before the auto industry goes belly up.

    With one in ten US jobs tied to the auto industry, just who do you think is going to be getting auto loans. People with no jobs don't buy cars, food, clothes, etc. So, maybe in the chicken and the egg theory we should add jobs. What comes first a job or a loan? I think it's the job.

    Posted by loria at 11/25/2008 @ 07:57am

19. Did the UAW invent derivatives?

    Credit default swaps?

    ARM loans?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 08:04am

20. Since there isn't currently an article on this topic, I'll post it here.

    The WSJ has a fantastic article on Prop 8. I encourage you to read it so that you understand your opponents' ojections rather than simply writing them off as stupid.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html

    What people hold as a moral ideal, however, and what they will accept as a workable compromise are two different things. Left to their own devices, most Americans can work these differences out in politics much as they do in their everyday lives, as untidy as these solutions may be. Unfortunately, when the courts short-circuit this process, they do three things corrosive to our politics.

    First, they act as dishonest referees, imposing one set of preferences over another.

    Second, they cheat the American people of an honest political contest, where candidates need to persuade the people of their views to put them into effect...

    Finally, when courts usurp the role of the people, they inject cynicism and bitterness into America's body politic. In his dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it this way: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue [legalized abortion] arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 08:58am

21. Bailouts for Bankers, Not a Cent for Autoworkers

    I can explain why this is.

    All things evolve. Your own job history evolved from lemonade stand, to paper boy, lawn mower, to bus boy, to waiter, to journalist or other professional job.

    America's economy has evolved, Aggraian, to industrial, to technology. The financial sector is vital to the formation of capital for ventures that continue to lead the world in research and development.

    America's future lies in developing the battery that makes an electric car feasabile, not in mass producing internal combustion engine cars.

    Furthermore, the social contract is evolving. Responsibility for needs such as health care and pensions are being shifted in two directions at once. Shifted to the individuals who can afford to provide their own and to government for individuals who are unable to provide for themselves.

    This is the age-old tradeoff of freedom and security. The people who work for the new ventures get the most freedom (ie. higher cash compensation for their productive efforts). The people who work for the government get less freedom (their immediate cash compensation is only, say, half of their productivity) but they get greater safty through deferred compensation in the form of retiree pensions and healthcare.

    The UAW negotiated government-style benefits and safety (seniority rules that prevent layoffs and firings) that ate up too much of the workers' productivity, forcing a reduction in cash compensation. These levels are unsustainable for a capitalist enterprise.

    Since Congress can't change the laws of supply and demand, they can only try to cushion the landing by subsidizing these people with other peoples' money.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 09:16am

22. Posted by Extraneous at 11/24/2008 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    smart point, pointing out how the financial crisis is impacting the aouto industry vis-a-vis paucity of loans.

    but although i'm ok with losing one of the big three (possibly through merging), to lose even two would be a nasty shock and not at all good for the country if we wish to remain a first rate power in the future.

    pat buchannon is sounding very sensible these days with his defense of old style economics meant to protect vital national industries. perhaps obama will appeal to our citizens' patriotism in more than solely attitudes of arrogant military adventurism. buy american! support local industries...that kind of stuff. truth is the american auto industry is churning out some solid cars these days and with an imaginative long term strategy for the future stand to come out smelling like roses.

    but to give up on an industry that is vital for our military and domestic economic security is insane. its time our government woke up and smelled the roses in terms of supporting local manufacturing and working through FAIR, as opposed to FREE trade.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2008 @ 09:20am

23. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 08:58am

    Darin, "Jim Crow" was democratically implemented too. The majority white Southern population VOTED in representatives who passed it.

    "The will of the people" was never bypassed.....atleasat the will of the WHITE people.

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 09:40am

24. Well Darin, it looks as if the day of Big banks/investment firms like Citigroup and Lehman Bros is at an end. If I were to follow through with your analogy, we have evolved past them. Why keep a dinosaur around?

    ---

    This is a little old but...

    Scientific American

    "After nearly a century of union-management warfare in the U.S., a series of nationwide surveys showing that union shops dominate the ranks of the country's most productive workplaces may come as a surprise.

    The average unionized establishment recorded productivity levels 16 percent higher than the baseline firm, whereas average nonunion ones scored 11 percent lower. One reason: most of the union shops had adapted so-called formal quality programs, in which up to have the workers meet regularly to discuss workplace issues. Moreover, production workers at these establishments shared in the firm's profits, and more than a quarter did their jobs in self-managed teams. Productivity in such union shops was 20 percent above baseline.

    Are these productivity gains result of high-performance management techniques rather than unionization? No, Lynch and Black say. Adoption of the same methods in nonunion establishments yielded only a 10 percent improvement in productivity over the baseline. The doubled gains in well run union shops, Lynch contends, may result from the greater stake unionized workers have in their place of employment

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 11:49am

25. Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 11:49am

    Now, CRAB, as SJCHER would say "everybody knows" that...

    scientists are a bunch of union thugs!

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 11:52am

26. Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 09:40am

    A while back I asked you to speculate about what would have happened had the civil war not been fought.

    The point was that Canada and England both rid themselves of slavery without war, through the democratic process. However, in the US, where an undemocratic war settled the issue, the people in the South didn't feel like they had a fair hearing on the issue and so 100 years after the war, there was lingering resentment and "cheating" such as Jim Crow laws.

    Have some faith in the American People that they will get it right, fairly quickly, in a democratic fashion, and it will settle the political question once and for all. Or else, face a century of bitter resentment and refusual to accept the outcome because the other side cheated by using biased refs.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 11:52am

27. Does anybody know what percentage of US auto company factory workers are union vs non-union (southern state), what percentage of employees managment(engineers, accountants, designers, marketing, VP's)makes up? Also, what if we factor in union/non-union shops that supply parts to the US auto industry?

    I would also like to see a comparison of union wages/benefits/bonuses paid to a line worker in an atuo plant vs wages/benefits/bonuses paid to an average accountant at Citgroup.

    If anybody has the time to dig it up.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 12:02pm

28. Scientists are a key part of the socialist plot to take over the world.

    Yes, MASK, I accept this as fact. When I attend the World Conference on Leftists Bent on World Domination annually I get the low down on our great comrades in the scientific community. (see....commune= community=communist=community organizer)

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 12:05pm

29. Hey DarinTroll - can you define "undemocratic war"?

    and what would be a "democratic war"?

    thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 1:04pm

30. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 11:52am

    Wow.....now THAT's some Southernism spin for you...

    "Lincoln was to blame for 'Jim Crow'!"

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 1:37pm

31. A trillion for an illegal war, 700 billion for bankers that bet on oil remaining at 15o.oo per barrel and possibly going to 200.00 per barrel, with the protection of congress and the administration. I thought all that stuff was illegal. Isn't that what the great depression was all about? Las Vegas economics. the house never looses. "And not a cent for auto workers" typical American two step economics. Unscrew your machine from the floor buddy it's going to China where we can hire labor at sub human wages and you can go work as a Walmart greeter. The poor never hired any one? really? who is going to buy your houses made in China and assembled in Los Angeles? Don't the billionaires shop in Italy for their shoes and Lamborghini's? 700 thousand kids went hungry this year. Now we have Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to content with. They are the two that drew the road map for this mess. We are out of gas stuck in the wilderness without food and water and Paulson is busy telling everyone we have been found when he doesn't even know where we are.

