OCinBuffalo

Link This lady wanted an even larger "stimulus" bill.... The OMB guy quit last month. Rats leaving the ship maybe? But, I wonder. Perhaps the reason they wanted a bigger stimulus is they knew what they putting out was a pay-off, and they figured they had no choice about that. So, they wanted to do the union/college professor pay-off AND things that would actually stimulate the economy? Who knows? I guess we will have to wait for them to write their books. Small consolation given how badly they screwed us. Still waiting for all those "shovel ready" jobs and projects to start. It's been a year and nothing.

It depends, I am still trying to get my head around the 1.5 million dollars that rolled by on the counter while I was waiting for the video to buffer.

You are right. The problem is: every "true conservative" I know isn't going to let D-bag liberals push them around on anything. Conservative '= candy ass. There were 20 better ways for this issue to be approached, and the leftists idiots chose to take the "lower than whaleschit in the ocean", scumbag approach. I re-read this thread, and I haven't found any of the right's usual suspects championing anything but civil rights for gays. The problem is: the liberals bungled this big time, and now it's a mess. Of course, instead of taking the blame for their f up, they are, as usual, blaming everybody else but themselves. And, reality check: the Democratic party has been 10x more racist than the GOP historically. I would argue, and I would be right, that far too many Democratic policies have produced "racist" results, unintentionally or otherwise. That is, unless you support the idea that black women should just "have as many babies as they want" and the LBJs of the world will implement policies to support and encourage that behavior. Minority families have been utterly destroyed as a result of LBJ's "help". The War on Poverty has worked out exactly as well as the War on Drugs. The intentions may have been good, but the results have been horrible, and "racist" in every sense of the word.

I was going to refer you to John Adams, so he could tell you about the concept of "legal precedent", but apparently he needs remedial work on the 1st Amendment, so I will take over for him : 1. The "religious people" and their values, were here first, defining marriage their way. All the subsequent legal questions and rulings have been predicated on the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman = religious people definition. 2. As GG has said, the big mistake was making this religious institution part of our civil law, but we did, and now, the religious definition IS the legal definition. Whether we like it or not is legally irrelevant. 3. What you care/don't care about is also legally irrelevant. 4. What people who want traditional marriage care about is NOT legally irrelevant, because, they have the legal precedent(1-2) on their side. 5. So, it comes down to this: you have to prove that the traditional marriage people have intentionally set out to deny gay people their rights, and that ain't happening, because they didn't. Traditional marriage people never had any sort of malicious intent, they simply created a religious institution, 3000+ years ago, and our governments co-opted it as it was defined. In all cases, you have to prove that the way things are is intentionally inequitable. Therefore, their principles(values) win because they were here first. If you want to force your values(because that's the right word here, not principles) on the traditional people, you have to make the case. If you can't, or it's a "tie", then their values remain in place. I keep saying it, because for reasons passing understanding, some here can't seem to accept this simple truth. And, keep in mind that the Democratically dominated NYS legislature passed a law against performing gay marriages. Clearly, that = Democrats AND Conservatives forcing their views on leftists. Nope. As I said, the traditional definition has become a matter of law. If you want to change the law, you have to make the case. The case for gay marriage was made by immature D-bags, who put their need to antagonize above the legal issues, and the 45 anti-gay marriage laws are the result. Your elected representatives, bowing to the - now-fired up by leftist idiots - will of their constituents, passed the laws. Now, it's even harder for gay people to get the rights they deserve, directly due to this infantile hubris. When everybody gets done talking, or trying to make this about me, the above remains the truth.

