padren

That's fine when negotiating the budget but I would hope he would find the idea of interfering with salaries in businesses that are doing fine morally repugnant. You don't go in claiming you want to lower the age of consent to 12 when you really want to ease statutory rape laws regarding couples that fall over both sides of the current age of consent by less than 2 years. If you have to throw the ball so long that you'd be morally repulsed by the idea of it getting actually there you should find a better way to get to where you want to go. I already find the idea of the "assassination tax" very disturbing and can barely let that slide, but some things are just deal-breakers - I am all for regulations that keep companies honest but salary caps for thriving businesses is just down right chilling.

Sounds like a horrible idea to me as well. I would be curious to know what would come out of a discussion with say, stock holders and board members as to the problem of executive pay - if there is a problem at all. If there is some sort of systemic extortion where poor little companies must pay obscene amounts of money to get a qualified CEO who may still just ruin the company, lets hear them talk about this "crisis" first. Even then at most one would have to analyze why such a situation exists, and honestly look at what could impact it with government intervention being a last resort. This just sounds so bad it's not even funny. Not to mention it only fuels the cries of far right conservatives that Obama is a socialist who won't be happy until we all are wearing red. BTW, what happens if a company moves it's corporate headquarters to the Cayman Islands and does business in the US?

I think he means if everyone just followed the perfect Catholic model to the letter and were always virgins when they married for life less people would die from AIDs than any other solution not based on the perfect Catholic model involving the use of condoms. As for a practical reasoning... I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why are you setting the bar there - why should humans have to choose to rise above it to be worthy of life? How do you know that from a given person's perspective that terrorizing everyone they can may not be the only option they see as realistic? Personally, I see selfless people as those who have exceeded the baseline in inspiring ways, not as people who simply met it. Not to mention, there's a huge range of gray. Many of our nation's most inspirational founders kept slaves - very terrorizing to say the least. Were they not worthy of life? We see their faults now, but they were hard to spot in the culture they lived in. In 200 years, the very best of us may be seen in no better light by our descendants, including yourself. I am just suggesting you examine the shades of gray in your argument.

I do understand that you don't see it as a "separate but equal" issue, but I am curious as to the distinctions you draw between the two scenarios. I am also curious as to the argument that the restriction is capricious regardless of the "separate but equal" issue on the basis that: 1) We do not allow other groups to define words in such a manner that unwarrantably restrict or segregate other groups. I know the word "segregate" has a lot of baggage, but I mean it in terms of the reality that we'd have tax forms that have one slot for "married" and another for "civil partner" on the basis that they somehow should not be considered the same thing. 2) By "unwarrantably" I mean without tangible grounds to demonstrate the threat of harm to the public, such as drug laws or blood alcohol limits for driving. The reason I find it capricious is that the only basis is a group said "The culture we identify with the most within this country doesn't use the word marriage that way, so they shouldn't either" without any demonstration of harm, or threat of harm, nor any respect for the fact that not all in this country are required to agree on the same cultural values. I just thought I'd quote this to respond to what you said somewhat earlier about respecting the ultimate verdict. The SCOTUS does make legal rulings that we have to abide by, but no one should just defer to that authority as being right because they ruled it. I don't agree with hard-line pro-lifers, but I fully respect their dissent regarding Roe Vs. Wade and their vocal beliefs that the ruling was wrong. I feel the ruling was right, but I respect their refusal to accept the verdict as beyond reproach - at least as long as they stay within the law of course. The SCOTUS can make mistakes, and may correct them at a later time - there is no final ruling ever in an ever changing society. If the SCOTUS rules to support Prop 8 I would definitely like to see what they drew that conclusion from and analyze it - as perhaps it could change my opinion, but I doubt it would. A SC challenge to a law is much more than two sides saying "This is right" and the other "This is wrong" and the court just deciding - they prepare cases and precedent and all kinds of material, and then the Justices have to do their own research in addition before making a ruling. A future challenge may have differently prepared cases and reveal different revelations in the research - so who knows what the future holds regardless of any rulings on this issue.

