NYS vote on Gay 'Marriage' tonight

[The Poojer]

What ever you want to call it, if you feel that the definition of marriage is between a man and woman...fine(frankly i don't think that combination has done too stellar a job of representing that term), marriage, union, or tapioca pudding...time to realize that who a person is attracted to has ZERO to do with the makeup of a fellow human being. I really hope NYS politicians vote to approve same sex 'marriage'.

[OCinBuffalo]

What ever you want to call it, if you feel that the definition of marriage is between a man and woman...fine(frankly i don't think that combination has done too stellar a job of representing that term), marriage, union, or tapioca pudding...time to realize that who a person is attracted to has ZERO to do with the makeup of a fellow human being. I really hope NYS politicians vote to approve same sex 'marriage'.

 

IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades.

 

How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs.

 

This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess.

[The Poojer]

look, i get it that you are worried about worst case scenarios, and there will always be someone pushing the envelope......but pushing that envelope leads to consideration of things/ideas that may not have been part of mainstream/conventional/comfortable ways. Change happens, and we need to be able to adapt once we realize that the consequences are minimal at best. Not sure how we can still believe that same sex marriage/union/tapioca pudding can be compromised any further by allowing this to happen, but i hope if the ACLU represents a case where some dude wants to marry a wooly mammoth, that it opens up discussion and we can weigh weather or not that such a union would bring down society as we know it. I am not a lawyer so I don't have that kind of thought process. I just want to see my friends, families, co-workers etc, be able to lead the lives that mixed gender couples have been able to, and subsequently ruin(for the most part, myself included) lead.

 

IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades.

 

How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs.

 

This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess.

[OCinBuffalo]

And, I don't want to see the entire legal system turned into a circus with case after case of buffoonery, which has real consequences, just so you can have a self-righteous Hallmark moment, which is worthless to everyone but you.

 

What about marrying a woolly mamouth are we supposed to "weigh" exactly? Should the kids from this guys first marriage get f'ed out of their inheritance by the mammoth? Does a mammoth now have legal standing in court? How about kids from 2 different women? IF one of the women sue for divorce, does that mean the other woman can claim custody and visitation rights on kids that aren't hers? If the first women gets the divorce, does the other woman now have to pay child support on kids that aren't hers?

 

These aren't "worse case scenarios" these are basic legal questions that have basic legal answers when we define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only in that circumstance.

 

You appear to want to gleefully open a can of worms you have no idea how to deal with...all so you can have a Hallmark moment.

 

That's capricious, to say the least.

look, i get it that you are worried about worst case scenarios, and there will always be someone pushing the envelope......but pushing that envelope leads to consideration of things/ideas that may not have been part of mainstream/conventional/comfortable ways. Change happens, and we need to be able to adapt once we realize that the consequences are minimal at best. Not sure how we can still believe that same sex marriage/union/tapioca pudding can be compromised any further by allowing this to happen, but i hope if the ACLU represents a case where some dude wants to marry a wooly mammoth, that it opens up discussion and we can weigh weather or not that such a union would bring down society as we know it. I am not a lawyer so I don't have that kind of thought process. I just want to see my friends, families, co-workers etc, be able to lead the lives that mixed gender couples have been able to, and subsequently ruin(for the most part, myself included) lead.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Fingon]

IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades.

 

How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs.

 

This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess.

You can't force a Church to marry anyone. They are a religious institution, any such statute would quickly fall in court.

[....lybob]

IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades.

 

How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-upscough cough closet if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs.

 

This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess.Grampa OC opposed civil rights for the same reason "It might be messy"

 

 

And, I don't want to see the entire legal system turned into a circus with case after case of buffoonery, which has real consequences, just so you can have a self-righteous Hallmark moment, which is worthless to everyone but you.He means it's worthless to him and of course he thinks he's everyone

 

What about marrying a woolly mamouth must be new gay slang are we supposed to "weigh" exactly? Should the kids from this guys first marriage get f'ed out of their inheritance by the mammoth? Sounds like a personal issue , your dad could have got a prenup but maybe he got sick of you looking for handouts Does a mammoth now have legal standing in court and could a mammoth fit in a witness chair?? How about kids from 2 different women? IF one of the women sue for divorce, does that mean the other woman can claim custody and visitation rights on kids that aren't hers? If the first women gets the divorce, does the other woman now have to pay child support on kids that aren't hers? How is this different from any other blended family?

