jackson33

Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health has been forbidden by law since the passage in 1995 of the Dickey Amendment by Congress and the signature of President Bill Clinton.[129] Bush has said that he supports adult stem cell research and has supported Federal legislation that finances adult stem cell research. However Bush did not support embryonic stem cell research.[130] On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells,[131] but the ability of these existing lines to provide an adequate medium for testing has been questioned. Testing can only be done on twelve of the original lines, and all of the approved lines have been cultured in contact with mouse cells, which creates safety issues that complicate development and approval of therapies from these lines.[132] On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time in his presidency to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The bill would have repealed the Dickey Amendment, thereby permitting federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.[133] Bush lifted the BAN on 12 allowing some FEDERAL FUNDING... On NASA, he has increased funding each year while in office as well as the National Science Foundation. AIDS Research, Pandemic Research, Solar Cell and Battery Power research and a host of scientific projects, many time for the 1st time in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW_Bush Teaching Creationism in your school, if thats your problem, is the responsibility of your local 'Board of Education'. Think there are about 2000+ of these boards around the US, basically in charge of public K-12 educational systems (about 50% of the total schools) and this seems to be a constant issue, said to be a Federal choice. It is not.... Although nothing is final as of NOW, the Obama Budget(s), flat lines NASA and may eliminate NSA Funding altogether. I read your profile, and you appear to be a well rounded 'all American young lady' living with your Dad and probably have a future in Music, possibly the opera or some religious group. When I saw your post, I literally squirmed in my chair for fear of what else is being taught in todays public schools or the actual influence of the main stream media. Your obviously interested in your country and have made enough post to show that interest, reflecting you intelligence. I am at least three generations your senior (an old guy) and would guaranty you, Socialism would not in any way make you happy. I sincerely hope you and millions like you learn this before it's too late. (including Cameron) Mr. Skeptic; Ironically the 1st Party to form during formation of the US, was called the Democratic-Republican Party. Others have formed and disappeared (we have about 14 today) and Republican was dropped around 1812 from the D-R party only to return in 1856 or so. During this 230 year history party platforms have changed, and those voting for or against have changed. Single issues have in most cases have given success to one or another's, whether Slavery, Womens Suffrage, Security/Isolationism (war or pacifist) to more recently the Economy. An example would be JFK's Democratic Party and very similar to the Reagan Republican Party, if in actions only. To the thread; As long as America survives, under it's original Constitution or even today acceptance of that 'Outline', there will be a 'loyal opposition'. It's when we have become ruled as single party (FDR, Johnson/Carter and today) that extremes happen, no less than what the current Democratic base feels about Bush/Republican Congress. Washington, in his 'Farewell to the Nation Speech' said it best, fearing party loyalty could become more important than the interest of the Nation. Although I fear were in the initial stages of act three (FDR/Johnson the 1st 2) 'socialization of America', it's my belief the American People, those new here to those with historic roots, will see beyond that loyalty to the basic tradition/culture that got the US to where it is. I further think that return will be quick and possibly not pretty and worry most of all that blame will be laid on individuals who were simply being who they are and got elected. This could be said of at least the past 50 years of Presidents, any of which have been brutalized in our history books or media, despite the fact, THEY WERE EACH ELECTED by the electorate and under the Constitution...

Simply said, it's 'Illegal Profiling', under today's definition of 'Political Correctness. Then there is no evidence that supporters of any party are likely to be members of anything, much less something that might be involved in illegal activity. Then technically 'Freedom of Speech' (bumper stickers) cannot be used for probable cause to either take extra precaution or intimidation of a motorist (in this case). Missouri, has always been a little far out of the norm, going back decades. For a generation, truckers would by pass Missouri in total to avoid Inspection/Weight Stations and if you drove a flatbed, you became a target. Not that they are alone, out of State license plates will also get you stopped in many towns, or along the towns by pass, by local police. Having said this, I understand profiling is a viable tool for law enforcement, their investigating process, determining potential principle suspects and that stopping a vehicle can be dangerous, but do not think it's the purpose of any agency to link party affiliations to potential problems.