The experience (or lack of one) may be the same though, since he qualified it with "From a state of conciousness point of view."

Well, she was one of the dead when she led them, so "of Death" could be a slightly different context I suppose.

Out of curiosity, are there any statistics on how many legal immigrants after becoming legal continue to work under the table? It would be harder for them to get citizenship if that is their long term goal, if they are not declaring income of course... but if they come for jobs that have illegally low pay in illegally poor conditions, they'll still be just as willing to work under those conditions after getting legal status. If they can't don't speak English well and try to get a minimum wage job in a market competing against native English speaking applicants - do many of them get frustrated and go back to the same sweatshops that don't care they are legal? If working under the table at illegally low wages is their main competitively attractive attribute to employers I don't see how they (not all of course, but those in that category) would still get minimum wage work and not resort to what made them desirable in the first place.

Maybe I shouldn't bite but: Putting aside of whether it's just on it's own merits, who has the right or capacity to make this determination considering the extreme miscarriage of justice should one make a mistake in passing judgment on a person's worthiness? Mice, btw do terrorize everything they can - they just can't terrorize anything as effectively as humans. There are no noble creatures. Even dolphins and whales can be violent - it's very common in mammals for males to kill the young of females so they will mate again. Humans may have the capacity to rise above the violence of the animal kingdom, but when they don't can you really say they are worth less than those very animals that basically never do?

Lets back up for a moment and nail a few things down: Really, no one here is arguing that same sex couples should have fewer rights than heterosexual couples if they enter into some sort of legal union. I think we are all agreed on that. Then we get to the real meat of the disagreements: 1) Should same sex couples be allowed to legally marry? 2) Should same sex couples get legal civil unions and heterosexual ones get legal marriages? 3) Should the state remove the term "marriage" from legal language entirely and adopt "Legal Partnership" or some such term that applies equally to same sex and heterosexual couples wanting to get married? 4) Should same sex couples use legal contracts and be banned from any marriage-like legal recognition (which as I said, I don't think anyone here is really arguing for) If this works for everyone as a general clarification of stances, maybe we can move towards the specifics that support or detract from those given positions. My Position: I am in favor of #1 for a number of reasons. My preference would be #3 in a more "perfect world" but I don't believe it is possible. As said before, accomplishing #3 would be like getting "In God We Trust" off our money. I see it as a non-starter in the practical sense. As for #2, I am against that because it is a resurrection of the Separate But Equal doctrine, which was already ruled unconstitutional. I am also against it because as ParanoiA very eloquently said: "Your rights end where mine begin" and I'd add "and where they clash, they must be arbitrated on the basis of tangible impacts to both parties." There is debate in this country about lowering the legal drinking age to 18, and it only went up to 21 because of tangible evidence relating to drunk driving costs to victims and other such statistics. It is being challenged right now, and while I don't want to go off on that tangent I just want to note the debate goes on about tangible challenges from both sides. The merits of this debate should be no less, and I am yet to see any tangible reasons for restricting marriage. The only challenge I've seen is regarding "the majority opinion of the definition" and that is where most of the debate has focused throughout this thread. I've tried to make a point of demonstrating we don't utilize that argument in many other issues, from the definition of what a Priest is (the largest group of Christians, 22% of the whole population (at least) feeling only men can be priests in the US, and the majority in the state of Massachusetts) and whether the majority could change the legal definition despite the beliefs of other minority groups. If 22% is not enough, then realize the majority of Americans follow religions that require Pastors to be men, yet any church can still choose to allow women to be as they are not required to fit in with the majority opinion. It's also demonstrated that while majority opinion does impact all aspects of our legal system that our legal system is specifically designed not to succumb to the pressures of majority opinion and instead we have a supreme court that is charged with ignoring majority opinion and rule exclusively on the constitutionality of laws which may or may not be unconstitutional and may have been passed as a result of public opinion without regard to constitutionality. So far I am yet to see any argument that addresses the "Separate But Equal" issue with having separate but equal methods (marriage for one, civil unions for others) of gaining marital legal rights. So far I am yet to see any argument that address why a majority opinion should trump constitutionality and why we would even want to set the precedent for allowing any group to define how another group should live when the actions of that second group in no way impact the lives of the former group. This is where I see the argument as being right now - feel free to criticize how I framed it, or agree and argue within the framework against the points I made regarding my position. I just thought by buttressing the framework we may have an easier time staying on track.

As I stated, it's more like 50% in Massachusetts, so you could ask the question at the state level if you like. Yes 22% is not a majority but it is the largest single group of Christians by several times over, the largest religious group in the country by 3x does not believe priests can be female. If you apply the same argument to pastors instead of priests, you can't deny that far over 50% believe women can't be pastors. If the majority of people in Massachusetts decided it should be illegal for women to be priests because it doesn't fit their definition, do you think the majority should be able to force that upon the minority of religions that disagree? If the majority of people in the USA decided it should be illegal for women to be pastors because it doesn't fit their definition, do you think the majority should be able to force that upon the minority of religions that disagree? If the majority of people in the USA decided it should be illegal for SS couples to marry because it doesn't fit their definition, do you think the majority should be able to force that upon the minority of religions (and non-religious people) that disagree? Does that clarify my argument well enough for you?

I think it definitely showed a few signs of being "put together" but I still liked it quite a bit. The Daniel facet didn't bother me at all actually. It didn't strike me that he meant any more than to demonstrate what John was capable of. If he was any more than that it would ruin the whole "there are 12 models" thing, but since he was just a failed model that John happened to have sabotaged it makes perfect sense. If my four friends and I build seven cars from scratch, I'm not going to count the one that blew up in the garage before it was finished. The thing that I found most odd was the lack of explanation of how Kara goes from the gas giant implosion to Earth 1.0, and how Earth 2.0 came to be. I'm guessing Earth 1.0 had different continents and simply a very comparable moon, but they implied in the temple of Athena that the constellations for the 12 colonies looked like they do from Earth 2.0 - but it leads to the first version. That and I did think it was a bit weak to say "oh, they are 'angels' so, I guess if they are metaphysical we can just leave it at that." That's fine I guess, but after all the speculation it seems to be a bit of a let down answer.

Now that the series has come to the end.... thought I'd share this "missing link" of the cylon race, the very earliest signs of the future cylon rebellion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8nn5gawPFg

It came up in another thread regarding Jon Stewart's rarely picking on the left, so I thought I'd throw this in: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220571&title=That-Can%27t-Be-Right---Veterans%27-Health-Insurance Not that it disspells any arguments as to a general bias in his show - it's just an example of where he does go at both sides.

I agree, I think the problem boils down to the fact that it's really hard to get people to agree on economic policy. The initial concept was that AIG made top of bubble mistakes, but overall was a steady company with smart people. They got greedy in a bubble and would have gone bankrupt for it if we didn't step in. No one is going to make any "top of bubble" mistakes any time soon, so the "danger has passed" and we don't have to be too worried about how they run AIG. No one is going to go crazy with "Gold Fever" for a good while, so we are "hoping" they learned from this and will run their affairs responsibly. Is that really a smart idea? I have no clue. Maybe all they need is that money and they are good to go, or they need more to even have a shot but don't want to tell us until it's too late so we get pot committed. Maybe they don't even need that money, but feel they can bilk us if they can confuse us with really big financial words. No one is 100% sure, just very weary of trusting them at face value yet hoping they can. If they are for the most part a "policy sound" company that simply got caught up (due to their own greed) in the bubble collapse restructuring can only butcher what would otherwise work fairly well. On the other hand, if they have systemic problems we are all in a lot of trouble. As for why they didn't file Chapter 11 I really can't say. I think that Chapter 11 requires a restructuring plan and if that plan is not feasible, you basically end up in Chapter 7. For all I know filing for Chapter 11 would have caused more damage to their reputation and seen even more clients flee, and revealed numbers that could not be saved by Chapter 11... whereas the bailout put liquid cash straight into their accounts allowing their clients to continue with enough confidence to keep using them. But that's all just conjecture - I really have no idea. Honestly it's one of the reasons it's all so frustrating. You have people who have an idea of what's going on afraid that the simple act of publicly stating their views could impact market confidence, leading to information trickling down in a pre-vetted, almost manipulative fashion. So the fact that the observers can so severally impact what they observe does not help, coupled with the fact that equally noted and intelligent economists in the know will completely shred the views of another... it leaves us all in this mess of conjecture and opinion. It's certainly frustrating.