 

These aren't "worse case scenarios" these are basic legal questions that have basic legal answers when we define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only in that circumstance.

 

You appear to want to gleefully open a can of worms you have no idea how to deal with...all so you can have a Hallmark moment.

 

That's capricious, to say the least.

[Gary M]

You can't force a Church to marry anyone. They are a religious institution, any such statute would quickly fall in court.

 

Do you want to bet on that?

 

If/when this passes and a church refuses to marry them they will be violating their civil rights.

[UConn James]

Do you want to bet on that?

 

If/when this passes and a church refuses to marry them they will be violating their civil rights.

 

A civil right does not trump the freedom of religion wrt churches being able to define their own rites, rules, membership, etc.

 

Most of the concerns about this are unfounded. There may be some navigating to do wrt to OC's example of parentage and alimony, but I'm sure there's case law that will help guide the way. Regardless, that's not a valid excuse for the government to continue to deny freedom and equal rights/protections.

 

Like I've said before, I'm ashamed at how fellow Republicans continue to impose their moral orders on people who don't hold those moral orders.

Edited June 16, 2011 by UConn James

[erynthered]

Former SB hero speaks out against Gay marriage.

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/david-tyree-gay-marriage-will-lead-to-anarchy-20110616-ncx

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Was grampa OC a democrat? I doubt it, so he probably wasn't opposing civil rights. You're just another self righteous revisionist, lyrbob.

Edited June 16, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[Fingon]

Do you want to bet on that?

 

If/when this passes and a church refuses to marry them they will be violating their civil rights.

Yeah, which is why the Catholic Church is being forced to ordain women as priests because it violates their civil rights.

 

 

 

Oh wait.

[Booster4324]

Yeah, which is why the Catholic Church is being forced to ordain women as priests because it violates their civil rights.

 

 

 

Oh wait.

 

Nicely done.

 

Who here would agree with this?

 

Allowing gay marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of

conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than

execration.

 

Oh and OCin, that was one of the most pathetic arguments I have seen yet. Just admit that for whatever reason you do not like the idea of gay marriage. What would the rights of x gay couple in y situation be? Why the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

[Gary M]

Yeah, which is why the Catholic Church is being forced to ordain women as priests because it violates their civil rights.

 

 

 

Oh wait.

Umm, the government doesn't have a say in who does or doesn't get to be a priest, but they do have a say in who can or can't be married.

 

You are naive to think that this will stop all the "fight for equality" rants.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Gary M

[Buftex]

And, I don't want to see the entire legal system turned into a circus with case after case of buffoonery, which has real consequences, just so you can have a self-righteous Hallmark moment, which is worthless to everyone but you.

 

What about marrying a woolly mamouth are we supposed to "weigh" exactly? Should the kids from this guys first marriage get f'ed out of their inheritance by the mammoth? Does a mammoth now have legal standing in court? How about kids from 2 different women? IF one of the women sue for divorce, does that mean the other woman can claim custody and visitation rights on kids that aren't hers? If the first women gets the divorce, does the other woman now have to pay child support on kids that aren't hers?

 

These aren't "worse case scenarios" these are basic legal questions that have basic legal answers when we define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only in that circumstance.

 

You appear to want to gleefully open a can of worms you have no idea how to deal with...all so you can have a Hallmark moment.

 

That's capricious, to say the least.

 

Who is having a moment?

[GG]

Who here would agree with this?

Allowing gay marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.

 

Depends on who said it. If a clergyman said it, then it's ok. For a politician, ridiculous.

[Booster4324]

Depends on who said it. If a clergyman said it, then it's ok. For a politician, ridiculous.