'Pairing' of individuals has been around forever and probably the reason our species survived in the first place, which holds true to today for all species. However were talking about the basic concepts developed over the past 500 to maybe a thousand years, of a formal recognition of these parings and for some reason, historically religious in nature. Briefly parings were neither monogamist or necessarily of the same sex, often with brutal outcomes to the women involved. Males in early recorded history were dominant, taking as many partners or later wives as the pleased ( all religions accepted), discarding as they pleased. One of the best outlines of much of both sides this arguments can be found in this article; http://www.answers.com/marriage As for the US Federal Government; When formed with the purpose of addressing ONLY the interest of the combined member States, listed the responsibilities to the States, NOT the responsibility to the Federal from the States. The 1st A, explicitly forbids the establishment of a Federal Religion or involvement into their otherwise legal activity. It's my opinion, 'parings' and/or marriage is a personal right under the Constitution, but the Federal has chose to WORD a meaning into what either can mean for certain benefits or relief from some obligations. The change of that wording, which was unquestionably entered from a religious concept, should be generic to it (Federal Government) and be a State Right to determine a meaning to it's citizens. 'Paring', that age old practice of two or more individuals to live together under some pact, whether a traditional couple, same sex couple, group of person or for some none sexual reason can then restrict or practice the States determination of their pact. Keep in mind, today individuals already legally live together not married, is G/L relationships, in groups or for non sexual reasons... I should add, since part of my discussion, that if the Congress makes an amendment to specifically make marriage only for 1f/1m, which they have the authority to do, my entire post would need to be changed...

Was going to commend you, when this was first written, but thought would start something, I would not finish. In my years on these forums, including strict 'Conservative' Political forums, piling on has always bothered me. Your analogy (hometown team) was perfect and should be listened to...This is the most active forum today on politics, where politics is not the main topic of the general forum...FOR A REASON. As for the TARGET,' scappy' is a rather mild mannered debator where religion and homosexual activity is discussed. I don't see a dimes worth of difference between most his adversaries on the basic issues of equality and has consistently STUCK WITH THE THREAD THEME, Government to or not to change the one word 'marriage'. I have seen no replies by him that were evasive to his obvious viewpoints and seen a good many ignoring his just as obvious compasion for those that marriage a religious concept. YT2095; I understand any forum must have rules and those rules should be honored and/or enforced. However having you entered the 'standard warning' or if Ophie had, would and does dissapoint me. Passion is a requirement IMO on political, social and religious issues. Why else would any person spend the time to discuss or argue their opinions. I have seen your passion in action, Ophie, bascule, iNow and many others and accept it as passion, not some diversionary action to avoid anything, other than a possible tactic often used on a debate format. The thread starter, has recieved an answer with the 30 that participated in the poll, frankly the results a bit of a surprize to me. Note also that 11 (2nd place) voted to KEEP the word (marriage) with or without explanation, scrappy just one and voiced his reasons... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, my post # 306 had everything to do with with this post and in short SSM could not have been intended, implied or addressed in A9 USC. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=106 Constitutional Law Degrees, which 99% of all those that argue before the SC have and requires study generally to an additional degree in US/World History under Law and the history of the those that wrote or had input into the Constitution. Even then they will seek out historians to review anything current to the case at hand. The above DC Gun case, gives a brief understanding of the process. If SSM were to make it to and somehow be accepted for review or a hearing, IMO they could not rule, the founders intended for individuals of the same sex to marry. I would say until 2003, other individual rights which have been granted under other amendments, were not possible. Anyway the only point of my argument is to eliminate the word 'marriage' from the Federal Governments vocabulary and that what any union means to anyone, is for the States to decide and honor. You are arguing that marriage itself is an inherent right of individuals and to who (still a limitation, two of same sex) and basically a Federal obligation to enforce. To extend the point, it's my belief, Marriage itself is a religious term, meaningful to religious people and of no business to the US Government, restricted by the First A.

The reason most our amendments 11-26, have been written, ratified and tested, was to clarify/alter or change the first 10. When this SC or any since the first, review/hear a case, they are/have been concerned with intent of the authors. I can guaranty you in 1791 (A #9 ratified) you would not like my interpretation or any historians of that intent. Remember the penalty in 3 of those 13 Colonies was death for an act of sodomy. Further, Women and Blacks were also not intended. This is why I believe only an amendment to the Constitution will clear up this matter and do not feel (Opinion) this could be done today. In the meantime States still have rights and can decide this issue. Blacks were free people, different races married and women held State Offices, long before their liberating amendments/laws were enacted...

Not trying to speak for scrappy; His point I feel is three is no Constitutional Basis for the acceptance of SSM in federal law TODAY. If it were were to be argued today and as Barnie Franks said, it would ruled against. I would add the SC has TODAY no authority to even hear a simple SSM case, where it's not specifically addressed in the Constitution and add the 'Founders sentiments' would not help the movement. If Mr. Franks, can get a couple openly gay judges appointed in the next few years, I would further suggest the Congress would amend the Constitution, to either prevent a decision or override one made. As I have, he is arguing from a legal standpoint to an audience based on an emotional point of view. Decision/ruling made by Congress and or THE ENTIRE Judicial System, should never be made on emotions.

It would seem, at least for auto's, banning black cars would seem silly. I'm going to assume the energy savings is in the cost of cooling the interior for short periods, which tinted glass, vinyl roofs have proved effective and auto travel time in California (work/pleasure) is one of the nations highest. However, other dark colors are nearly as costly and/or bright colors reflect near the same percentages of heat. Said another way if all those Black Cars, went to Navy Blue, Dark Brown or Purple, the savings would be negligible. In the US the most popular color is silver with about 20% of National Sales being Silver, White 18% and yes Black 17%. http://www.motorauthority.com/white-and-black-gaining-ground-on-silver-as-most-popular-car-color-in-us.html Now Trucks, Trailers, Rail Cars, Home/Business/Factory Roof Tops are a very different story, possibly Cabs, buses and trains may be an issue. Most involved with these forms of transportation or business already have realized the savings. There are no dark colors on ANY over the road trailer, emphasis on Reefers, rail cars, even containers have some form of reflective tops and home builders take this into consideration, according to location. In Southern Arizona for instance, Snow Roofs are very popular (Rock with white/silver sealer) and required in many subdavisions, where for months every year the average daily highs are well over 100 degrees (Yuma, Phoenix, Tuscon).

Hedge Fund Managers are the cream of the crop, however the best of all money managers would stand out. This site will list, with pay and a picture of those best. Note the top five each earned more than the total 780M given to AIG, George Soros one of them and the Companies they worked for. If the Federal gets involved with maximum compensation law, Sweden will probably become the Financial Capital of the World in day's... http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/03/24/business/0324HEDGE_index.html

Under 'law enforcement' after the first 'Twin Tower' bombing, nothing much was prevented. After 9/11, War Powers were invoked with the consent of Congress, giving additional executive powers. Under precedence established by other Presidents, including Lincoln/FDR, Bush was authorized to do a number of things, which IMO still were with in his authority even with out those powers. ARE YOU SAYING, no attacks on the mainland since 9/11 or the thwarted attempts here and around the world, would have been prevented regardless of executive action??? OK, let me reword something. Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld will never be convicted of criminal activity, much less ever appear in a court. There will always be accusations, charges thrown around, activist Judges willing to authorize investigations or a hearing, so long as their are others to back them up. Some former Judge out there is still trying to collect $54M over a DELAY in getting his pants back from a Cleaning Service, so anything is possible... For the record and have said many times; Once a person takes the office of President, VP, House or Senate Leader, it's my belief, they should be free to operate in their positions as required. In the event of actually breaking their oath, or committing some major felony (not having sex) they can be removed from office, then subject prosecution under the civil courts, not criminal for actions while in office. What we don't need are people in these positions afraid of breaking some minor law, making decisions in fear or worried about public opinion. This includes Obama, who in my opinion is rewriting the Constitution itself. Every President, that has lived through his term, has been subject to such nonsense and this has been known to every person running for that or those offices.

Islamic Extremist Attacks on US interest, under al-Qa'ida, neither stopped or started on 9/11/2001. Methods to handle or address CHANGED... http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page7930 While you were daily expecting additional hits on US soil, at least 19 attempts were foiled in the US, many more on US interest around the world and we have no idea how many failed for lack of a viable leadership, kept on the run... Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld nor any member of the GWB Administration will ever have charges brought against them by or under any US authority. I would bet my life on that.

I'll try again; Very, very few CEO, COO, CFO or major manager earns anything close to an outrageous wage. Many in fact own their own Company and others have worked their way up in one. Those that are HIRED by a BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S, who are themselves usually successful business people, solicit who they want and negotiate a pay PACKAGE. Of the 40 to 60 thousand larger Corporations, maybe 2-400 are run by someone those other thousands would love to hire. There maybe many lower level managers, qualified and are working their way up through the system, but have yet to establish the track record to qualify running some of the Corporations your talking about. Right now, today many of those future people are quietly being made, while stock prices plummet, sales drop, yet the Company is maintaining some sort of stability. Stockholders, analyst and investors like Buffet search out these Companies and their management and have made fortunes betting on these principle. KFC, Taco Bell or all that is now 'YUM Foods' were and are built on these people as was/is Wal Mart, GE or any conglomerate in today business world. Neglected by the Obama ADMINISTRATION (is that better bascule), is who/why/what caused the problems of today in the first place and how to avoid the next problem (I don't think possible), but certainly is arguably IMO the Federal Government, specifically Congress and previous actions or lack of in the past. NOT necessarily management...

