ParanoiA

I have no idea. I know they want to oversee it. That's egregious enough. More will just inflate the insult, but it will be noted and positions firmed up further. Let's review...again. Does that answer your question? I don't see any "government funding" dividing line in that statement. Look, I realize there aren't any specifics and that will change the detail of anyone's position, and that's exactly why I take a broader issue with the principle that I think is being attacked here. That part is not in question in this article, only how far reaching and dramatic the violation of property rights will actually be. I have a zero tolerance policy concerning the encroachment of a state that's already way too invasive right now. I don't trade liberty for security - or in the case of economics, liberty for pseudo security.

I think it's fairly safe to take them at their word that they would like to oversee their pay. What specifics do you need? I was thinking of proposing legislation to oversee rights and privilege exercised by african americans. I don't suppose there would be any objection since I haven't provided any specifics.

A freaking breeding ground of exception. I'm glad this didn't go as far as it could have. This is similar to how I view things and how I think history will eventually view 9/11, terrorism and the Bush response. Terrorism, at least to our culture and mindset, was still relatively new. Hadn't had a 9/11 to jolt us into any real fear of international terror plots. Just stuff that popped up from time to time with those "religio extremists" and they seemed to happen everywhere else and if they did happen here, it was minor and out of the news cycle relatively quickly. So, not surprisingly, like parents reacting to an intruder, we were tossed in a chaotic, insecure atmosphere where we could just as easily overreact as we could underreact - no real feel for balance, or reference. As a country, we were inadvertantly choosing security over liberty without realizing it yet. The Bush administration certainly went that direction, and I clearly remember waking up every morning to check the news expecting some major terror event follow up 9/11. Then, of course, the people finally had some time to soak these things in and realize the liberty/security principles and that the sky wasn't actually falling and we don't actually need to declare essential Marshal Law to catch terrorists. 9/11 was a big deal - to us. That's not to say it wasn't a big deal, but to emphasize that it wasn't an invasion by China or Russia, or a cloud of nukes sent by N Korea - it was a highly successful mass murder. The kind we should be ashamed of. From this point, I think Bush romanticized his duties and the threat, and used 9/11 and the fear of terrorism to roll out what he truly believed to be necessary. He chose security over liberty. He was that patriotic politician that abused his powers. I think it's important to note the noble intent - because like I've repeated so many times during my membership here: abuses, bigotry, shameful trampling of rights NEVER feels wrong at the time. It's ALWAYS justified with some stretch of rationale. (just like AIG, contempt for the rich). (I see Obama in a similar dilemma, by the way. The fear of economic collapse. Overreaction, underreaction. The same potential to abuse power by the patriotic politician. Security over liberty in the market. Noble intentions that challenge consistency with the constitution, including potential abuses of power (going after AIG bonuses), which I note he has not exercised yet and pledges not to.)

There ya' go. What else do you need? Are you under the impression that there's such a thing as "overseeing" someone's pay that doesn't....uh...oversee their pay? You do realize that oversight means to supervise, right? Which therefore establishes authority, which is a clear violation of property rights and freedom of speech in this case.

Glad we agree. So you're done with the wholesale association of guilt on people who's guilt you're entirely 100% ignorant on, right? Or should we just "believe the mob" and hang that slave for raping a white girl?

Terrific. At this point, I wish every employee of AIG would walk out with their middle finger firmly implanted on the closest big media camera lense. Screw the taxpayer, we deserve it. We never learn from emotion based witch hunts. We love the lynch mob. It wasn't enough to do this all throughout our history, with minorities, witches, peasants...it's all the same, only the class of victim has changed. This is the pendulum swinging the other way. Now we're going to unfairly punish and ridicule; ruin the lives of people we don't know, job positions we don't know (and probably wouldn't understand) and have no ****ing clue as to their culpability - we don't even know who the goddamn janitor is, but we're just sure everyone receiving a bonus should be burned at the stake. Idiots. Country full of damn idiots. Why does history always repeat itself? Because we never listen. We just mouth the words.