 

Link

 

I got the original quote from here. It compares arguments against gay marriage to interracial marriage. I thought I would get cute and change the interracial bit to gay. When you qualified your answer based on who said it I googled the quote looking for the original source. It seems I had inadvertently stolen the idea of a Chicago Tribune writer.

 

So I guess props for the idea belong to Eric Zorn who seems to have not used the name of the people who made the initial statements about interracial couples. Apparently some Georgia State Representative.

Link

Edited June 16, 2011 by Booster4324

[Fingon]

Umm, the government doesn't have a say in who does or doesn't get to be a priest, but they do have a say in who can or can't be married.

 

You are naive to think that this will stop all the "fight for equality" rants.

Do you know why the government has no say in who becomes a priest? It's because the Church is a religious institution. Try not hiring someone because they are a woman in any other field.

[DC Tom]

Do you know why the government has no say in who becomes a priest? It's because the Church is a religious institution. Try not hiring someone because they are a woman in any other field.

 

And I fully expect, at some point, that some yahoo is going to try to take the Catholic Church to court over the very principle that religious freedom should not trump civil rights...

 

Because, y'know, it's not like there isn't precedent already...

[Zulu Cthulhu]

I highly doubt more than 1% of the gay couples currently wishing and waiting to get married would want to get married in a Roman Catholic church. Most simply want their union to be recognized by their state and country and enjoy the same privileges that straight married couples have.

 

So crowing about "making priests do something they don't wanna" is dumbassery.

[Zulu Cthulhu]

The only private institutions subject to the constitutional civil rights requirements are those that perform quasi-public services. The church doesn't perform those services and don't have to perform any marriages that don't meet their own requirements. Even straight couples previously married in a catholic parrish and subsequently divorced have to get a church annulment to get married again by a catholic priest.

 

Stop applying employment law to matrimonial standards.

[GG]

I highly doubt more than 1% of the gay couples currently wishing and waiting to get married would want to get married in a Roman Catholic church. Most simply want their union to be recognized by their state and country and enjoy the same privileges that straight married couples have.

 

So crowing about "making priests do something they don't wanna" is dumbassery.

 

Or maybe not - religious groups are concerned about the law:

 

As Albany inches closer to legalizing gay marriage, Orthodox Jewish and Roman Catholic leaders are sounding the alarm about what they view as a lack of legal protections in the proposed law.

 

WSJ Piece

[Taro T]

Or maybe not - religious groups are concerned about the law:

 

 

 

WSJ Piece

Can't read the article and didn't see it in the print version, but is most of the issue having to do w/ whether the Churches would be forced to recognize the "gay marriages" for their non-specifically religious undertakings? E.g., would any employees of Catholic Charities have to get full spousal benefits even though the Catholic Church wouldn't recognize the couple as being married?

 

That would seem to be a legitimate point of contention as opposed to the earlier raised issues along the lines that it could force the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages.

[GG]

Can't read the article and didn't see it in the print version, but is most of the issue having to do w/ whether the Churches would be forced to recognize the "gay marriages" for their non-specifically religious undertakings? E.g., would any employees of Catholic Charities have to get full spousal benefits even though the Catholic Church wouldn't recognize the couple as being married?

 

That would seem to be a legitimate point of contention as opposed to the earlier raised issues along the lines that it could force the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages.

 

The religious groups' concern is that the law would allow churches, synagogues etc to deny gay marriages in their facilities, but the law would not apply to the affialiates or charitable organizations of those religions to deny services to gay couples. Thus they think there's a risk of civil action.

[Taro T]

The religious groups' concern is that the law would allow churches, synagogues etc to deny gay marriages in their facilities, but the law would not apply to the affialiates or charitable organizations of those religions to deny services to gay couples. Thus they think there's a risk of civil action.

OK, thanks for that.

 

Taking a quick look at the text of the bill that passed the assembly (A08354-2011), it looks like things like Catholic Charities would be exempt from the law. But I'd hate to have any money on that as the text doesn't appear to be particularily well crafted.

