Stupid is as stupid does and stupidity votes Obama

[Lonestar]

HC is a little ass, but I'm also against gay marriage, since it's a privilege, not a right for your cohabitation to be recognized by the state, and the state has every right to support one form of it, but not the other.
Frivolous abortion is also something I oppose, but I even more strongly oppose any legislation that restricts abortions.

Err, at least a few of the (American) Founder Fathers actually opposed enumerating individual rights because then dickheads would use the absence of them being specified as a reason to deny them. It's why in the US we have an Amendment that says "just because the right isn't explicitly granted you can't claim it doesn't exist".

So the question should be:

(1)Does the right/practice hurt anyone else than the consenting participants?

(2)If the answer to "1" is "no" then it should br granted.

Not even the USSR started from the premise of "unless it's specifically allowed, it isn't allowed". Such a system is virtually impossible to enforce. What everyone does do is "unless it's specifically banned, it's allowed[/i].

[Kuciwalker]

8 years of cutting taxes and relaxed regulations(well, I blame Clinton for that too) got us into the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

No.

[Lonestar]

I don't respond to people who stand me up on Man-Dates.

[Jaguar]

[kentonio]

The same applies to hetero couples who do not choose to marry, at least in states that don't have common law marriage. Those legal privileges can usually be provided via powers of attorney. It's a non-issue.

Power of attourney provides far more power than a marraige contract doesn't it? I thought power of attourney allowed you to enter into legal contracts on that persons behalf, access banking etc etc?

[Guynemer]

PoA can be limited to medical decision making, or any other limitations one wants. It's not an either/or document.

*this statement should not be construed as opposing gay marriage

[Asher]

I don't think anyone has ever accused you of being compassionate, Asher.

Many people have, people who know me far better than you ever will.

I'm not compassionate in all cases. Some people deserve what they get - and I won't be shy about that.

But in general I'm extremely compassionate and empathetic. That's why I don't believe in ****ing over the poor for an extra buck like you do.

[onodera]

Err, at least a few of the (American) Founder Fathers actually opposed enumerating individual rights because then dickheads would use the absence of them being specified as a reason to deny them. It's why in the US we have an Amendment that says "just because the right isn't explicitly granted you can't claim it doesn't exist".

So the question should be:

(1)Does the right/practice hurt anyone else than the consenting participants?

(2)If the answer to "1" is "no" then it should br granted.

Not even the USSR started from the premise of "unless it's specifically allowed, it isn't allowed". Such a system is virtually impossible to enforce. What everyone does do is "unless it's specifically banned, it's allowed[/i].

Other people are hurt because married gays get tax cuts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Other people are hurt because married gays get tax cuts.

That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read (that statement as a justification against gay marriage) and we have Ben and Kid posting on this site.

[Hauldren Collider]

I would love to know how cutting taxes got us into a banking crisis. Or what regulations would have prevented the financial crisis.

[Asher]

I would love to know how cutting taxes got us into a banking crisis.

It didn't. It got you into a deficit crisis.

Or what regulations would have prevented the financial crisis.

You can't be serious? Do you even know the cause of the crisis?

[Asher]

Homework for you, HC: Research why Canadian banks are so sound (and rated as such internationally) compared to American ones.

Pay specific attention to all of the whining the Canadian investment banks did prior to the financial crash, complaining about how the excessive regulation in Canada's industry inhibited their growth, blahblah. They stopped whining about it post-2009.

[Jaguar]

Many people have, people who know me far better than you ever will.

I'm not compassionate in all cases. Some people deserve what they get - and I won't be shy about that.

But in general I'm extremely compassionate and empathetic. That's why I don't believe in ****ing over the poor for an extra buck like you do.

Are you? The Democratic party does unconscionable, horrific things to the poor.

Let's just take an obscure story, one that only the occasional wonkish blogger has even heard of. This one, for example. The Federal Housing Finance Administration has been holding on to a quarter of a million foreclosed-upon homes and doing nothing with them. Worse, they had the temerity to ask for ideas about what to do with them! I have an idea: let people live in them. Hire an auctioneer and sell them.

These are the real human costs of a Democratic administration. We could have 250,000 young married couples getting their first homes together, but our government is cruelly keeping that from them. And why? What for? So a few people can feel good thinking of themselves as wise technocrats, bravely protecting young Americans from purchasing houses. What's worse is that these people probably think they're doing a good job. And they might even be paid as much as you are, Asher, and I know you're paid a lot.

Why do I object to this? Not for my own sake; I probably would never buy one of these homes, because they're in less-affluent neighborhoods than I'd ever live in. It also doesn't really matter because I have enough money to buy multiple houses without even taking out a mortgage.

But I don't, because I understand that buying a house you're not going to live in is wasteful and sinful. Which makes me a great deal morally better than the Obama Administration.

[Jaguar]

Let's try another one: Taxi Medallions, a system that deprives poor immigrants of jobs (and deprives everyday citizens of transportation) by artificially restricting the supply of taxis. These systems are commonplace in cities, which largely have Democratic councils. Only a few brave Republican-leaning cities like Indianapolis have saved people from this regressive, anti-immigrant persecution.

In New York City, a taxi medallion costs $1.0 million, because the city government has restricted the supply of them to about thirteen thousand. Let me repeat that. You have to pay $1 million for the right to drive people around in a car.

I get that a Democratic city council is never going to completely deregulate a market, and even in the best case, they will demand a few hundred dollars for "registration fees." But this is something quite different. $1 million? Why not $11 million? Why not $74 million, or any other number completely divorced from reality? Net of wages, maintenance, and other expenses, a New York City cab makes about $50,000 a year - they're extremely profitable - but virtually all of that money has to go towards interest payments on the ridiculously-priced medallions.

This is one of the easiest immigrant jobs, because many know how to drive from their home countries - but thanks to your typical Democratic city council, the number of cabs in New York City is woefully short of where it would be in a free society. A licensed yellow taxi cab in New York is more expensive than a Rolls Royce. Silly immigrants, you thought you were going to come to "America" and have economic "opportunity?" No, that's ridiculous. Regulation is much too important.

Again, these are the human costs of the Democratic party.

[Guynemer]

Other people are hurt because married gays get tax cuts.

I award you no points, and God have mercy on your soul.