    Posted by julien38 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:07pm

32. and what would be a "democratic war"?

    thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 1:04p

    Let me guess...

    a war based on misinformation (or lies) that 70% of the people support, but when it turns out that the intel was WRONG and 70% decide that the war was wrong...it is still a "democratic" war?

    Basic fact- democracies (or even democratic republics) hate wars. Especially long, drawn out wars that lack an exit strateegery.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 2:19pm

33. I would suggest that we allow the pension funds to buy out the company at it's low value and then allow the government to loan the money to knew management. How arrogant to show up in Washington with no sense of a plain other than waiting out the current downturn.

    Posted by raezer1964 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:28pm

34. Lincoln was to blame for 'Jim Crow'!"

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 1:37pm

    Rather than attributing quotes to me that I never made (some would call that twisting my words) why don't you address the issue.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 2:44pm

35. DarinTroll - why don't you answer my question about undemocratic wars?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 2:48pm

36. Gee Darin, how do you figure that the death of some 500,000 people equals the south "not getting their say"?

    I think MASK was fairly accurate in his assesment of your assesment.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 2:51pm

37. Let's say I'm a sharecropper. I usually get 100 bushels of corn to the acre. You and I contract. Rather than going 50/50, because I need a minimun of 30 to feed my family, suppose I strike a deal whereby I get 75% of the first 40 bushels and only 25% there after.

    In the first year, I raise 100 bushels and pay you 25% of 40 plus 75% of 60 which equals 55 bushels. So you come out ahead (instead of 50) and you take your 55% and leave.

    The next year, I only get 60 bushels because of locust. You show up and I've got your 25% of 40 and 75% of 20 = 25 bushels and you say, that's not fair and pull a gun and take 30 (50% of 60).

    I'm going to feel cheated. I'm going to feel that I have a right to cheat you in the future. I'm never going to trust you again. I'm going to hate you for the rest of my life and make sure my children, and anyone who will listen to me knows that you're a dishonest slimebag and nobody should ever deal fairly with you again.

    We have a set of rules for making laws. We've agreed to abide by these rules. We've appointed judges to fairly arbitrate these rules and laws.

    For the past 6000 years, "marriage" has meant a man and a woman. (There have been minor examples of polygomy and even fewer examples of polyandry.) But never has there been a definition of marriage that recognized same sex. And in the last six years, a tiny minority has said, we don't think the rules we agreed to are fair, so we are going to cheat and get sypathetic judges to gives what we want and tell the rest of you that you and your political process can just go to hell.

    Have some damned patience and win without cheating. That is, rewriting the rules so that you get what you want and everybody else be damned.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 2:57pm

38. Gee Darin, how do you figure that the death of some 500,000 people equals the south "not getting their say"?

    I think MASK was fairly accurate in his assesment of your assesment.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 2:51pm

    Less than 100 years before the start of the Civil war, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Indepence. It had a lot of flowery words about soverignty and self-determination.

    The South seceeded from the Union. They believe it was their right to self determination. And the North said, Bullshit, you ignorant Southerners and going to live by our rules damnit!. You can take your self-determination and stick it up your ass.

    Winning a war doesn't make you right. It doesn't make you wrong either, it just means you have the power to impose your will on others and strip them of their right to self-determination.

    I'm not saying that the Civil war was wrong. Clearly, slavery was a travesty. But as a matter of politics, it might have been better to let the Union break up. It would have saved 500,000 lives. There would have been continues pressure to end slavery in the south and it would have ended, with less bloodshed. And the reconcillation of whites and black probably would have occurred much much faster.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 3:05pm

39. darintroll - you make stuff up now. how do you know slavery would have ended? it's convenient for you to say the same results would have occurred - because that props up your whole argument. but you don't know that. the civil war wasn't fought over just slavery anyway--state's rights were just as important a factor, if not more important.

    the part i agree with is if a state or states want to secede - so be it. but then you are an enemy, and one that is close geographically, at that. you can't expect the union to sit idly by.

    the southern states didn't have to reenter the union, but they did, and they voted (w/out a real choice) to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 3:22pm

40. darintroll - you make stuff up now. how do you know slavery would have ended?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/25/2008 @ 3:22pm

    In 1800, how many countries recognized slaves as property?

    Answer: all of them.

    In 1900, how many countries recognized slaves as property?

    Answer: damn few.

    In 2000, how many countries recognize slavery?

    Answer: I believe one. Uganda.

    How many countries fought a civil war to end slavery?

    Answer: again, I believe tha answer is one.

    Now counter factual history is a game no one can win with certainty, but given the developments in every other country in the world, I think you would have a higher burden in trying to argue that the original half-dozen confederate states would still recognize legal slavery in 2008.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 3:52pm

41. Yeah Jack, the Big 3 could re-tool themselves. But it would spell the end for the UAW as we know it. If you haven't noticed, most of the skill sets you mentioned are anti-union. They will never cut a deal with the union. Posted by ACook at 11/24/2008 @ 8:59pm

    I'm not so sure. The unions have shown flexibility in the past. Plus, the gist of my argument is: more-or-less same jobs, similar supply chain, different products, same workers.

    Posted by jackwells at 11/25/2008 @ 4:01pm

42. That reminds me of a joke.

    A businessman went to Thailand and had sex with a 12-year old prostitute. When he returned to the United State he had the worst case of venerial disease ever.

    So he went to his doctor and showed him his puss-weeping, swolen, purple member. The Doctor said, "That's the worst case of venerial disease I've ever seen. We're going to have to cut your tallywhacker off."

    Well, the man obivously wanted a second opinion. So he went to another doctor. Unfortunately, he got the same diagnosis and prescription. So he went to the bar to get drunk.

    The bar fly sitting next to him said, "If you caught it in Asia, you should go see one of those Eastern medicine, holistic doctors." It sounded like good advice so he went to the phone book and 15 minutes later he was in the office of Dr. Dong Wang.

    "Dr. Wang, I've seen two doctors and they both said I've got to cut it off. What do you think."

    "Redicurous" said Dr. Wang. "Western doctors are arr same. Cut, cut, cut. No, you don't have to cut it off. Just wait two weeks and it will fall off all by itself."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 4:05pm

43. First, don't you just love Darin's "I'm saying this...but I'm not" ambivalence?

    "Winning a war doesn't make you right.......

    I'm not saying that the Civil war was wrong."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 3:05pm

    And no Darin, I think my synopsis of your "point" was pretty accurate. You want to blame Lincoln and his damn interferere "live by our rules" Northerners for forcing your poor, oppressed white Southerns into having to clamp down on those darkies for getting too uppity after that "undemocratic war" and reassert their natural stolen role....

    and as shown by the kind and generous way after ONE HUNDRED YEARS, the Southerners graciously granted full rights to the Negroes in the 1960s...it is obvious that if that meddling Lincoln and his interlopers had just abided by the natural need for "self-determination" that the South wanted....

    that ...sooner or later...eventually....in a 'few' years....the South would have been a bastion of racial tolerance and African-Americans living in peace and freedom as equals to whites.

    So, yes, your point is "Lincoln is to blame for Jim Crow".

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 4:05pm

44. So, yes, your point is "Lincoln is to blame for Jim Crow".

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 4:05

    No, it's not. My point is that human nature is what it is. If a person feels cheated, he feels he has the right to cheat as well. You may force physical compliance, but you will never convince. And it can take hundreds of years for the effects to wear off.

