Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Yeah! Fuck those hypocritical tehgays! Why aren't they asking for everyone to lose the state-provided privileges of marriage?

Um.. Wrong group.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

You were defining yourself out of the group of elites? Why?

I think she's a Texas Elite rather than an Eastern Elite. They're even better.

Now, try to repeat these words without laughing: Detroit Elite.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(NOTE: If someone wanted to marry their pet, shouldn't we allow that? What better way to remove an idiot from the gene pool?)

"nice for new year" hank passes on mean post here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don't the people receiving this benefit realize they're keeping a nickel now at cost of a quarter a year or two down the road?

Yes, but if we take the nickel now, we can swap the quarter a year or two down the road in exchange for a dollar three or four years down the road, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Be interesting to see Krugman's reponse to this.

If only there were some way to find out.

(Of course Krugman will argue the tax break side of it has no stimulative effect

Wrong. See above.

(The question is how much and at what cost, not none.)

Don't the people receiving this benefit realize they're keeping a nickel now at cost of a quarter a year or two down the road?

Wait. I thought that was the entire foundation of your political philosophy? Maybe they don't expect to be aroudn in a year or two?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Um.. Wrong group.

What? Are you forgetting the children? The supporters of Prop 8 are just trying to prevent a world where pre-schoolers are taught homosexuality.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

If these people cared about what they claim to care about they would be advocating for the government to get out of the marriage business. But they aren't because they don't.

This is actually what I advocate.

State involvement in marriage is an anachronism.

Unfortunately, like the dream of privatising SS, removing the State from regulating marriage is not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever (frankly I would bet on the dissolution of the USA happening before we see the State out of marriage) and in that context I suppourt gay marriage. Also, it adds to my street with the lesbians, which I value.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Wait. I thought that was the entire foundation of your political philosophy? Maybe they don't expect to be aroudn in a year or two?

Seb is for it; he just doesn't understand why all the rubes are for it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

What? Are you forgetting the children? The supporters of Prop 8 are just trying to prevent a world where pre-schoolers are taught homosexuality.

Indeed.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by penske 2.0

this is actually what i advocate.

State involvement in marriage is an anachronism.

Unfortunately, like the dream of privatising ss, removing the state from regulating marriage is not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever (frankly i would bet on the dissolution of the usa happening before we see the state out of marriage) and in that context i suppourt gay marriage. Also, it adds to my street with the lesbians, which i value.

2

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I was remarking to my boyfriend when we were listening to the story this morning that say what you will about elites, I'm really glad they're on my side on this fight.

I don't think Olsen or Boies are elites on this matter. I think they're strict common sensists. There is no logical argument against gay marriage. The sides here are traditionalists versus people applying common sense. Many people think those two groups are one in the same. They are not. It's only via limitation in the way humans assess things (believing that because things were done one way for a long time, such structure is infallible) that we've come to believe something as non-radical as allowing two people to unite for life should be limited to opposite sexes. Gay marriage isn't "damaging" anything. It's merely rethinking a flawed social tradition. And courts aren't radical or "elite" for entertaining the challenge. They're applying logic, which is what they're supposed to do.*

*Public policy arguments to the contrary aren't worthy of consideration. In this debate, they're a cheap way of arguing tradition deserves protection. Tradition that can't withstand logical scrutiny doesn't deserve anything but more scrutiny.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Wait. I thought that was the entire foundation of your political philosophy? Maybe they don't expect to be aroudn in a year or two?

I've never said I was against leaving something on the table. It's only when I know it won't cost me a fortune later that I'm in favor of taking all I can up front. In this instance, I don't think the trade is wise. This I see a potential huge loser.

If I were old or terminally ill, I may think differently. I'm not. And I don't think a lot of the people getting the breaks are either. I think the better play here is to concede a bit to keep the gravy train running a little longer.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've never said I was against leaving something on the table. It's only when I know it won't cost me a fortune later that I'm in favor of taking all I can up front. In this instance, I don't think the trade is wise. This I see a potential huge loser.

If I were old or terminally ill, I may think differently. I'm not. And I don't think a lot of the people getting the breaks are either. I think the better play here is to concede a bit to keep the gravy train running a little longer.

I suspect that they don't think the future dollar is going to come from their pockets. And they are probably right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Seb is for it; he just doesn't understand why all the rubes are for it.

No, I'm not. I think a $750k cap would have been better. It would be largely symbolic, but it would send the right message. The current deal sends the worst possible message.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I suspect that they don't think the future dollar is going to come from their pockets. And they are probably right.

They're fools. Except for the whales who can diversify entirely to avoid domestic exposure, everybody will feel the loss in value of some asset impacted if our economy rolls over. Which it will.