Sure it does. Their approach ended up costing gay people big time, and making a relatively simple equity/tax/inheritance issue into a major f'ing deal. That's wrong anyway you look at it. I should not have to explain to a lawyer, that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. That's wrong. How the hell is weaponizing gay marriage so you can antagonize people you hate(let's not kid ourselves: this was 100% motivated by hatred of religion) not absolutely wrong? Never mind stupid, given that their club is way bigger than yours, and they beat you with it 45 times? No sir, this is wrong all day, and you know it. Gay rights took a back seat to the liberals' need to be D-bags, and that is wrong. Your reading comprehension of my posts in this thread has taken a back seat to your need to be a D-bag, and that is also wrong. Say what? You are acting like the kooky fringe religions, who are the only ones that will marry gays, are the majority. Clearly, 45 state laws later, that is not the case. The majority of religions have absolutely 0 interest in having their sacraments f'ed with by you, me, anybody. You think the Pope gives a crap about what you or I think? How about the Dali Lama? Religions, not you, and certainly not me, get to decide who gets to be in their group, and who doesn't. They also get to decide what they will do, and what they won't. Nice attempt at a straw man, but YOU are arguing that it's ok to force ALL religions to marry gays, because SOME religions, or individuals want to. Yeah, that makes sense, counselor. 1st Amendment? Again, I can't believe I have to explain these things to a lawyer. Again, I have no idea why you are trying to personalize this to me. You have the reading comprehension skills of ....conner. As, in order, ..lybob, GG and I and the rest here already stated: We think that civil unions, or some legal construct, should be the thing where all legal rights, issues, questions, and other lawyer douchebaggery should be attached. Leave marriage a religious thing, to be conducted by each religion as they see fit. I added: let a religious marriage "count" as a civil union/whatever legal construct we require. I don't think anybody in this thread has a problem with that, especially me. Get it, Bonehead?

You aren't even paying attention. Me: Nobody includes me, dipschit. Again, you aren't even paying attention to what I am saying. Try reading what I write before opening your dopey mouth.

There was an HBO? movie in the 90s that basically played out that scenario. Some ridiculous, acorn-like lady sues to force a state(Colorado? Montana? Somewhere 100s of miles away from the border) to accept illegal alien kids in their schools and wins, and when the bus gets to the border to bring them in, the governor deploys the national guard. Other sates send their national guards in support, and hilarity ensues. I am praying that we don't get anywhere near this. But, just like in the movie, many in the army will not follow illegal orders. Contravening Federal law and American sovereignty by ordering the suppression/arrest/imprisonment of American citizens in favor of illegal immigrant non-citizens? That is the definition of an illegal order. Sure, Eisenhower sent the 101st to Arkansas, but that was to protect citizens from other citizens. Obama is no Eisenhower, and worse, the Army has clearly crossed into only "respecting the office", not the man, territory.

So, hmm, is this equivalent to LBJ losing Walter Cronkite? Given the state of our current society? I bet it's not far off. I wonder what the demographics/identifications are on the Anti-tan tax people. I have a name for them: Jersey D-bag voters.

Hehe But, Churchill said: "I'd rather be right than consistent". I am inclined to agree. God help you if some massive unplanned change/series of events happens that directly contradicts one of your positions, then, you will be doomed to a conner-like existence of being consistently wrong.

I could ask: I just don't see why gay people are demanding that their civil unions be called "marriages". I just don't see the uproar in terminology here. How do you answer that? Because something doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to other people, and their views don't get to be diminished just because you say "it's no big deal". And, you better be prepared for a fight if you purposely set out to antagonize large portions of American society. In this country, since we don't believe in ideology over practicality, you need to back up what you say with facts, and you need to construct a convincing argument. In this case, the argument wasn't: we should solve an inequity problem wrt gay families, specifically dealing with taxes, investments, inheritance, etc. No, the argument was: we should diminish the views of the religious right on gay marriage, and chastise them if they stand up for themselves, because religion = bad, immoral, opposed to freedom, blah, f'ing, blah. The rational first argument was supplanted by the liberal jackass 2nd argument, and therefore failed miserably. As I said, they purposefully picked a political fight and got their ass kicked. That pretty much sums it up.

They started this and they purposely set out to impose their will on the American people. They had no interest in treating this as in inequity problem that needed to be solved. If that was their premise, this issue would have been rationally dealt with quickly and quietly. Instead, they treated this as an opportunity to embarrass and chastise religious people, while claiming the phony moral high ground and therefore freeing themselves from attack. They seriously miscalculated, because most people saw through their BS, and concluded that there is nothing "moral" about setting out to purposely chastise other people. They picked a political fight, and they got their ass kicked. Their arrogance and immaturity cost them, and more importantly gay people's rights, dearly. My argument is not about "framing". It is merely a statement of what happened and why. You might not like what happened and why, but, then again, nobody does, so you aren't special.