[GG]

OK, thanks for that.

 

Taking a quick look at the text of the bill that passed the assembly (A08354-2011), it looks like things like Catholic Charities would be exempt from the law. But I'd hate to have any money on that as the text doesn't appear to be particularily well crafted.

 

And I think that's the issue, although good luck trying to parse through the usual legaleze quadruple negative. Being exempt from the law, Catholic Charities would not get the law's protection to discriminate... err, refuse services

[Adam]

IF they do....I really hope that they put a law together without unintended consequences...that also doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, that can be used as a viable contract in other states, and doesn't open the door to all kinds of buffoonery marriages or anything else that brings the entire enterprise to a crashing halt...and clogs the court system for decades.

 

How about this: you owe me 100 naked youtube push-ups if the ACLU files a suit, using an affirmative vote on this measure, to force a church to marry 2 dudes, or, if any other state refuses to recognize the contract, or, if the ACLU files suit to allow the marriage of 3 people, or anything else you don't intend occurs.

 

This is not a moral question, because it is based merely on values, not principles. Rather, it is absolutely a legal question, and unless you have all the legal answers...you are signing up for a mess.

I think it should be between two consenting, living human adults. I think that eliminates some of the fear mongering, that somebody will marry a horse.

[DC Tom]

I think that eliminates some of the fear mongering, that somebody will marry a horse.

 

Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker...

[Adam]

Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker...

[TheMadCap]

Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker...

 

No, Tom. She's a transvestite DONKEY witch...

[3rdnlng]

Except that someone did actually marry Sarah Jessica Parker...

 

Well if it was John Elway it would have been ok.

[DC Tom]

Well if it was John Elway it would have been ok.

 

What would they name the kids? "Mr. Ed," "Secretariat," "Smarty Jones"...

[OCinBuffalo]

Was grampa OC a democrat? I doubt it, so he probably wasn't opposing civil rights. You're just another self righteous revisionist, lyrbob.

Actually, grampa OC was an elected Democrat.

 

An elected Democrat who would be literally cracking ..lybob's, and the rest of the far-left's, heads right now. All of the good will that the labor unions/New Dealers worked and in most cases had to literally fight to create in this country has been used and abused and is now FUBAR. The concept that "the Democrats are better on the economy" is totally destroyed and with it 90% of what OC's grampa spent his whole life on. That's why it's hysterical for me to listen to people like ...lybob talk about being a Democrat.

 

You think I'm kidding with the head cracking thing? I spent many elections standing around the fire barrel, listening to the union guys tell stories about grampa OC. NONE of them would have signed up for what the supposed Democrats are doing now. Bailing out Big Banks who turn around and put working people in the street? Allowing non-union people to get the same benefits union people do(Obamacare)? ...and about 1000 other things that have gone on since 2006? Like I said: cracking heads.

Oh and OCin, that was one of the most pathetic arguments I have seen yet. Just admit that for whatever reason you do not like the idea of gay marriage. What would the rights of x gay couple in y situation be? Why the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

For the last time: I have no issue with Jim and Steve touching pee pees, and I probably have more gay friends and co-workers than you do. I work in NYC and San Francisco about 30% of the time. You figure it out.

 

Also, you have argued yourself into a circle. If I am guilty of what you routinely accuse me of...then it's physically impossible for me to even care about this, never mind actually consider the idea itself. Nice work. Either way you are full of schit, dolt. More evidence that all you can be effective at here is posting emoticons.

 

And, I simply don't trust idiots who tell me that they have no solution, but that I shouldn't worry and/or that I'm a bad person because I dare to demand they provide a solution before I sign up for their idiot "no plan" plan.

 

You, clearly, are one of those idiots.

And I fully expect, at some point, that some yahoo is going to try to take the Catholic Church to court over the very principle that religious freedom should not trump civil rights...

 

Because, y'know, it's not like there isn't precedent already...

Apparently Zulu didn't read this.

I highly doubt more than 1% of the gay couples currently wishing and waiting to get married would want to get married in a Roman Catholic church. Most simply want their union to be recognized by their state and country and enjoy the same privileges that straight married couples have.