Wrong, again. I never implied you made such an argument. You might try dropping the canned rebuttals and formulate your own argument. Again...it's easy to see the blatant violation of principle, property rights and freedom of speech to "oversee" someone's compensation in the market. Purely socialist. Bordering on communism, if not fully migrated. And I wouldn't have to make this argument if your salary and everyone else's was under the same scrutiny. You know...equality? That bit everyone keeps bringing up in the gay marriage thread? But since it's just the "rich" being scrutinized, and because "everybody knows" they're a bunch of greedy pricks that stole from the backs of the poor and downtrodden to build their corporations that rape babies and starve children, then it's no big deal.

You mean cite something other than that bit I cited the first time? There's really nothing I like when the subject is overseeing someone's pay. Right out of the gate, it presupposes such a thing to exist, which I disagree with to any degree. Also it's not a slippery slope argument since I didn't argue that it would LEAD to that, I argued that if you APPLIED this garbage to everyone's job, there would be no need for me to explain the problem, nor any need for anyone to step up and take up for what's right, when it's not popular. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Apparently do without their property, since they're outnumbered and the majority has rationalized unfair treatment to a minority group. Imagine that, in America....

It's a strike right at the heart of property rights. Whether it's a little itty bitty one (which somehow makes it easier to rationalize around principles), or a sledgehammer exercise, it equates to blatant disregard for an individual's right to market themselves for maximum compensation - a right ALL of us enjoy, whether we use it or not. The easiest way to realize this, is to follow through. Why isn't EVERY job in the country subject to compensation oversight? Why should my company run around offering me top dollar, or satisfying union demands for bonus packages, when their income/expense ratio doesn't justify such compensation? If everyone's salary was effected, which is more what you'd expect from a country predicated on equality, then my arguments would be deafened by the storm of protest from the major, major, majority of americans. But since we're picking on a minority, then in typical american fashion, we don't give a shit. We make excuses, help each other lie to each other to work around sticky things like property rights and free speech. Commie is a strong word, and necessary when people are fooling themselves into stripping your rights away. I believe this works by pitting the lower and middle classes against the upper classes. The majority against the minority. Disparage this minority and make believe they are the cause of our problems; or they represent the fodder that got us into this mess. You read your history books and you wonder how people could have treated minorities so badly. No need to wonder, this is how it's done. Since they have property that we want (money), in this way the majority can effectively "vote" the minority's money away. Remember, you don't want to waste a perfectly good opportunity to swindle the people.

It's a commie plan. Every american should have every right to get the maximum benefit from any trade; have every right to compete for top dollar in any market. Rationalizations to the contrary are just that; making shit up to lie to yourself so you can make it ok to pass judgement on a minority. If this was being done to any other class of citizen, everyone would be up in arms on how unfair and egregious such acts by the government really are. But since it's those filthy rich assholes, then by all means, stick it to them. There's not enough of them to do anything about it, they're a minority. We've already justified stealing a higher percentage of their money than everyone else, might as well start from the other end, the income side, and assail that until we finally meet in the middle. After all, that's what the american dream is all about. If you can't elevate yourself, grab an ankle and pull somebody else down. How long until we do this with the NFL? Hollywood? Music? Why do we stop with CEO's? Oh yeah, cuz they're in the news and you don't want to "waste an opportunity" to take advantage of american's fears over the economy. I really liked this tyrannical gem: How cute. The good ole boy network gets to increase it's power and anyone who isn't "with us" (wink-nod), may just conveniently find itself "struggling", which could require the good ole boys to take over. Oh, how nice of them.

It's just fitting that the same pitchfork mentallity that hounds the AIG Exec's will now fry Dodd. We don't need Salem's pointers, we're right on track. We haven't lost a step since those days.

I cannot believe this. Insane. Why do they stop at money? It's property we're talking about, so why not confiscate my CD's if I can't explain how I got them? Or the car, itself? Oh yeah, cuz the money is liquid. I don't see how this is constitutional in the least. Somehow they're getting away with it, though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So if they "suspect" my fancy rims were procured through criminal means, do they get to take those too? I'm floored. Government seizing private citizen property through mere suspicion. I think I know what's next if we let these things go...Let me see your papers.

You had to work to misunderstand me. Nice trolling. DP would solve it brilliantly. And if you could keep up with the conversation you'd know that has NOTHING to do with my point in any way, shape, or form. I wasn't even arguing, I was describing the reason why I think government has a role in "marriage" or "domestic partnerships". This is what I mean by you getting lost. I was replying to your comment about libertarians. You asked. I answered. Since it was more than two sentences, you got lost. Again. No. Again...the overwhelmingly majority ruled constitution trumps the 94%. That's why it's in the courts. Nice trolling, again. Now, just for fun, here's that same post replied to, crappy style....(here's what you're doing scrappy, we call it trolling) So you're saying if you don't understand it, then there's no point? I think that 94% has a point and you don't understand it. Legalize double penetration all you want, they don't need to be married to be fully incapacitated. Nobody cares about icky gays? Then what's wrong with married ones then? Will that offend the straights? How about the shorts? The talls? The fats? The skinnies? Can we all be labeled by arbitrary attributes that you find detestable? Well you're one of the straights. So, yeah, I'm sure it seems trivial to abandon the constitution to persecute "the gays". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You're right. So, damn right. I'm done. We should have listened to you from the very beginning.

Me too. And unless I missed it, I didn't see any explanation to Baltar's projection / hallucination. iNow's probably on to something concerning Caprica and this stuff. No kidding. I kept rewinding my DVR to keep track of what was going on and to make sure I saw what I thought I saw. Very cool. And I saw the whole Kara-coordinates thing coming, except I was just convinced they were going to jump back to the place Kara resurrected, or some form of it, some perfect coordinate that puts them in the sweet spot so they all get resurrected, without knowing. So much for my speculations. I'll stick with music. So you didn't care for the way Sopranos ended either? Agreed.

Yep. And if you scroll up you'll see I've made that argument with other folks. In my mind, the government's only valid jurisdiction concerning this concept is it's legal consequences. Most of us take for granted that when our spouse is incapacitated, we become the arbiter of their wishes, and to make life and death decisions. Same-sex couples are denied this respect since they're denied recognition of marriage by the state. That's pretty dramatic and fuels a lot of justified indignation. Imagine being trumped by the parents of your life partner, whom disowned him decades ago cause he's "icky" and "shamed" the family - and they have more say about his wishes or his interests than you. And that is also a demonstration of rights being infringed, as opposed to the DOMA crowd, vacant with evidence. There's inheritance laws too. Tax laws. A hundred others I can't think of at the moment. It's those legal implications that concerns government, in my opinion. And that requires some kind of legal title of some kind, and I don't think the word "marriage" is appropriate for it. But I'm not going to rehash my position, it's well established at this point and most here are tired of hearing it.

So, of those who've seen this through...what do you all think? I'm kind of surprised there's not a lot of discussion on it today. Am I the only one that enjoyed how all of this ended? And weren't the battle scenes just beautiful? I've never described violence in such a way, but then I've never witnessed it simulated against such a kick ass background.

Well I am impressed you did manage to keep more of your rebuttals in context than I expected, so I'll keep my end of the bargain... I'm sorry, happily. Of course it didn't, it had to do with the context of where your conversation went with him - and you apparently lost the trail and continually default back to the OP when you do this and pretend as if this is where you were the whole time. It's bullshit. That's the first time you've acknowledged we're not a democracy. Glad you're on board. And there's the part you're missing. You've noticed the consistent them of democracy, employing voting for the various teirs of the system. What you haven't grasped is why we have constructed various groups who's resultant votes are teired in value. In other the words, you haven't appreciated nor made the connection on how this allocation of democracy undermines absolute democracy. You keep bringing up "the majority". Which one? The public? The legislature? The supreme court? Answer: The public The public majority is irrelevant if the constitution protects gay marriage. The legislative majority is irrelevant if the constitution protects gay marriage. Only the SC majority is relevant since they determine if the constitution protects gay marriage. You didn't make the distinction, nor that argument. It's this arrangement that transcends us beyond oversimplified titles such as "democracy". That word says nothing about the arrangement of power and vote value. A citizen's vote is applied at a level entirely different than a legislator's vote, and entirely different from the level of a SC Justice's vote. These levels and their charge as dictated by our recorded document make us much more than a mere "democracy". And finally, it was ratified by all 13 states that made up the union, and each amendment enjoys a 3/4 majority by the states - that's a freakin' majority opinion that we hold to higher esteem than any other twist on public majority. Maybe you forgot the constitution enjoys a majority also? No, you've competely missed the mark. My point was that the majority is not sufficient alone to make laws. It requires compliance with the constitution ( a previously established majority opinion, as covered ). False dichotomy. I prefer the one we have now, a constitutionally restricted majority. Right, you fail to understand the reasons why our government is built the way it is, and how democracy is negotiated within its structure. No, you've got it right...here. The opinions of 9 people we've elevated to higher esteem than ourselves, not the state of California or any other representation. You don't have to agree with my take on the way rights are philosophically distributed, particularly since half of our laws nowadays don't seem to reflect it either, but for libertarian-ish minded people, like myself, the concept of "your rights end where mine begin" is the formula for maximized personal liberty. And I believe in it utterly. You described it as "democracy" and "democratic principles". Well, that's about 15% of it. Where's the rest?

Ok then. In one ear - kicked ego in the nuts - and out the other. We're still looking for a rational challenge from you. Something other than "96% haha mother****ers..." iNow and I consistently but heads, thread after thread, and we consistently respect each other and take the time to absorb each other's points. That's how you know how to counter effectively, by locating the crux of their position and then assailing it. It's how we productively argue, and sometimes change each other's opinions, even if ever so slightly. So agreement with me is not a prerequisite, and not much fun either. Sometimes, I take a contentious position just for the academic exercise. I love "contrary to my own". Good and bad opinion is purely subjective and irrelevant to my comment. I was talking about depth, not value. This is kind of proof of that... No, because someone claims support from a segment of the population to make a point you lost track of several posts ago. You have no idea why Padren is talking about women priests because you forgot where you are in your conversation with him, or you never tracked it to begin with. The latter is the work of a troll. You can easily prove me wrong by responding to my post # 138. If you can just keep up with the context - alone - I'll happily post an apology.

scrappy, if you can't keep up with the context of your arguments then you're as good as a troll. Your tack, thus far, is to respond; not to offer any meaningful arguments. And you can't seem to get any deeper than surface level specious reasoning. I realize you're taking on much of the room here, so you can't answer everyone, and it's a tough position, but you're failing at it because you're not processing anyone's points with any depth and therefore you can't reply with any either. If this is your method, then why bother discussing? What's the point of follow up? You just keep repeating yourself. The last thing I'd ever want to do is insult a new person, but your debate style is insulting and disrespectful to the intellectual work folks in here are exercising. Anybody can do what you're doing because you're not offering anything but one liner retorts that don't apply to the context of the quote since you lost track of the conversation, or purposely never tracked it to begin with. So why should we bother going to the trouble to understand you and invest all of the time and energy going over your points when you won't even attempt the same, in return?

I'm going to do some reading on it too. I love the idea of Chapter 11 and thought DrDNA was right on the money by suggesting it. It seems to be, in essence, what we expected when they sold us bailouts. But I also understand there are other dynamics to consider which I may be ignorant about, so I'll pause for a research break. Here's a piece written by Newt Gingrich on the subject, and I think he makes a good point on the rule of law over these corporations preferable to the rule of politicians over them. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31117 Edit: Oh, and by the way, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but going after these bonuses after the fact would seem to qualify as ex-post-facto law, and possibly a bill of attainder, which is entirely illegal and should be rejected with prejudice from any democratic nation of laws. Particularly when it's our government that screwed up.

No kidding? Hmm. There's not a part three is there? Because I did notice they labeled last night's finale as part 2 of Daybreak, which I thought was a little odd since part 1 was apparently just one hour. Gee, how disappointing. You need to see it, it was spectacular TV, no matter how you might feel about how they closed the story. Personally, I enjoyed how it ended and that's unusual as I'm rarely impressed with endings.

Yeah, it should have been close to an hour and a half without commercials. It was standard 2 hour TV slot.

We're in agreement here, for sure. I don't believe either side should succeed in a legal definition of marriage. And I too, enjoy pushing these things back on the conservatives since they're the ones sporting the freedom false-front. Of course, that's just one example of what pushes thinking conservatives into libertarians... Also, wanted to say great post. I think we're in agreement more than it may appear. It's been a good discussion, good points all around. I know it's helped me nail this down a little, though it may be contrary to most.

No apologies necessary.