    To be honest, I don't know if marriage is older than slavery. I do know that Moses wandered in the Desert for 40 years, eventually dying before setting foot in the promise land. He did this because it took 40 years for the culture of Moses's clan to give up their acceptance of slavery.

    I understand that there is a lot of resentment on the side of gays. There is resentment because they believe they are entitled to the same institutions as heterosexuals, today! They believe they are entitled even if that means flipantly discarding 6000 years of history.

    Well, I don't believe they are entitled. And I know, human nature being what it is, if gay try to have the courts force heterosexuals to accept them as completely equal, it won't work and you'll set yourself up for a hundred years of hatred.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 4:15pm

45. When the auto companies were turned away and told to present a "business plan", something brand new small companies do, I asked myself, "Hey! I didn't hear or read where AIG had to provide a friggin' business plan!" WTF? Why hasn't anyone made a huge stink about that fact??? Or have I been napping during those broadcasts?

    Posted by Charmie at 11/25/2008 @ 4:50pm

46. "Well, I don't believe they are entitled"

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008

    Well, isn't that special.

    Darin doesn't think a segment of our society deserves the same rights and privledges as all the rest.

    And he must be right, 'cause lots o folks agree with him. I mean, who cares about equality, when you can have tradition, right?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 4:52pm

47. Posted by Charmie at 11/25/2008 @ 4:50pm

    There's a plan.

    But, it's a secret. Sshhh! Ask the congressman that you purchased how to get in on it. Maybe you could become a bank, overnight, too!

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 4:54pm

48. Well, I don't believe they are entitled"

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008

    Well, isn't that special.

    Darin doesn't think a segment of our society deserves the same rights and privledges as all the rest.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 4:52pm

    Let me elaborate: I think they are deserving, but not entitled.

    I have said before that if I were presented the change to proactively vote for a change to existing marriage laws to incorporate same-sex marraiges, I would vote for it because I believe same-sex marriage would benefit the children of homosexuals.

    Further, gays and lesbians are not barred from entering into opposite sex marraige. They are not discriminated against. They "enjoy" the same rights and priviledges as heterosexuals.

    So, I think society would be better off if it voluntarily changed its laws. (deserving)

    I do not believe that existing laws discriminate (gays and lesbians can marry unmarried people of the opposite sex, not a blood relative). I do not believe that gays are entitled to change laws to accomodate their views. The laws were put on the books related to child rearing. But gays view marriage primarily from the point of view of the spouses, not the children and I don't believe they are entitled to change laws to impose their point of view on the majority.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:18pm

49. Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 4:54pm

    I am absolutely no one in the big scheme of things, yet I surely am not the only "no one" who has noticed this bias. I am thinking everyone who finds this discrimination a major issue might consider harassing all the major news media....just a thought.

    I do agree with Michael Moore on one of many things he stated. Kick GM's ass for building a $300 million dollar plant overseas.

    Here's another thought: I've yet to hear mentioned on any news media about this either. I want to share this tidbit statistic shared with me from my ex-husband, a former lawyer who gave up that world and became an electrician at an American car company, AND my brother-in-law who has worked for GM since he graduated high school about 35 years ago: the statistic stated is that of the total price you pay for your car, only 3% represent the labor costs.

    the car companies have pitched for years that the biggest reason the car prices go up is because of the labor contracts. I'm not buying that. Here's why: I have been in advertising as long as my brother-in-law has been building cars. A year or ago, I read an article in Advertising Age's magazine/website that the company who owns Dr. Pepper spent $5,000,000 for an ad campaign. Then on a whim, someone with veto power, decided not to go with it...after they and paid all that money.

    So again, Michael Moore is right about getting rid of the managers. Frankly, I don't think any company should hire a manager or above position until they've spent a minimum 2-5 years managing a non-profit. One learns not to take spending with such a cavalier attitude.

    Posted by Charmie at 11/25/2008 @ 5:23pm

50. The difference between financial services companies and auto companies are as follows:

    In order to operate, a financial services (FS) company needs operating captial. This is securities or other saleable assets to remain solvent (Assets greater than liabilities). In the current environment of uncertaintly, the market value of the assets they hold for opperating capital has plunged making many technically insolvent. These securities haven't defaulted, it just that if they had to sell them, they would only get half of what they would have got last quarter. The expected cashflow of the securities hasn't even changed, it's just the added uncertainty.

    If the US government promises to give you a dollar next year, that is worth 95 cents today. If I promise to give you a dollar next year, that is only worth 90 cents today because there is a chance that I might default. If I promise to give you a dollar next year and there is a 50/50 chance that I will declare bankruptcy in the next year, that is only worth 45 cents.

    Samuelson made a good point. In the last 50 business days, 25 have had stock market movements of over 4% in the previous 25 years there were 25 such days. So we went from an environment where a 4% market movement went from a once-a-year occurrence to a once every-other-day occurrance. There is nothing wrong with the FS company business plans, it is just an abosolutely crazy economic environment has created a need for additionsl capital to ensure solvency.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:43pm

51. A car company needs physical capital to operate. It needs billions of dollars worth of land and buildings (plants); robots; painting booths; machine tools; raw materials such as steel, glass, plastic, paint, and rubber; distribution infrustucture such as rail cars, semi trucks, and car trailers; and it needs computers and office space to house the accountants, and finance staff.

    The value of the car companies' capital isn't subject to the vageries of market prices. The reason the car companies are losing money is because their costs greatly exceed the revenues they generate from sales.

    The car companies need a new business plan. That is why Congress is treating them differently from different companies.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:43pm

52. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 5:49pm

    "I spent over twenty years in the manufacturing industry. Wages consistently represent the largest cost in determining price."

    Let me guess... MBA?

    Conditioned animal, dear.

    Posted by Charmie at 11/25/2008 @ 6:07pm

53. Is there a difference between wages as a percentage of total price vs wages *determining* total price?

    Posted by ender21 at 11/25/2008 @ 6:53pm

54. Bailout for Citicorp[se] and not for automakers rests upon economic conception of value as exchange. Value increases as exchange increases, constituents of exchange being irrelevant to value. Assuming,

    "Malthus failed to realize how technical innovation could intervene--not to repeal the law of diminishing returns, but to more than offset it." [Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, ninth edition (New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, 1973) 737.],

    Now assuming,

    "the total entropy of the molecules cast aside by organisms during the processes of evolution and growth is greater than the decrease in entropy associated with the order of the growing individual or evolving species." [Douglas Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, sixth edition (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005) 427.],

    concerning tangibles, economics and physics are at a standoff on the ability to "offset" entropy (the law of diminishing returns). Wholly emergent, though, abstractions present a difficult challenge to the physicists assumption of "molecules cast aside by organisms."

    "Financial instruments" being wholly abstract when value is exchange, their creation and exchange is unentropic. Because so, financial institutions can create "value" more rapidly than manufacturing institutions. Investment return on financial bailout being greater than investment return on manufacturing bailout, it is financially more sound for the government to invest in (bailout) financial institutions than manufacturing institutions.

    QED

    Posted by philandrel at 11/25/2008 @ 8:14pm

55. Going to hit the hay, but wanted to add the same reminder that millions keep trying to make clear:

    Management can complain from now until the planet caps are gone (which isn't long from now) about having to spend money on labor. But unless leadership gets over their own greed, they will never accept the fact that the entire cycle of their job is dependent on the labor... not just any labor, American employees. An unemployed auto-worker can't buy a car.