 

So crowing about "making priests do something they don't wanna" is dumbassery.

Right, and 80% of the lawsuits the ACLU files are not based on dumbassery. You highly doubt? The Roman Catholic Church is the brass ring for these haters. As if these people haven't gone after the Boy Scouts. As if these people aren't every bit as vindictive and judgmental as the Evangelical Christians they hate. You doubt. Hysterical.

 

And therefore: my bet still stands. If you are honestly believe that the ACLU/far-left tools will file 0 lawsuits based on this law, put your 100 naked youtube pushups where your mouth is.

 

Otherwise: understand that all I am asking for is that some lawyers and politicians do their f'ing jobs and write rational laws prior to any changes in an effort to spare us a giant cluster F.

Edited June 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Actually, grampa OC was an elected Democrat.

 

An elected Democrat who would be literally cracking ..lybob's, and the rest of the far-left's, heads right now. All of the good will that the labor unions/New Dealers worked and in most cases had to literally fight to create in this country has been used and abused and is now FUBAR. The concept that "the Democrats are better on the economy" is totally destroyed and with it 90% of what OC's grampa spent his whole life on. That's why it's hysterical for me to listen to people like ...lybob talk about being a Democrat.

 

You think I'm kidding with the head cracking thing? I spent many elections standing around the fire barrel, listening to the union guys tell stories about grampa OC. NONE of them would have signed up for what the supposed Democrats are doing now. Bailing out Big Banks who turn around and put working people in the street? Allowing non-union people to get the same benefits union people do(Obamacare)? ...and about 1000 other things that have gone on since 2006? Like I said: cracking heads.

 

For the last time: I have no issue with Jim and Steve touching pee pees, and I probably have more gay friends and co-workers than you do. I work in NYC and San Francisco about 30% of the time. You figure it out.

 

Also, you have argued yourself into a circle. If I am guilty of what you routinely accuse me of...then it's physically impossible for me to even care about this, never mind actually consider the idea itself. Nice work. Either way you are full of schit, dolt. More evidence that all you can be effective at here is posting emoticons.

 

And, I simply don't trust idiots who tell me that they have no solution, but that I shouldn't worry and/or that I'm a bad person because I dare to demand they provide a solution before I sign up for their idiot "no plan" plan.

 

You, clearly, are one of those idiots.

 

Apparently Zulu didn't read this.

 

Right, and 80% of the lawsuits the ACLU files are not based on dumbassery. You highly doubt? The Roman Catholic Church is the brass ring for these haters. As if these people haven't gone after the Boy Scouts. As if these people aren't every bit as vindictive and judgmental as the Evangelical Christians they hate. You doubt. Hysterical.

 

And therefore: my bet still stands. If you are honestly believe that the ACLU/far-left tools will file 0 lawsuits based on this law, put your 100 naked youtube pushups where your mouth is.

 

Otherwise: understand that all I am asking for is that some lawyers and politicians do their f'ing jobs and write rational laws prior to any changes in an effort to spare us a giant cluster F.

You would have let the whole banking system collaspe? That's just stupid

[3rdnlng]

Actually, grampa OC was an elected Democrat.

 

An elected Democrat who would be literally cracking ..lybob's, and the rest of the far-left's, heads right now. All of the good will that the labor unions/New Dealers worked and in most cases had to literally fight to create in this country has been used and abused and is now FUBAR. The concept that "the Democrats are better on the economy" is totally destroyed and with it 90% of what OC's grampa spent his whole life on. That's why it's hysterical for me to listen to people like ...lybob talk about being a Democrat.

 

You think I'm kidding with the head cracking thing? I spent many elections standing around the fire barrel, listening to the union guys tell stories about grampa OC. NONE of them would have signed up for what the supposed Democrats are doing now. Bailing out Big Banks who turn around and put working people in the street? Allowing non-union people to get the same benefits union people do(Obamacare)? ...and about 1000 other things that have gone on since 2006? Like I said: cracking heads.