The DOW, is hyper sensitive to the financial sector in the first place and every Obama Policy move effects this one sector. If your interested, check out the list, noting GM, GE and others are knee deep in financing along with the five or so pure financial. I'd go through the weights of each with regards to effecting the total DOW, but I don't think your interested...Point in fact what it took to drive the DOW down from 14k to 10k is a mild fraction of what's involved from 10k to below 7k. http://money.cnn.com/data/dow30/ Todays last half hour and the drop from -50 to -115 or so in the last few minutes, was a pure play on what tonights Obama Press Conference will mean to tomorrows opening. Thats just the way it is and has nothing to do with my opinions of OBAMA POLICY, markets don't follow my opinion but a collective of millions. In fact if it opens higher, then my todays last minute purchase of GE, will pay off. As for the 500 point increase, I do give credit to Bernanke, who has been making more sense than most anyone lately. I also think he is advising Geithner, along with other members of the Federal Reserve. Obama himself is a non factor, IMO. He has never managed anything, certainly not a business, probably never owned a share of anything and thinks P/E has something to do with PROFITS. I also happen to believe or my opinion, that Emanuel, possibly with Axlerod have more to do with policy than Obama and feel Obama is pursueing some long held beliefs about a living US Constitution, with perceived errors in democracy (by the people) over the intent of representation from those people. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You covered both sides; We are in a trading range, where breaking below 6600 or over 9000 will have meaning. Most economist (not sure NP winners) are more concerned with pending inflation, artificial bottoms and massive government intrusion into an economical structure, US and/or world, which could easily lead to a depression or certainly a long period of recession (1979-83). They realize Federal Actions today are replays of recently failed attempts to stimulate, not those in 1930-39. IMO http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D4=1&ViewType=0&D5=0&CE=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1&D3=0&Symbol=%24INDU&C9=0&DisplayForm=1&CP=0&PT=5

Lets try and keep this is perspective; NEW HOME sales are down -4.45% in Feb. compared to a year ago... Existing Home Sales ARE up 5.1% in February, but the value of those homes dropped to 165,400, -4.6% from the previous year and at multi year lows. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jy2JudjFnPeoNaRHhdcKTFjUQtjA It's my understanding, Congress will buy up to a $1T of FDIC 'said' toxic paper, allowing the FDIC to back investors in the purchase of notes held by member Banks. I had two pending offers for existing homes last week and have been put on hold, while FDIC details are being worked out. Under my offer, all cash, those two homes which the Bank was originally satisfied with the, established a premature bottom to myself. My local Bank manager believes FDIC, is going to value those two homes at the value of their paper or what was owed when defaulted. My offer was 150k on two homes I estimated last sold for 300k, probably near what the bank has invested. What FDIC is proposing is I could advance as little as 18k (6%), they would do the same and back my loan up to the estimated 300k. Of course, there is no way I would agree to that or any investor. IMO, it's simple manipulation of a market, in the hopes long range investors will hold their end up, pay the taxes, maintenance, keep rented or any obligation involved and at the end of the agreement (not defined, but possibly up to 20 years) split any capital gains and I would bet pay additional PG taxes on my part, on any sale over 300k. This makes absolutely no sense IMO.... As for my referendum on OBAMA POLICY, I stand my the premise and is agreed with by many. In part the markets dropped as policies were being announced. It would be in my interest, to be completely wrong as both an investor and day trader in the markets. I will say again; China is the giant in todays economy, both as producer and consumer after only the US and all DOW components have a stake in China. Their 9% 2008 GDP was up 9%, while their markets (Hong Kong) plunged 50%, but has increased 35% in the past month. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/22/content_10700833.htm