What? You don't see me having to dodge heroin addicts relieving themselves on the street as an endearing picture for San Francisco? Come on, isn't seeing the results of overblown liberal douchebaggery charming? Hehe. I know they built public toilets on the street....so now the heroin addicts have a place to crap, and shoot up, in private! Now the city has to pay for their upkeep, and of course, hire more government workers to maintain them. Progress! Every progressive can point to this progress and say "See!".

Seems like another in a long line of rational compromises. Now, it's just a matter of getting your liberal pals to agree to it. And, it might make sense for a marriage performed by a religion to count as a civil union. Why make people do it twice? This way, the religions that want to allow gays to marry are free to do so, those that don't aren't forced to do so. Everything still counts as a civil union, and the rights are all the same. Or something like that. There is common ground on this issue that 80% of us can get behind, the problem is, just like with health care, the liberals aren't willing to compromise. They want to force the religious to accept principles that they simply cannot, or, they want to force religion out of the national consciousness altogether. Hardly a "tolerant" view. At least 80% of this country believes in God, hence, the 45 anti-gay marriage laws. I am still waiting for these fools to learn from their mistakes. It seems that they have no concept of introspection however, so it seems they never will.

Yep. Nope. The liberals and the gays want MARRIAGE, not civil unions, and won't compromise on it. You are blaming the wrong people here. From what I have heard/seen, the ultra religious, for the most part, couldn't care less about civil unions, they just don't want them to be called marriages. This schit was started by liberals in Massachusetts who thought they could ram gay marriage, not civil unions, down our throats(hmm, anybody else see a pattern?). The proposed, rational, compromise = civil unions, was rejected by the liberals and some gays, because it wasn't marriage. 45 state anti-gay marriage laws later, and they still haven't learned a thing. This stopped being about gay marriage, and started being about jackass liberals trying to force their agenda, and pissing people off, a long time ago. Unfortunately, gay people's rights are now playing a distant second fiddle. If I was gay, I would ask the liberals to stop "helping" me.

Barring the commission of a crime, your fellow man doesn't have the right to impinge on your rights as a rule. Only in special circumstances, and equitable compensation is due you if that happens. The entire Constitution, and most of our law, is based in part on the concept of equity. The fact that our current leadership has forgotten/ignored this most basic of concepts? Well that is a simply a f-up. And, that f-up is going to cost them dearly for the next 10 years. For example: 71% of Missouri voters just got done with "vote against Obama" practice . Link. 71%? In a swing state? The cartoon dog taking a board to the cartoon cat's ass comes to mind. Our only recourse is not the rifle. Way before that, we have the coming elections. Way before that, the Supreme Court's #1 job is to protect the minority from the the majority. Your concerns are being addressed: the fools are being sued, and they just lost the first round:Rational People 1 White House 0. We haven't even gotten into all the non-violent mass protest options that are available. To quote Glenn Beck: "We surround them", not the other way around. The fact is people that think like you do are the MAJORITY, not the minority. Mistakes were made, and this allowed the minority to be in power...for a little while. Now that they have once again shown us just how petty they are, and just how dopey their policies are, and just how stupid they are, things will get back to normal soon enough. B-I-O-B = Blame it on Bush . BIOB is not working anymore. They have immunized us to it by overusing it. But, in all cases, you are still responsible for what this government does, both good and bad. No amount of complaining changes that Tough schit. That's why getting angry and doing something about it is what you are supposed to do. If you feel that strongly, I am certain the local Tea party would be happy to have you. Then, you aren't one citizen, you are many.

More quantitative evidence that they simply don't know the material. I wonder if Dave is blissful in his ignorance?