 

For the last time: I have no issue with Jim and Steve touching pee pees, and I probably have more gay friends and co-workers than you do. I work in NYC and San Francisco about 30% of the time. You figure it out.

 

Also, you have argued yourself into a circle. If I am guilty of what you routinely accuse me of...then it's physically impossible for me to even care about this, never mind actually consider the idea itself. Nice work. Either way you are full of schit, dolt. More evidence that all you can be effective at here is posting emoticons.

 

And, I simply don't trust idiots who tell me that they have no solution, but that I shouldn't worry and/or that I'm a bad person because I dare to demand they provide a solution before I sign up for their idiot "no plan" plan.

 

You, clearly, are one of those idiots.

 

Apparently Zulu didn't read this.

 

Right, and 80% of the lawsuits the ACLU files are not based on dumbassery. You highly doubt? The Roman Catholic Church is the brass ring for these haters. As if these people haven't gone after the Boy Scouts. As if these people aren't every bit as vindictive and judgmental as the Evangelical Christians they hate. You doubt. Hysterical.

 

And therefore: my bet still stands. If you are honestly believe that the ACLU/far-left tools will file 0 lawsuits based on this law, put your 100 naked youtube pushups where your mouth is.

 

Otherwise: understand that all I am asking for is that some lawyers and politicians do their f'ing jobs and write rational laws prior to any changes in an effort to spare us a giant cluster F.

 

I was just giving lyrbob his mandatory smackdown because of his statement that grampa OC must have been against civil rights. Afterall it was the democrats that fought the Civil Rights Act tooth and nail. We do know though, that the democrat of yesterday was far different than what passes as a democrat today. If you want to piss a liberal off all you have to say is that you are a true JFK conservative. Somehow that doesn't fit with their visions of rainbow farting unicorns, Camelot and the icon of the democrats.

[OCinBuffalo]

You would have let the whole banking system collaspe? That's just stupid

 

No...

 

No...exactly as much as no REAL Democrat would have voted yes for it without demanding a hold on all foreclosures without government oversight . We are talking Democrats here, right? Why am I explaining how Democrats do things to a Democrat? Our tax money was supposed to be used by the banks to lend to people, and get the economy moving(our problems)...NOT to be spent on what amounts to a turnaround activity(their problems). Why weren't the Democrats...who were in control of House/Senate/Presidency...riding an Obama 65% approval rating...unable to demand that the money be used as intended?

 

You know what? Don't even bother. There is no excuse for what occurred. And a REAL Democrat knows that.

 

No REAL Democrat would ever support Obamacare, because it puts non-union workers = union workers.

 

But, you aren't a REAL Democrat, so you have no idea WTF I am talking about, do you?

[DC Tom]

Our tax money was supposed to be used by the banks to lend to people, and get the economy moving(our problems)

 

You are speaking rhetorically, I assume, and are fully aware that that was completely impossible. Right?

[....lybob]

.lybob talk about being a Democrat

 

You can't find one post where I talk about being a Democrat.

[OCinBuffalo]

You are speaking rhetorically, I assume, and are fully aware that that was completely impossible. Right?

 

I am speaking Democrat....so...as a Democrat, remind me again why I wouldn't be treating theories as though they are solutions, please....

[Roger Goodell]

The online NFL shop has a wide selection of jerseys in pink and other festive colors that some of you fellas might find interesting.

[OCinBuffalo]

You can't find one post where I talk about being a Democrat.

 

1. Read your own signature, moron.

 

2. You know what else I can't find? Where you give us your bona fides to speak as an authority about the mortgage industry. Mine are: I managed a $30 million enterprise system of record conversion and integration project for a year, so that means knowing their whole thing, at a top 5 national mortgage company.

 

But, even I know that there are people on this board who know the mortgage business better than I do....

 

 

EDIT: Notice how they are all ducking me on the "a Real Democrat would never support Obamacare, because a Real Democrat doesn't give away union benefits to non-union people" thing? Hysterical. I been saving it for an opportune time.

Edited June 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo