Dudde

I agree with what you're saying Blike, especially that the government could have asked them to renegotiate the original contracts - i think they should've done that, but who expects a company that was about to belly up to start paying millions of dollars to individuals right away instead of waiting until the finances start steadying out. AIG may have been hit harder because it was funneling a great deal of it's federal money to other companies, Bank of America and such, instead of using it on infrastructure projects - Don't get me wrong, if they're contractually obligated to pay back any money owed, then by all means - that's another part the government should have stipulated for the funds recently given out. Although I don't see any reason that executives would have started quitting the company, that's straight up cowardice - if AIG, even under fire, awarded the individuals what was due to them, the least they could do would be to stick around and try to defend the position :/

I would agree that they be awarded their bonuses sure, but less than 80 people for $165 million seems a bit extreme. In my industry, the bonus comes only after we perform, I got like 4% of my (semi)annual salary as a bonus last year - it makes me think what the execs are paid normally to do such a crappy job. It also makes me think why, if they thought they should be able to keep the bonuses because they earned it, did AIG executives start quitting as soon as that money was transferred - I disagree with the double payment AIG is being hit with however. As stated before, it was obviously a hastily written plan with quite a large number of over-sights in hopes that it would be spent wisely. To take back the 165 Mil from the company, and then also to deduct it from the sum you're giving them, is essentially $330 million dollars against AIG for issuing bonuses, no matter how I think they were undeserved - I think was a bit excessive on the part of the government. Which is why I'm always preaching to people my own age to track a little more responsibility into their own lives, especially financially. Hopefully all these irresponsible CEO's et al retire and die off, we might have a chance at a more stable economic system.

Nice, updated two hours ago - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses/index.html totally weak, again, I don't usually take CNN at face value, but they're usually generally right

While I would agree with you on this point most of the time, the simple fact is that the government has $170 Billion intervened with this company already - as long as you're accepting that kind of government assistance, I think they should have some degree of say with how you want to waste it

I'll agree that the majority of people are against same sex marriages, even though it really has no affect whatsoever on their own personal lives or beliefs. However, the founding fathers created the U.S constitution and the three branches of governent because they knew popularity votes would always be discriminatory against somebody when given the chance. As stated in this argument and the previous, the people have a right to vote by majority to amend certain laws and pass initiatives, but in order to re-write any part of the constitution to deny rights to a particular segment of the population, there's supposed to be jurisdiction either by the Judicial branch of government, or legislative, to interpret and/or re-write the laws and pass through the legislative houses. And again, while that's still a majority vote in the process, there are a lot more people looking at the legal definitions than a popularity vote by uninformed, or extremely biased, individuals. *** I suggest you take a look at those sodomy laws once more, the ones that say essentially I hardly, and absolutely know for a fact beyond reason, that there would be very few and if any heterosexual couples who would ever abide by this. Ever.

I don't know how many of you are ahead of me on this, but I thought it was an interesting article, (posted from CNN because I found it there first) Bug Zapper I don't know if I would be for or against it ecologically...but my skin almost cried with joy anybody think this doo-hickey may become feasible someday? Personally I'm a bit skeptical:

Ophiolite is correct; the "Battery: DOA" portion of the contract means that if your battery arrives, or is replaced later and arrives and is not holding a charge, or overheating, that they will replace the battery for you. Usually the length of time will be specified by the computer vendor on the contract - the company I work for has a 1 year basic policy, or 90-day if it's a 3rd party manufactured, after that the warranty defaults to the Manufacturer. It kind of depends on who the vendor is.

There were actually some good facts on that page, thanks for posting it. Toward the bottom is a link "Difference between a marriage and a civil union", and has a few good points. Nah, you're better off, it wasn't that exciting;) As per the poll and OP's original question, I think if the Federal government recognizes rights for those who have a marriage license, it's already got a hand in marriage - and those are the rights the GLBT community are wanting to sport as well, it's not all just about the word Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is a Federally upheld constitution, but there are also state constitutions as well, so states can decide how to individually manage things in their own borders as long as it doesn't step on the toes of Federal regulations. as to the parts of it iNow is referring to, The Full Faith and Credit Clause says that states must recognize legally binding contracts and etc. produced from other states. The Supremacy Clause basically indicates that federal laws, constitution, and treaties are the law of the land, and state regulations cannot impede on them.