You know, as I just re-read that? That's what happens on regular construction jobs! I can't even imagine what they will do on this one. I just keep picturing all these "Frank Rizzo"s showing up and just doing nothing all day, and their cousins showing up at night and robbing the place blind. Never mind what the unions/mafia will do. It's a license to steal: who's going to give them a hard time? The cops? Nope. The FBI? Not a chance. These tools have a right to do what they want, but, they don't have to be douchebags about it. They are going to find out that other people have rights too, and they love being douchebags, especially if it's funny.

You do understand that this has nothing to do with your dad, who for all I know is the greatest autoworker of all time, right? You do understand that the mere concept of an autoworker making $70k is THE REASON manufacturing is rapidly leaving this country, right? Somehow, somebody decided that autoworkers? with no college, no grad school, half ass high school, should be making more then teachers? accountants? anybody? That same somebody has been oblivious to the fact that it's no longer 1950-1965, and the rest of the world's factories aren't completely f'ed. That somebody seems to also be unaware that a whole lot of people in this world can handle the autoworking gig, because it's not that hard to learn, and they are willing to work for $15k a year. Yeah, that somebody is an idiot, and instead of being happy with getting his workers $40k, he decided to push it, and in a few years? ALL of his workers will make $0, and so will he. I heard his name is U. I. Nion.

Too bad there isn't a "crayon" or "finger paint" option on this board. Then we could spell it out for you so you might be able to understand. Do I have to explain? They have a right to build a mosque, but, they are being d-bags about it. This is disrespectful. Period. It lacks class. Period. It is divisive. Period. It doesn't help anybody do anything, other then help this Imam be a d-bag. Period. The funny part is: apparently you don't know NYC that well. (And before you say anything: last time, I told somebody they didn't know Chicago that well, and that it was corrupt. Of course the the d-bag ran his mouth and then Blago happened 2 weeks later . Fair warning.) That Mosque will be completed.....in 30 years.....maybe. God help the company that sings up to build it...they are going to lose, big time. In fact, they might not even be able to get a tri-state company to do the job, and it's f'ing over already if they bring in people from the outside. When every construction worker keeps making "mistakes", provided that the union remembers to assign them, and doesn't have to pull them off the job for "worker safety" violations, when every piece of material keeps showing up broken/late/flawed, when every cop is "distracted" and doesn't stop the hooligans from stealing everything from the site that isn't secured with concrete, when every fireman in the city has a "garbled" radio call to come put out the fires that keep starting....yeah right, after all that is sorted out....then you will see that Mosque get built. NYC is used to giving the finger, not getting it You are talking about uniting the entire town and giving them an opportunity to unleash one of the biggest collective "F U"s of all time, and revel in a massive amount of humor while they do it. That is irresistible, and little mayor "turtle without a shell" Bloomberg isn't going to be able to do a thing about it. 100 million dollars? Those dudes better plan on spending a billion. We'll see if you can tell us what the word "stigma" means 5 years from now when they finally give up.

That's understandable. Sort of. My premise boils down rather simply: everybody loves to talk about the rights they get when they become a citizen here...nobody likes to talk about the responsibilities that come with those rights if we choose to stay here. However, these rights and responsibilities are inseparable and without condition. You don't lose your rights if you vote for the candidate that doesn't win, and you don't lose your responsibilities either. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that we are all equally responsible for "the empire". Whether we like it or not is irrelevant, and, if we don't want the responsibilities, we are free to leave. So, asking us whether we like "the empire" = asking us if we like ourselves. Psychoanalysis aside: the answer to the question isn't something that can be derived easily. Pretending like the rights and responsibility can be separated, or don't exist, is...immature(as nice as I can say it), and therefore also irrelevant. The only thing you can do is lose your rights, based on your actions, but a jackass sitting in prison for life is still just as responsible for "the empire" as we all are. Do you really want me to go into how every other current government except ours was originated, and then do a compare and contrast? Every other democracy except Canada(sorta), Mexico, Israel, the former Easter Bloc, and a few others, has either been imposed by a foreign power, still has ties to a monarchy, has institutionalized socialism or some other BS in its founding documents, has already failed to live up to the concept of "we the people"(see: Russia), or has some similar deficiency. Only a very few went through the same process we did. Only a few freed themselves, and then had the fortitude to build a lasting, purely self-imposed government. As such, only a few truly, originally, and consistently derive their sovereignty from "the people". For example: a British subject, not citizen mind you, bears no responsibility for his country. Like it or not, that still lies with the monarch. The government may be similar, but it is certainly not the same. Their sovereignty comes from...their sovereign. Here, it comes from us. 1. Due to the above, we do not agree that most of the world's governments derive their sovereignty from the people. 2. Sorry to be unhelpful, but this "not in my name" cop-out crap has to go. If I have to pick up a rifle/pay 38% taxes so other people can pick up a rifle/be the asset that balances out 20 sorry-assed people who are liabilities to the country, and defend them, because they are too weak to defend themselves, that's fine. But, that doesn't absolve them of their responsibility, they are just hoping I will handle it for them.