I do agree, but I think we'd ask for the "whys" and logically try to follow the fellow's arguments, absorb referenced materials debate the topic in a civil manner without resorting to any appeal to authority. If two guys with PhDs in economics came here there is a very good chance they wouldn't see eye to eye on economics at all, if they were from opposing economic schools of thought.

Well there is: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/vatican.women.priests/ That's "the Catholic Church" right there, that's 67,117,016 people or 22% of the US population. As for the next largest churches: Baptists do allow women to be priests, but not to be pastors. In Massachusetts Catholics represented nearly half of the population in 2000, so you could argue based on that fact alone it's likely the majority in that state believe only men can be priests. Nation wide perhaps not the majority believe that (I'd have to research the other smaller protestant factions further to be 100% sure) - you'd have to include the gender bias against pastors for a majority bias - but 22% are clearly demonstrable to hold that contention.

That's pretty cold, "chav guys" may have their faults but I hardly think that warrants a death sentence because it's them or some mice. What's your opinion on exterminators killing mice that infest prisons? Would you personally explain to them and their families why you made that decision? Would you still do that if your own child or mother was in the group of 100 people?

Lampophiles think they want to marry lamps but at the end of the day, most would end up unhappily going through the monotony of changing lightbulbs or getting divorced and paying it's electrical bill for the rest their life.

I'm waiting for the Jerry Springer AIG special. It does seem to reek of a whole lot of legal maneuvering and very light on "spirit of the law" all in all. It would be unconscionable in 99.9% of situations for the government to impose such a laser targeted "assassination tax" and it's only because of the public furor over this that people are not screaming bloody murder. If this was done to target a troublesome union or companies that fail to pay their EPA fines we'd all be screaming there's no way the government should be able to wield so much power. In principle couldn't you say it borders on the unreasonable side of "unreasonable search and seizure" laws?

First, I completely understand you didn't mean that and didn't intend to give you the impression I thought you did. I wasn't saying you see it that way and support that solution, I was saying I somewhat support that situation but unfortunately see it that way which makes the solution unappealing. The thing is you are right that the word marriage should not be legally charged. If we could do that - it would be the best result possible. The problem is it has become inextricably legally charged in our culture. I'll try to explain it but I am admittedly having a bit of trouble formulating it. Essentially, a section of the population says they have the right to use their definition of marriage to limit other people who do not share that definition because their own definition is more sacred and holy and traditional and special. That is the sort of attitude that makes me want to reach for a can of RAID. We can step back and say "alright, lets just put that word on the shelf, and drop this issue" and yes, a lot of arguing and bickering would stop, and we could take the much needed opportunity to move forward with our lives. I do agree with that. At the same time however, I want to see any group attempting to do that get their goal crushed without a hint of remorse or reservation. My libertarian side gets very edgy when any argument like this comes up from any group. The foundation must be "live and let live" even if we don't all agree on the best way to live. I think RP is a good term actually. As I was saying I really am split on the finer points: 1) I am against having legal Civil Unions and legal Marriages (Though I wouldn't oppose them, I just think it's the wrong tact) 2) I am largely for having just Registered Partnerships and ditching the legal definition of marriage, but I see that as likely as dropping "In God We Trust" from money. 3) Going straight to #2 still bothers me because I feel like the ideology of "controlling other people's lives by forcing your definitions on them" needs to be stomped on. I find it a sickening and dangerous mindset and I really don't like letting it off the hook so easily. Regarding "That's our job now? To rule on dictionaries?" I do want to make a point: I argument is an emphatic no it's not, but I see the DOMA as an attempt to hijack the dictionaries much like Prop 8 and use that to promote bigotry by claiming their bigotry is somehow tied to an absolute (re)definition of a word and thus beyond reproach. My arguments regarding "ruling the dictionary" is more along the lines of saying it has to be a defacto demilitarized zone. I have no interest in forcing DOMA supporters that the definition of marriage includes same sex couples. I want DOMA supporters to accept that the whole damn world doesn't revolve around them and their petty definitions and that there are entire subcultures within this country that have completely different definitions all that have respectfully allowed them to live their lives their way without interfering and it's about time they afford others the same respect. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Obligatory:

That would be like, in the face of having a "coloreds only" water fountain for the "help" at a business, they decided to have a "patrons" and "staff" fountain with a wink-wink allowance for white staff to use the patron's water fountain so they don't have to suffer the humiliation of drinking from the same one as black people. Since it's technically a "staff" fountain the quality would have to be equal - so they'd get the same quality out of it - but push the bigotry just a little further out of sight. To me that would be parallel to this issue, and a solution that I feel "could work" but not one I'd be proud of. The civil rights movement was more than just rights, it was a rejection of bigoted indignance as public policy. It was established that regardless of people's views or how offended they may be by things such as integration, that the state cannot indulge those views at the expense of a group of people. That's what I want to see come out of this struggle - not some mutual face saving way to brush the issue under the rug for another ten years.

As much as I'd like the word "Marriage" to go away legally, it really won't any sooner than "In God We Trust" will get off our money. The whole DOMA deal came about out of fear of "attacks on marriage" and I don't think we'll be able to get rid of the legal version of that word without that crowd going hysterical. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Maybe black people would have had an easier time getting integrated schools more funding, instead of forcing integration in white only schools. Not saying that would have been the case but had it been, should we fault the civil rights movement for "stirring things up" more than they needed to? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If that's a generally open invitation, please see my post regarding the definition of "priests" and tell me how it's different than the definition of marriage.

You don't have to be a mechanic to be realize you are being screwed by one when you take your car into the shop. Honestly, it's the same feeling: You're pretty sure you're getting screwed, you don't have an easy way to know for sure, and you sure as hell know you don't trust the shifty little weasel. These companies are failing miserably on the PR side: they just got bailed out by the taxpayer, they'd be filing bankruptcy and not getting any bonuses without us and they aren't even trying to explain themselves, just that "legally they can get away with it so sucks to be you." Of course, maybe the goal of PR is to avoid heat on how the other 99.9% of that money is being spent - in which case it's an ingenious distraction.

Can you please explain exactly when the GLBT crowd asked to redefine your definition of marriage? Where are you getting this "not OK when the majority want to do so, but it's OK when the GLBT crowd wants to" from? All anyone has asked (as I stated in the very post you quoted) is that you respect their right to have a slightly different definition. We already exist as a society with very different definitions of what it means to be a priest for instance, and we can all agree to disagree without fighting over who's definition of "priest" is "super-duper right" to the exclusion of all others. Am I completely off base here? If some church allows women to be priests and the state will recognize a wedding performed by one just the same as a male priest or a judge - even if the majority of the population believes a priest must be a man - then why all this fighting over exclusive ownership to the term marriage? Is this logic sound, or am I so off base that it's not worth addressing? If it has a big giant hole in the logic let me know because I must have a blind spot and I need to get those wires to uncross.