NICE! This is an awesome move, thanks for bringing it up

You are the one wanting to change the existing laws - as pointed out before, they already support same-sex marriage Also, this thread was definitely not created to discuss same sex marriages, but the discussion of whether or not the government should drop the word 'marriage' legally or not. I don't see a logical reason why they should. I don't see a point in continuing this debate if that's your standpoint, why do you keep posting nonsense if you don't want to prove anything? an affirmative ruling dictates a re-writing of the California constitution, which necessitates a lot more than a majority vote of the state's citizens - an affirmative response would be a disappointment for the entire country. Also, ilk? surely you can come up with better than that, based on your previous analysis and breakdown of the constitutionality of the current topic

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem strongly biased against same sex couples. The only people I've seen keep this argument are the ones who don't believe they should be forced to live in a society with gays or lesbians, and while I support your ability to state your opinion...it's ridiculous. The entire argument was already and is still being fought by the Attorney General in the state of California along with several groups of petitioners, but you don't seem to want to read any prior arguments, so I'll break his down - not in exact wording because I don't have time to find it again, but I will if you really doubt me that much. Stating that homosexual and heterosexual people have the same rights is blatantly fallacious. Because a heterosexual man already wants to marry a heterosexual woman, the current laws in no way impede on his right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness as defined in the U.S constitution. A homosexual man however, does not want to marry a heterosexual woman, but wants to marry a homosexual man, which the heterosexual man had no interest in doing in the first place. In this way does the definition differ - stating that one group can do what makes them happy, and the other cannot. If you aren't gay and wanting to be married, I personally see no reason why we're even having this discussion - does this damage your mental or physical well being in some way? Please, we had a pretty interesting debate to which I've linked a few times already, I urge you to skim through to see if you may be repeating what was already argued.

Nice, Invader FTW! Good to see a lot of new faces, hope you guys stick around and post a lot! ...1000 posts in a year might be a bit wacky...

wtf:confused: Why would you even try to use that as an argument? The brother would be disallowed the same as the sister would be, they're both incest. I agree with ParanioA

Fair enough, and I think I agree with you on that point. The judicial system seems better suited to protected the citizens, as the legislative branch just throws paper around and votes. The reason I didn't say that I'd want to keep and define the word, is because that leaves too much room for those inequalities we were talking about earlier - I would rather staple the word so it applies to the population, and discontinue the whole 'who does it apply to' thing personally.

Nice, Google, Levi Strauss, and the California Chamber of Commerce are in support of the petitioners trying to have Prop. 8 taken out. There's also a very good Proposition 8 thread started with a lot of arguments and resources, including this page, with a great degree of documentation on the recent petition. (this link was provided by iNow and has a wealth of information) I promise I saw that in one of the documents I was reading at my last mentioned site, but I can't find it since I read like 10 documents and I forgot where it was - I'll look for it later. In short, my answer (and theirs) is no. EDIT: I forgot the whole reason I looked into this thread - not that I can, or it matters, but I've changed my view to reflect the vote to keep the word Marriage. It makes increasing sense to me as I continue to learn.

There's actually a fairly interesting same-sex marriage thread, more geared toward proposition 8 in California, but it has a lot of interesting input on the topic besides. I'm still interested in the subject, but it's like creating it in another thread, now I have to look two places I encourage you to check out the thread about Proposition 8, there was a substantial amount of support going both ways

I tend to agree with a lot of your point, but I see merit in the trains at least in densley populated areas where they have a good effect. You can create jobs for building/maintaining and working the rail line, generate revenue for the business through commuters having a cheaper, more economic transportation, you can also create tax revenue and put back to the fund it came out of. Somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken

Nice:cool: I don't know if I've effective time to approve or disapprove of the guy yet, but I've always hated gallup polls for being stupid:-)

It was indeed actually. I confess I've lost sleep as I find a lot of the documents listed on that site as very interesting to read and see what exactly the different arguments are. I have to say that so far, my favorite read has been the "Attorney General's Response to Amicus Curiae Briefs." It was notable that he used Article 1, Section 1 of the California(or US) Constitution to open; the section states: Because after reading further, I see Section 1 Article 7.5, enacted after Prop. 8 took hold, stating, The general argument for the first part of the paper is centralized around the fact that as this so outrageously conflicts with each other, that the proposition doesn't necessitate an amendment to, but revision of, the existing constitution. As a quote from that same paper: There were actually many, many more pages in that document, 56 I think, I just didn't think it would be polite to quote the entire thing> I do urge you to read this document if you haven't already though, I think the A G makes a good point throughout his response, thus why I stated earlier I was hoping for the judge to throw this out. There's a lot more I wanted to cite, but I don't want an enormous post that confuses more than states. The document presented by "Honor Love Cherish," listed under January 15th on that same link, presented some good personal insight as well, check it out if you get a chance. I did, however, want to cite one more section in the first article of the California Constitution, section 4, which should be common knowledge, but: I might be interpreting all kinds of things wrong, but I see this as a clear denial of rights based on the discrimination of a minority group, something our constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically setup to protect against in the first place really. The people arguing in favor of the Prop., not necessarily or specifically ones in this forum - I mean legally, are celebrating the integrity of an institution - but institution of what? Of marriage? Isn't that like putting a "no girls with red hair" sign up on a club house to protect its integrity? Something everybody can use freely except a certain group, and because of something normal to them and beyond their control. Sorry if this is all gibberish. The main point is that, to me, and hopefully the Judicial Branch, Proposition 8 does look like a revision to the Constitution, as opposed to merely an amendment - a fact of which I hope is recognized and used to remove it.

I also don't see California as a state recognizing common law marriage, I don't see that as a valid argument to use in this case at all. Also, I took this from another site but seems to pertain to what you were saying This isn't defining anything regarding a man and a woman. yours, as stated, 1) Live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state) 2) Hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and 3) intend to be married. Doesn't indicate one man and one woman in any sequence

I don't necessarily think the general consensus is to have the law do one thing, and the people do another (although it may be) - what I was referring to was more of defining the act so to speak. Any two adults who become legally bonded in the eyes of the law, such as a marriage does now. We don't really want to drop the word itself, just the legal definition of the word. The previous and past marriages would still be defined and legal under such a definition, civil union would work perfectly if that's what they decided on

I voted for the government to change the word, as the arguments are compelling to do so. Most simply, I agree with the fact that the government can issue a certificate or license to make the union legally binding, and then let the masses decide what to call it. As has been pointed out, it shouldn't matter how the government defines it, it should be an encompassing term that defines the legal aspect

No, I do understand what you mean. I just don't think we can assume that because they didn't say anything, or intend it, that they would've written it out to begin with. Old definitions can be wrong in today's world - I still hold by my statement that we should learn from the past, not live by it. by the by, smoking faggots is hardly relevant to the current discussion, as I'm sure the definition of the word would be defined in the legislation, not to mention that laws don't usually flesh out using slang. still, we digress, I've checked out some of that information that iNow linked to, and I'm really hoping the judge will just laugh and throw this back to be re-written, and re-voted on, it sounds pretty absurd to me with the current writing. Oh. Well then I lose, I'm not much of a cake guy, although carrot cake is yummy

It's also possible that they just didn't care, they didn't necessarily specify only a man and a woman either. If they had, it would be the same as writing "no same sex marriages." just because some people a long time ago didn't conceive or denounce it, doesn't mean you should assume they would have if they'd thought about it at the time. We won't move forward by restricting ourselves to what somebody might have thought about before anyone in the modern world was a thought

Oh yeah.. Necessity is never actually the most fun of options, good point, Thanks:D