WE are the USA, not the government. Unlike every other dopey country but a few, "we the people" means what it says. This concept that the government is, or ever should be, anything other than an extension of the people is BS. Somehow, some people have gotten this reversed: the people are an extension of the government, and therefore serving the government, and not the people, is the job. When we drop bombs on other people, it's very easy to say "well, I didn't do it", or "not in my name" which is a 100% cop out. People that say that enjoy the security those bombs create equally as much as every other citizen. Whether they like it or not, they have to claim their share of responsibility along with every other citizen. There is no "opting out". This is acceptance of reality and common sense. 2 qualities "the empire" needs badly right now....and really that's where this "empire" stuff comes into play. It's far easier to treat the government, or a corporation, like some nameless, faceless entity, instead of what they really are: a large group of human beings. The Romans learned this and responded accordingly by stamping SPQR on everything, including their soldiers. The P stands for people. We see US (Insert Job Title/Department here) and we don't see the word People anyplace. So really, the question is not: Do you love the Empire? Instead: Do you like how you have been performing as a citizen? Do you like what/how the other citizens have been doing? The "empire" is us. And if we don't like what it is doing, then it is our responsibility, not option, to change it, or choose to leave that to others. In all cases, we must accept our share of responsibility for it's mistakes, and credit for its success. Everything else is a cop out, or nonsense.

There's a joke in that title somewhere...

Round 2! Round 2! Round 2! Round 2! The Most Ethical Congress in HistoryTM will be treating us to 2, simultaneous, ethics trials this fall. Unless...somebody at the DNC.... (because lets face it: Obama's people won't get this right-->they just put him on TV with a convicted felon) realizes that they are about to create the Most Hysterical Congress in History. If not, they will be giving comics material for months, possibly years. Trials? Answers like: That depends on how you define the word 'is'...all over again? For 5-6 weeks? Right before the elections? They can't be this stupid, can they? Somebody will step up and make them take the deals, won't they? The words "hung on your own petard" barely approach this...there are just too many levels. Perhaps: "hung by your own retards...squared?" Cue the Sanford and Son music again....and while that's running in the background...think about all the phony moral superiority, liberal platitudes we have had to endure since 2005...and then just smile

Nah, that's easy. Most Democrats won't hold themselves accountable for anything -- see Barney Frank/Fannie Mae. This way, merit doesn't exist! Everything is relative, and all rational, quantitative standards and performance indicators are rejected as "different points of view". (some dipschit telling me "you see everything in black and white" in 5...4...3...2) If they actually tried to run on merit? As in, for real? Instead of trying reach back and invoke Bush...2 years later? Instead of attacking everybody and everything that moves in a lame effort to take the focus off of themselves? Um...yeah, they'd still lose, and probably worse Nothing is going to work for them, pushing it only makes it worse. I don't want to hear about Bush. This is not a Presidential Campaign. This is about the Most Ethical Congress in History, that we had to elect "immediately" in 2006(anybody remember that?), or terrible things would happen....heh.... .....and their record since 2006.

I just like to see a guy that fakes out his own WRs, never mind the DBs, because he's in the defensive backfield, because he broke the LBs ankles, because he switched fields after the play was going nowhere. Somehow, that's a guy I want on my team.