    Posted by Charmie at 11/25/2008 @ 8:35pm

56. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 4:15pm

    Darin, I'm not in your "gay marriage" fight, because you have already lost it. It's called the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment and you can't get around it. If two adults can be granted a marriage license, then unless you treat them "un-equally before the law" (in violation of the 14th)...

    you have to let ANY two adults get a marriage license.

    As for your "Don't blame the poor, begrudged Southerners for imposing American apartheid"....

    that speaks for itself. Again, another "I'm not guilty nor any of my kin. It was those damn Yankees for bothering us. If they had just given us 100...or so....we would have....eventually....fixed racism!"

    Next up, why don't you explain how we "might want to sympathize with Byron de la Beckwith!"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 8:50pm

57. so why did god make gay people?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2008 @ 11:12pm

58. Citibank has the perfect business model: Get billions of of dollars overnight...fedexed no doubt. Loan to consumers just in time for XMAS with interest and conditions. Bodda boom bodda BANG! Profit! Wish I thought of that. And who are the one's purchasing all the stock? With Tax-Payer money no doubt.

    Meanwhile, Congress can't ask where the money is going, or whom it is going to. But if they lend 25 billion to the auto makers, they will know where some of the 750...oh...775 billion went to and be able to get some of it back with interest becuase the auto makers want a loan not a bailout.

    Posted by valiant at 11/25/2008 @ 11:54pm

59. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 11:28pm --

    So why is marriage defined at all in any laws or constitution anywhere?

    Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:44am

60. "For the past 6000 years, "marriage" has meant a man and a woman. (There have been minor examples of polygomy and even fewer examples of polyandry.)"

    In other words, considering your parenthetical, marriage has not meant that. And your assessment of the past 6,000 years is historically inaccurate. More accurate would be, "For the past 6,000 years "marriage" has meant a man and a woman, at least to a small percentage of the population largely centered around Christian folks after about 1500 AD." But what's a few thousand years, and most of the people on the planet?

    As to whatever fool said god didn't make gay people, please send me god's phone number. Clearly you have it. And remember, when in the Gospel of John the author refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved most, in the original Greek the word for "love" was the one usually used for homosexual love. For the past 6,000 years, Greeks who have written that word for love have been into cornholing, much like apparently Jesus and John were. Sweet!

    Posted by onthehelm at 11/26/2008 @ 12:55am

61. Let GOD handle it in the judgement...that is the marriage thing. where in the Bible is marriage defined?

    Posted by valiant at 11/26/2008 @ 01:03am

62. So the pursuit of the (once) middle class for the 'american dream' goes on hold?...again? I suppose we all get government jobs at government public works at wages the goverment deems adequate. Do we get paid wif gubement cheese?

    Posted by Knuckledragger at 11/26/2008 @ 02:25am

63. It'll go something like this.

    Bailout Wall Street with no plan, nor oversight. When the Big 3 fail the Unions will be busted - Wall Street can then use their bailout monies to buy up the auto industry (minus the unions) for pennies on the dollar.

    Posted by resistnow at 11/26/2008 @ 06:00am

64. Darin must have missed Sunday school, and history class.

    Across the world marriage has multiple definitions. Today in many countries a man may marry many women.

    It is only recently that 13 year old girls cannot marry, This was still going on in the Us less than 100 years ago. Is Darin for teen marriage because we have a tradition in this country?

    Less than 6000 years ago :

    Lamech had 2 wives

    Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:

    Esau with 3 wives;

    Jacob: 2;

    Ashur: 2;

    Gideon: many;

    Elkanah: 2;

    David: many;

    Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;

    Rehaboam: 3;

    Abijah: 14.

    Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

    From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

    Why can we not find any instances of women having multiple husbands? Because TRADITIONALLY women were property.

    Would Darin be in favor of Brother-in-law marriage, there is a long tradition.

    How about giving ones slave to ones husband? There is a tradition in Judeao-Christian law to support this activity.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 07:39am

65. it is financially more sound for the government to invest in (bailout) financial institutions than manufacturing institutions.

    QED

    Posted by philandrel at 11/25/2008 @ 8:14pm

    Facsinating theory. But in order to make it from the ivory towers of your premises to the concrete floor of your conclusion, you'll need a lot more than 1800 characters to complete your proof.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 07:43am

66. If God did not make gay people, who did?

    The leftists socialists?

    Invisible Pink Unicorn?

    Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Last I checked the fundies claim that God made the universe and all in it. Who snuck in Mary Cheney? What else might they sneak in while Obama is running the show? \

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 07:45am

67. But unless leadership gets over their own greed, they will never accept the fact that the entire cycle of their job is dependent on the labor... not just any labor, American employees. An unemployed auto-worker can't buy a car.

    Posted by Charmie at 11/25/2008 @ 8:35pm

    The word is "fungibility."

    The key to a healthy company is to strike a balance that is mutually beneficial to capital owners and labor.

    Your premise that car companies have to higher american workers is flat out wrong. Americans buy computers that aren't made in America. Americans buy Television that aren't made in America. If the car companies go under, it will be painful, but eventually, most of the workers will find something else productive to do.

    Human nature craves stability. Unions create additional stability, but at a cost of increased risk of catastrophy.

    (Putting all your eggs in one basket, makes it ecconomically more efficient to invest in a better basket, put it increases the probability that an accident will destroy all of your eggs at the same time.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 07:50am

68. Darin, I'm not in your "gay marriage" fight, because you have already lost it. It's called the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment and you can't get around it. If two adults can be granted a marriage license, then unless you treat them "un-equally before the law" (in violation of the 14th)...

    you have to let ANY two adults get a marriage license.

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 8:50pm

    Mask, you're a lawyer so you know better than this. You know this is specious reasoning. You also know that if it was as black and white as you pretend then marriage laws would have been challeged already, but they haven't.

    There are many limitations on marriage.

    You don't have to let married people get married. There are bagamy laws against that.

    You don't have to let siblings get married because there is a much higher incidence of birth defects among these unions.

    You don't have to let minors get married because they are generally not emotionally mature enough to handle it.

    You don't have to let the mentally incapacitated get married if they are legally a ward of another person.

    So again, any single man (ANY, you get that gay, straight, or asexual means ANY).. Any single man past the age of majority can marry ANY (ANY means gay, straight, or asexual. It can even mean a person who lost their sex organs in an accident) ANY single woman past the age of majority who is not a blood relative.

    Show me where this says a gay man can't marry a single woman. If you can show that you have a 14th amendment challenge. Until you do, you've only got a specious arguement unworth of a freshman law school student.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 08:04am

69. And now for the reason I came here this morning.

    I came to denounce the excesses of the fringe right.

    Not only do I not support, but I forcefully denounce the fringe right that is trying to challenge Obama's citizenship. These are not mainstream elements within the Conservative brotherhood. As a realatively representative Conservative I want to say this tiny tiny fringe is not representative and does not enjoy any support among mainstream Conservatives.

    Further, I think Drudge went too far this morning in mocking a member of Obama's new cabinet. I admit that I did laugh, but immediately felt bad about it. It was juvinile an uncalled for. It was the opposite of appealing to our better angels.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 09:03am

70. In a strange coincidence, last night, TBS ran the Seinfeld episode, "The Virgin."

    It's the one where Elaine goes on an on about her diaphram when Jerry's new girlfriend was a virgin. After she gets uncomfortable and leaves, Elaine says, "I didn't know she was a virgin."

    And Jerry says, "It's not like spotting a bad toupee"

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 09:06am

71. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:44pm

    I have no interest in religious or church definitions of marriage, LVLIB. There is no legal way (nor reason) to compel any church to marry a gay couple.

    I strictly mean the civil LEGAL definition. If the term is "marriage" under the LAW, then that's what I'm applying. "Separate but equal" is un-Constitutional.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:24am

72. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 08:04am

    Darin, again simple question...

    show me the legal basis for denying an adult man and another adult man, or an woman and another adult woman....the right to a full-out civil marriage license.

    On what basis does allowing such a thing pose a threat to the community?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:27am

73. Darin which industry will the un-employed autro workers go to?

    Computers?

    TV's?

    Whirlpool washers?

    Auto parts?

    " Unions create additional stability, but at a cost of increased risk of catastrophy. "

    What catastrophe has befallen the US in the last 60 years of unions? How about Germany? Maybe you could wax elequent on the catastrophe the unions brough to Poland in the 80's?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 09:35am

74. There is no legal way (nor reason) to compel any church to marry a gay couple.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:24am

    You need to read the Canadian papers more often. Canada's Orwelian Human Rights Commission has been a crudgel used against Christian pastors for preaching the Bible. The HRC contains none of the due process requirements of law. People are presumed guilty unless cleared by the liberal elites that run it.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 10:29am

75. We probably will bail out Detroit as well but at least we are making them have a plan. The problem is that that we made Detroit say what the country gets out of the deal, it is that we did NOT make the banks tell us .

    We just hand them billion after billion without knowing what we are buying in a market that is probably still way over valued.

    We have been building value on vapor since 1980 and we are in the process of paying the price. How could the Dow grow from 1,000 to 10,000 in twenty years? What was that based on? Personal computing certainly accounts for some of it, but when you realize that the America boom decades of the 50s and 60s added only 800 points to the Dow, it is hard to believe that the rise of computing added 9,000 points.

    It is possible that we have been living in a huge 28 year bubble that is finally leaking air. Who knows what the Dow would really be without the fantasy pumping of Wall Street pencil necks? 5,000? 3,000?

    <a href="http://www.theysaynothing.com"> They Say Nothing </a>

    Posted by TheySayNothing at 11/26/2008 @ 10:36am

76. Darin, again simple question...

    show me the legal basis for denying an adult man and another adult man, or an woman and another adult woman....the right to a full-out civil marriage license.

    On what basis does allowing such a thing pose a threat to the community?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:27am

    Thank you for admitting defeat.

    The legal basis is that the law states (in 48 states at least) That "marriage" is defined as a union between an unmarried man past the age of majority and an unmarried woman past the age of majority who are not blood relatives.

    That is the legal basis for denying a marriage license to any two men be they gay or straight. Now you can issue marriage licenses (plural) to two gay men if they have umarried women past the age of majority willing to marry them.

    And your disingenuous attempt to turn the tables won't work. I do not have to demonstrate harm. The law is on my side. You have to demonstrate discrimination. If a straight man is permitted to do something I have to show that a gay man is permitted to do the same thing.

    A straight man is permitted to marry a woman. Also, a gay man is permitted to marry a woman. I have demonstrated that the law does not discriminate.

    YOU, my friend, need to demonstrate harm to overturn the law. I do not need to demonstrate the lack of harm to justify an existing law.

    What harm is there in forbidding men to marry men? Gee, no civilization prior to 2000 permitted such a thing and it worked fine for them.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 10:37am

77. As long as a Black man has access to a similar school, he is not denied the rights due a white man. He does not have to be allowed to attend the SAME school, just a similar school.

    right, Darin?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 11:35am

78. Gee, no civilization prior to 2000 permitted such a thing and it worked fine for them.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 10:37am

    Civilizations in the past allowed slavery....ergo, no reason to oppose it, is there?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:05pm

79. As long as a Black man has access to a similar school, he is not denied the rights due a white man. He does not have to be allowed to attend the SAME school, just a similar school.

    right, Darin?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 11:35am

    More speciousness.

    A gay man has a right to marry the exact same woman as a straight man. The law doesn't say that gay men can only marry fat women or disfigured women or barren women. The same women.

    Your separate but equal analogy missed it's mark by several miles.

    Show me the discrimination. In order to do that you need to find a law that explicitly says, "Straight men and women will be issued marriage licenses so they can marry the person the love."

    Find that law and you win. Otherwise, keep embarassing yourself by having a person with no legal instruction whip your ass in a legal debate when you are a lawyer.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:11pm

80. Separate but equal.

    ---

    What harm is there in forbidding men to marry men? Gee, no civilization prior to 2000 permitted such a thing and it worked fine for them.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008

    You want specious? How about a doggy biscuit for your ability to beg a question?

    sit, UBU, sit.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:15pm

81. Civilizations in the past allowed slavery....ergo, no reason to oppose it, is there?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:05pm

    More speciousness.

    If there were no mechanism for changing laws to accomodate changing culture, this argument might be persuasive, but it is not.

    In reality, there are three ways to change laws.

    1) You can introduce a bill into the legislature and get the governor to sign it, or override his veto with a two-thirds majority in the legislature,

    2) You can amend the state's constitution through a democratic referrendum whereby a majority of voters vote afirmitively for the new amendment.

    3) You can get a like minded judge to say he doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, from now on, the law means what he says it means.

    Clearly, if you find the right judge, 3) is the easiest way to change a law.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

82. Should the law even recognize that men and women are different?

    "All men are created equal" does not mean all MEN alone anymore. I think we could agree on that.

    "All people are created equal" ignore the "create" part for a minute.

    All people are equal.

    I want to enter into a contract with person B. You say, NO! person B is not the correct gender. What other contractual relationship is dependent on gender?

    you have not demonstrated any harm that would come to society if gay people are allowed to enter into a contract with another gay person. I can demonstrate harm that is being doen to society because gay people are not allowed to visit children, attend hospital meetings etc.

    What the judge in CA said was he found no constitutional right to exclude contracts based on sexual orientation. What the populace said was that they desire to create a specific denial of rights granted by the constitution (as detirmined by the judges)

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:22pm

83. I believe that I can explain this situation. The banking industry is being bailed out because, correctly or not, the perception is that there will be a Domino Effect that will bring down the world's banking industry if we don't act to stop it. On the other hand, if the Big Three fail, there are plenty of other car manufacturers, many of whom make better cars. Why does this animosity cross over into the Left? Because many of us don't support bailing out *any* corporate FatCats, including GM's. We do want to save the workers, but not by lavishing money on the bosses. We fear that the money will be wasted, and that the industry will fail anyway in a year. We want to see a deal that either converts these companies from manufacturing problems (most of their vehicles are resource wasters and climate degraders), to manufacturing solutions like mass transit and electric and hybrid vehicles. Failing that admittedly long shot, we want to see an actual plan that will protect the workers and fix the companies.

    Posted by mabel33 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:30pm

84. Brown V Board of education.

    Judicial activism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:31pm

85. Should the law even recognize that men and women are different?

    "All men are created equal" does not mean all MEN alone anymore.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:22pm

    Crabman, technically, "All men are created equal" is not "law".

    The "All mean are created equal" was a statement in the Declaration of Independece which is not law.

    The US Constitution is "law" and it has been amended over the years to grant equal rights to blacks, former slaves, women, and non-US citizens.

    But men and women are not the same, even if they are equal

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

86. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

    Darin, back to "Jim Crow"...was it a legal basis for discrimination because "states passed the law"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

87. If all 50 states tomorrow said that all civil contracts between two people regardless of gender would be legal, the homosexuals would not be satisfied. They have stated that they want the term marriage to include them.

    That is the true heart of this debate.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:28pm |

    BS

    Many gay people do not want "marriage". They would be happy with something along the lines of domestic partnerships. Here in MI the right wing had placed into the amendment to our Const that something to the effect that " any language that would cosntitute a domestic partnership will also be illegal".

    the homsexual agenda is the same as the Black agenda, the white agenda, the womens agenda. They want to be treated as people.

    why don't you want to treat them as people?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:34pm

88. The US Constitution is "law" and it has been amended over the years to grant equal rights to blacks, former slaves, women, and non-US citizens.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

    Yep, called the 14th Amendment (among others)....and it says "equal protection under the law" cannot be denied to CITIZENS.

    Care to explain how homosexuals are not citizens?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:36pm

89. "They want to redefine a religious term. "

    AWWW.

    Are you under attack again, Larry?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:36pm

90. 10,000 gay people were married in Californaia.

    Were any of you harmed in ANY way?

    I cans see it now, when this comes before the Supremes it will be the "conservatives" reaching for international law as the standard.

    hehe

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:41pm

91. Darin, back to "Jim Crow"...was it a legal basis for discrimination because "states passed the law"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

    Again, I'm no lawyer like you are, but my understanding is that poll taxes, literacy test, and the like prohibited blacks from exercising rights that whites were allowed to exercise. This means that Jim Crow violated the fourtheen amendment (ratified July 9, 1868) and fifteenth amendment (ratified February 3, 1870).

    Thus, Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional because they treated whites and blacks differently.

    Marriage laws treat straight men the same as gay men. They are both allowed to marry unmarried women past the age of majority who are not blood relatives. So I don't see the connection.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:42pm

92. Care to explain how homosexuals are not citizens?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:36pm

    I neve said that. You know I neve said that. Every single person reading this blog knows I never said that. People make judgements based on arguements. If your arguement is that marriage laws are unconstitutional becasue Darin said homosexuals aren't citizens, then you have just proposed the most ridiculous argument ever here at The Nation's blogs.

    Find one marriage law in any staty that says Joe can marry Sally, but Bob can't because he is gay.

    This is what it takes to successfully challenge a law on an equal protections clause. Find one marriage law that mentions "love" and you have a shot at challenging a marriage law on an equal protections clause.

    But you can't. So you continue ridiculous "arguments" like, "Darin said homosexuals aren't people."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:48pm

93. the homsexual agenda is the same as the Black agenda, the white agenda, the womens agenda. They want to be treated as people.

    why don't you want to treat them as people?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:34pm

    I can't answer for LVL, but I do treat them as people. By that, if they want a law changed, I expect them to lobby for popular support, introduce a bill into the legislature, and get the governor to sign it.

    As to your summation of the "homosexual agenda", I agree, they want to be treated as people. I am trying to help them achieve that. If they use judges to impose thier perspective on marriage on the majority, it will take a hell of a lot longer before the are veiwed as "people" and not "cheaters."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:54pm

94. 10,000 gay people were married in Californaia.

    Were any of you harmed in ANY way?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:41pm

    And absence of harm does not mean gays are entitled to have the law changed. They have to make thier case like anybody else who wants the law changed.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 12:58pm

95. I'm not saying that the Civil war was wrong. Clearly, slavery was a travesty. But as a matter of politics, it might have been better to let the Union break up. It would have saved 500,000 lives. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 3:05pm

    I've read other posts on this blog but I really take umbrage with the saving of 500,000 lives. It seems you are discounting the value of the slaves' lives. I think it's a bit naive to think that the "south" would have come around to equality for all without a revolution of some sort. Because of the utter cruelty of the system of slavery, it was bound to end in a bloodbath. That's just my opinion.

    Posted by k330k at 11/26/2008 @ 1:05pm

96. Darin just answered his own challenge by conveniently leaving off the other options for which the law does not provide: a straight man marrying a gay woman, a straight man marrying a straight man, a gay man marrying a straight man, a gay woman marrying a straight woman, and a straight woman marrying a straight woman.

    If none of those scenarios are on the table and permissable, whether or not YOU believe that civilization "worked fine" without them prior to 2000, then they are promoting inequality, and by extension, harm.

    Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 1:12pm

97. I've read other posts on this blog but I really take umbrage with the saving of 500,000 lives. It seems you are discounting the value of the slaves' lives. I think it's a bit naive to think that the "south" would have come around to equality for all without a revolution of some sort. Because of the utter cruelty of the system of slavery, it was bound to end in a bloodbath. That's just my opinion.

    Posted by k330k at 11/26/2008 @ 1:05pm

    I have to respectfully disagree. How many other contries required a bloody civil war to end slavery?

    China? Japan? Germany? France? Canada? Mexico? Brazil? Austrailia? India?

    The North got rid of slavery without a war. I say it was inevitable, war or not.

    Also, I am not forgetting about the slaves. In 1865 there were slaves that were mostly born slaves. At the war's end they were free, like many northern blacks, but most were illiterate becasue of laws against teaching blacks to read.

    It was a horrible situation. And a change in the law didn't magically make everything better. Slow, continued progress might have gotten the US to better racial relations quicker than a war.

    It's a tortise and hare thing.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:25pm

98. Darin just answered his own challenge by conveniently leaving off the other options for which the law does not provide: a straight man marrying a gay woman, a straight man marrying a straight man, a gay man marrying a straight man, a gay woman marrying a straight woman, and a straight woman marrying a straight woman.

    If none of those scenarios are on the table and permissable, whether or not YOU believe that civilization "worked fine" without them prior to 2000, then they are promoting inequality, and by extension, harm.

    Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 1:12pm

    You are wrong. A straight man can marry a gay woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman. a striaght man can marry a straigh woman, and a gay man can marry a straight woman.

    Those are the permutations that the law allows.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:28pm

99. Larry, it depends on what you want to define as "the homsexual agenda". I know LOTS of gay people that do not want to use the term marriage. You provided examples of people that do.

    I provided an example of current law PROHIBITING civil unions.

    A state issues a "marriage license", it has zero bearing on religious affiliation. "marriage" is not JUST a religious term, it is legal also.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 1:39pm

100. We have a sign in the door of my office. It has the circle with the slash through it signifying "Do not do this", you know like a "No BS" sign with the ppicture of the squatting bull with a circle and slash.

     What the sign on my door says is "But we never did it that way before", slashed through! Just because we have always done something one way does not mean we always have to, it does not mean that the old way is the right way, the best way or the only way.

     What confuses me is that the cons want to open all borders to trade. They want to change the rules of who can go to war when. They want to change business practices to benifit large multi-national corporations. They tell us to change with the times or die.

     But, when it comes to a change in simple contractural language, all of a sudden they go apeshit about "tradition".

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 1:45pm

101. Here's your problems Darin....

     1. The only definitional difference you're offering for what one adult can't marry another adult is...because of their gender. Which is discriminatory. You keep saying "There's nothing preventing a straight man from marrying a woman or a gay man from marrying a woman"....okay, so aside from just "We don't like it" what is there to say "There's nothing to prevent a gay man from marrying a gay man"?

     Otherwise you just pick and choose your "qualification". And if you CAN pick and chose the qualification, than by YOUR VIEW of Constitutionality, there is NOTHING un-Constitutional about a state passing a law saying ...

     "Marriage shall be between one adult man of one RACE and one adult woman of the SAME race!"...nothing. Because you merely are saying that race can play a factor just like gender can play a factor. It's merely whatever discriminatory qualifier the state gets to pick by "majority vote".

     2. If your Constitutional ground is so strong?....why do your Repubs in the Congress keep pushing a "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would limit via the Constitution it to "one man and one woman"???? Seems you're saying it's "already Constitutional", no? Or maybe your GOP friends know different?

     3. Time and demographics are against you (and LVLIB). Even younger evangelical Christians are less concerned with gay rights, even supportive of them, than oldsters. Over 50, majorities feel as you do. Under 50, not a majority.

     So by simple attrition...it'll happen.

     Ergo, by death or implementation of the Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause...

     you've already lost. Which is what I said back at

     "Darin, I'm not in your "gay marriage" fight, because you have already lost it."

     Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 1:55pm

102. But, when it comes to a change in simple contractural language, all of a sudden they go apeshit about "tradition".

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 1:45pm

     Not all. This Con wants changes. I just want the changes to occur legitimately.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:56pm

103. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I hope the next few days find you and your loved ones in hopeful, pleasant spirits.

     Cheers

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:57pm

104. Care to explain how homosexuals are not citizens? Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:36pm

     Just a thought here...

     Homosexual is about a form of sexual practice. So if they are not citizens, does that mean that anyone performing sexual positions other than mission are not citizens?

     Just a thought....

     Posted by Charmie at 11/26/2008 @ 2:13pm

105. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I hope the next few days find you and your loved ones in hopeful, pleasant spirits.

     Cheers

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     ....except if you're two gay people who believe a court has the power to expound a constitution and declare marriage laws unconstitutional....then you deserve the hate that straight bigots will harbor against you.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/26/2008 @ 2:13pm

106. You did not respond to my suggestion that the term marriage be deleted from the govt terminology and use some form of civil union contract.

     I find it hard to believe that there could be a legitimate debate if all parties were contracted through a state license that read civil union.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 1:46

     My apologies.

     I agree.

     However, as I stated above, marriage is a legal as well as a religious term. I submit that it is you that wish to redifine "marriage" as soley the domain of religion.

     Marriage can be entered into for legal reasons, there need be no love.

     Marriage can be entered into for love, the legal underpinnings could be considered icing on the cake.

     Polygamists practice ...errg the phrase escapes me..."celestial marriage" maybe? In the eyes of God they are married to multiple women. Would you allow that under the freedom of religion clause? The courts say "no".

     Personally I have no real issue with polgamy, as long as it is not used as a tool to defraud. If someone is dumb enough to want more than one wife, that is his problem. Why should the state interfere in the personal lives of individuals as it relates to cohabitation?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 2:18pm

107. Posted by Charmie at 11/26/2008 @ 2:13pm

     Anti-gay marriage advocates break down into two categories, well exampled by our friends Darin and LVLIB-

     1. The "Tradition!" (cue Tevye from "Fiddler") angle....Darin TT's angle. "It's just always been that way, so that's the way it is and there's nothing wrong with that!" Problem is that slavery was "traditional"...women not equal before the law to men was "traditional"....CHILD LABOR was "traditional".

     2. The religious angle....LVLIB's. Both the paranoid "They're going to force our churches to marry them gays!!!!" (prima facie ridiculous since there's no way to FORCE a church to marry ANYBODY now. Larry's church is perfectly within their rights to not marry people of the same race ((though he is))...or a non-Christian to a Christian....or a redhead to a brunette if they like).

     or the more idiotic "Marriage is defined by the Judeo-Christian definition"....which again brings us back to slavery (Bible not real opposed to that)....and the basic fact that there's nothing in the Constitution that says we're a "Christian country".

     Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:20pm

108. The turkey I will be eating was spotted attempting to mount another turkey of the same sex.

     Is he not a turkey in Gods eyes?

     Should I not be allowed to eat him after such an "unnatural" act?

     will he taste different?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 2:21pm

109. (minor correction)

     "Larry's church is perfectly within their rights to not marry people of DIFFERENT races ((though he is))...---Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:20pm

     Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:22pm

110. What John Nichols should have said isthe unionized Big Three plants will be competitive with nonunion plants in 2010 -- not now. That's when the UAW takes over running the health care benefits with a big cash grant from GM, Ford and Chrysler (if it still exists). The two-tier wage system is being implemented, but it doesn't even the financial score by a long shot.

     That's why the Big Three are making their case for a "bridge" loan. Give us a bridge to 2010 and we can make it, goes the argument.

     Even so, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler still will need to cut even more plants and brands than they have already done during the past several years, according to an analysis by the Anderson Economic Group in East Lansing, which has been tracking the auto industry.

     What should be frightening to supporters of a bailout is that AEG founder Patrick Anderson says the domestic automakers WON'T be able to repay their federal loans if they are forced to reorganize themselves "under political goals." That means, if Congress attaches too many strings to the loans -- forcing production quotas for hybrids and other super-fuel-efficient vehicles that may not sell well when gas is $1.65 a gallon here in the Midwest -- the federal aid will do little good.

     Liberals may not mind trying to nationalize the automakers for their own ends, but they could easily suffocate the Big Three.

     Don't forget: Toyota, Honda and Nissan sell SUVs, big trucks and minivans -- not just hybrids (only 2.5 percent of the market now) and compacts. Put too much of an uncompetitive chokehold on Detroit with politically correct mandates, and the Japanese automakers and others will swoop in to sell the vehicles that customers still want.

     Richard Burr Associate Editor, Editorial Page The Detroit News

     Posted by RichardBurr at 11/26/2008 @ 2:22pm

111. I like the first one better, MASK. I think people of the SAME race should not be allowed to be married, just as people of the same SEX should not be allowed to marry, under American Taliban rule.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 2:26pm

112. Posted by RichardBurr at 11/26/2008 @ 2:22pm

     Who is trying to nationalize the auto industry? I have not heard any comment about applying bailout monies to acquire plants, akin to applying monies to acquire "toxic" assets from a bank.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 2:28pm

113. Someone help me here:

     The mantra is; we have to get money into the banks so they can loan it out.

     GM/Ford/Chrysler need loans.

     It looks like the cons want to give/loan the money to CitGroup so that they can then turn around and loan it to GM, AFTER taking a cut.

     why not just loan it straight to GM. with appropriate strings?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 2:34pm

114. Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 1:12pm

     You are wrong. A straight man can marry a gay woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman. a striaght man can marry a straigh woman, and a gay man can marry a straight woman.

     Those are the permutations that the law allows.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:28pm

     You are correct. So strike those from my original statement and you are still left with options that promote inequality, and by extension harm, which you contend doesn't exist.

     As Lvl said, strike "marriage" from all laws and constitutions and leave it solely to religious affiliations (which will never happen of course). I'd be surprised if a majority of people here would be against that, however, I'd be interested in hearing why.

     Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 2:54pm

115. "It looks like the cons want to give/loan the money to CitGroup so that they can then turn around and loan it to GM, AFTER taking a cut." Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 2:34pm

     My understanding that CitiGroup, or maybe it was AGI, has already been using the money to buy up other companies instead of helping those who are losing their homes. I may have misunderstood that. People were talking while I was trying to hear the TV.

     I have already lost my home in 2005 when all the mortgage scams began to be known nationally, and as long as I don't think too much about it, I don't cry. The mortgage broker never once spoke of the loan in terms of plural. It wasn't until I sat down at the title company's table that 2 sets of papers were laid in front of me. I asked what the second was about; they said a 2nd loan. I had one day left to move from my ex-husband's house. With undue, intimidating influence (according to my business law 101 course, illegal), I had to sign both notes.

     My brother just lost his house, and is currently sleeping on my sofa. Get this; my brother sent a counter solution to the problem--certified mail--to both the mortgage company and their attorneys' offices. Both signed receipt of the offer.

     The offer was very reasonable; combine the two notes, tack the past due payments and penalties onto the end of the note (not a new idea), reduce the interest back to where he started, which the rate he offered was still a lot higher than going rate) and these decisions would have brought the payments back down to what my brother had agreed and could afford when buying the house.

     They took advantage of him that day, and again when they took the house anyway. My brother bought the house for $100,000. A couple days ago, he saw it listed with a realtor for $67,000.

     Posted by Charmie at 11/26/2008 @ 3:13pm

116. Unfortunately, the homosexual agenda on this issue is not about equal rights in establishing civil contracts. They want to redefine a religious term.

     --lvliberty

     Errr...

     I don't think that's true. At all.

     In fact I've heard nary a gay person say that. In FACT, it's usually the complete opposite.

     And lastly, I've shown that in Hinduism, the other major religious tradition that goes as far back almost as Judaism, the tradition is the same, a man and a woman.

     You are trying to do as the homosexuals do and redifine a term to meet an agenda.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 2:59pm

     Once again, not true.

     Show me some widespread, grand homosexual agenda (as if there is such a thing, or as if homosexuals had some sort of political party or all-encompassing charter/group) where they are intent upon redefining anything, and I'll give you a dollar.

     So in that case, if a gay accepting church were to "marry" two homosexuals, is it NOT called marriage?

     Y'know what sounds good to me?

     ALL marriages are civil unions unless otherwise defined by a church or other establishment.

     I don't see anybody asking for anything more, unless there's some extremist offshoot of the "homosexual party" calling for a ruling on the semantics of the issue. An offshoot I have never heard of.

     Posted by TexasFlood at 11/26/2008 @ 3:31pm

117. Darin,

     Go ahead and find me the part of the constitution that addresses gender within marriage.

     I'll wait here.

     Posted by TexasFlood at 11/26/2008 @ 3:32pm

118. Also, why does GM deserve to get bailed out again?

     I missed that part.

     Posted by TexasFlood at 11/26/2008 @ 3:33pm

119. And I'd like the actual wordage explicitly stating what gender can and cannot get married...

     Have fun!

     Posted by TexasFlood at 11/26/2008 @ 3:36pm

120. Bailout: rich people taking care of other rich people.

     Religion: keeping fags in their place.

     any other questions?

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/26/2008 @ 3:56pm

121. Setting aside the fact that "pervert" is a subjective term, I'm inferring that "supporting perverts" means encouraging their behavior.

     Choosing not to strip them of their rights doesn't mean encouragement anymore than not stripping people (some christians) that are into BDSM of theirs, or not stripping an interracial couple of theirs, or a redheaded stepchild, or the black sheep, or a peg-leg.

     If there is a god almighty, it's his/her responsibility to sort every individual out, not my government's.

     Posted by ender21 at 11/26/2008 @ 5:23pm

122. They can have all the civil contracts they want, but this remains not an issue of equal before the law; they want to be equals before G-d and religion. And that won't happen.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:44pm

     1. Since when does religion dictate American law?

     2.Who cares what they want, as far as god and religion? It may offend you personally, but we were discussing constitutionally correct law in America. This unproven non-sequitur, is beside the point of the topic (American law).

     They want equality before the law. If any seek equality with god, it is their problem and again, irrelevant to the law.

     Your point on the origin of the word is a straw man. Most english words, in common usage, are derivative of other languages. Most do not have the same definition, much less cultural baggage from their place/time of origin.

     You claim to be a strict constituionalist and believer in the separation of church and state.

     Darin still misses the constitutional point of equal protection. Then babbles on about activist judges, when it is their job to invalidate unconstitutional law.

     OTOH prop.8 IS a constitutional amendment, so I fail to see how a California judiciary could do much about it. It seems to me, a referendum to repeal it or a federal judge would be the only remedy.

     I agree that the state should not "marry" people, they should all get a civil union and the go to a church to "marry" if they wish. But, this is just parsing words and as revisionist of the term "marriage" as you claim the gays are.

     Besides, what's to stop a 'gay church' from merely marrying gays? If Marriage isn't a legal term, then anyone can claim it.

     In the end, we'd all have civil unions and say we're married. It's lose/lose for you.

     Let freedom win this one.

     Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 7:16pm

123. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 4:36pm

     "Either way, it is because you disrespect traditions and and never learned to respect your elders."

     Some traditions have merit. Some don't. It's called discrimination. My "elders" were small minded, racist, anti-intellectual, sexist, homophobes. Where does the respect come in again?

     "There just isn't any logical reason if you respect natural order, civilization, and some sense of moral decency that would lead any rational person to embrace this stand you folks take in supporting perverts."

     Define "natural order".

     Which civilization?

     I've been supporting a pervert, ever since I moved out of my parents house. Now I support two perverts. (What can I say? I love her.)

     How about respecting reason, not tradition.

     Science, not some nebulous "natural order".

     And human rights, not civilization, which a various times in history, was less than civilized.

     Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 7:40pm

124. "I'm not saying that the Civil war was wrong. Clearly, slavery was a travesty. But as a matter of politics, it might have been better to let the Union break up. It would have saved 500,000 lives."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 3:05pm

     "According to the 1860 U.S. census, nearly four million slaves were held in a total population of just over 12 million in the 15 states in which slavery was legal."

     -wikipedia

     I'm sure those four million folks and their decendants, for a few generations, are mighty sad that so many gave so much for so few.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 7:46pm

125. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I hope the next few days find you and your loved ones in hopeful, pleasant spirits.

     Cheers

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:57pm

     You too, Darin. ------------------------------------- I'm sure those four million folks and their decendants, for a few generations, are mighty sad that so many gave so much for so few.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 7:46pm

     Thank you. You summed that up quite nicely.

     Posted by k330k at 11/26/2008 @ 8:13pm

126. My bad. I was tryin to separate postings and my responses to them. Oh well. Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

     Posted by k330k at 11/26/2008 @ 8:15pm

127. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 2:59pm

     Larry, this isn't a racism attack on you (cuz I know you're not one), but your line of thinking on the word "marriage" is like saying...

     "I don't care if they're given equal rights, I just want the State to keep calling them 'Negroes', since 'black' or 'African-American' are meaningless terms!"

     If the State calls a "marriage" license a "marriage" license...regardless if it's hetero or homosexual in nature...then ...so what? You're free to say "Well, it's not a 'marriage' the way my religion tells me!"

     Posted by Mask at 11/27/2008 @ 07:30am