That's called 'Name Brand', (aka recognition) which all entertainers (including athletes) try to develop. It's really not much different with a product, where the customer will buy a name brand over a generic, of channel surfing where you'll spend time checking out some person you know. It's worth a fortune and the entertainment fields will pay a fortune for some...Didn't Jolene, sell a picture of her child for two million. Mokele; Corporation, work a little different, maybe extremely different. Most of those multi million dollar pay PACKAGES, are not salary based, often times a fraction of the total. If some Board of Directors, likes a particular candidate for CEO, COO, CFO or high ranking division manager (say overseas) they will negotiate a package, including perks, wages and the big gun 'Stock Options' which are linked to performance. As for studies, psychological testing or aptitude testing, there are hundreds of studies and many Firms, that do only those test. The US Military, has a battery of test dating back to at least 1955, where an enlisted persons military career is determined, including Officer Training, additional Schooling or some specialized field. In the News; Would guess this means money managers in general, those that handle money for other in Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds or for the investments of some Financial Institution. I feel sure beginners, those not tested or just out of school are accepted by Education/School, grade levels, probably some aptitude testing and offered lower wages with higher performance rewards, before lengthy contracts are offered. Once tested, contract can vary a great deal...

If a person believes in the Sanctity of a Marriage, under some religious concept, asking them to accept others into their collective mind set could be a violation of rights. The status quo in the US has been and to today that marriage is between one man and woman. I agree, in the US, one of our greatest principles is tolerance of those we don't always agree with, especially when it comes to governing. But it has always come with limitations and religious understanding which still makes up 80+% of the people, these limitations are going to be set by them, as a rule. Behavior acceptance of people, will and have always been considered. We have limitation on whats acceptable and law has been used to determine these limits. Where in some societies, even with in the US, some actions are justified from their religious teaching, their culture traditional training or for any reason they should obied by those laws or used the appropriate means to achieve change. There are inherent risk in any form of human behavior. STD statistics are really getting out of hand, diabetes and obesity, use of legal or illegal drugs or alcohol use, along with many other potential risk. As for Smokers and the said risk of second hand smoke; Having complied with these laws, paying additional taxes over years (my 1st pack cost .10, would now cost 10.00) I could and would argue documented health risk are unfounded and another agenda driven idea which took roots for other than end results. Since off topic, I won't bother you with the many 'documented health risk' that have long been reputed. Since smoking itself is a filthy habit (as in dirty), causes a great deal of property damage and costly I have never recommended it. It is a forced 'loss' of a right however, and my point... And by the way, I don't have a problem with SSM or do I care who lives with who or how many who's live together. I do oppose how some issues are packaged and SSM cannot be packaged in the same manner as Traditional Marriages,,,,IMO.

Dudde; I'll try to keep this is some order and to a few some may be repetitious. Every State from the original 13 to at some point all 50 States had sodomy laws. These laws prevented any two of the same sex from intimate relations and prevented possible legal union/marriage from consideration. Said another way same sex intimate relationships were by all law illegal. States started dropping these laws around 1970 or just didn't enforce and in 2003 the Supreme Court outlawed any enforcement or current law or making new laws. To emphasize the meaning of these laws, in 3 of the the original 13 Colonies death was the punishment, Jefferson himself favored dismembering those involved. Said another way, same sex marriage/unions or whatever could not be addressed or made legal and could have been a crime until 2003. You cannot enter into a contract or make law which is itself an illegal act. States starting with Hawaii 1994 or so, seeing a trend voted to maintain marriage in their Constitution as between one/m and one/f. However you look at this, SSM was illegal and has been maintained in most States. I am not saying I agree or agreed with any of this, thats just what is being ignored and forcing acceptance is most certainly an agenda motivated movement. You getting passionate, which is interesting, on acceptance of something not 40 years ago was totally illegal in the US. Whether a movement or an ideology, the G/L have enjoyed an ever increasing number of rights, losing NONE, that I know of... If dropping a word is inconceivable/not feasible in your mind, what would the effects on your G/L friends or for that matter mine, if the Congress acted in the reverse, making official government policy under an amendment, ONLY recognized as one and one. IMO as a Nation were 50 years from total acceptance, possibly much longer and further attempts on forcing the practice will end up with that action. Polygamy is very much like SSM in many respects, probably more acceptable and is practiced in many societies around the world today, where sodomy is not. As I have mentioned, more than a few times, IMO sexual activity is not an important factor for any government to include when determining befits or obligations and the reason I liked this 'word change' from the first time I heard the idea. Pangloss; Consummation of a marriage, is required under many religious beliefs and can be used for divorce grounds in many States, but as you say, not or ever has been a requirement for marriage. Just another good reason for the Federal to drop that one word...letting individuals determine their own reasons for becoming a couple...

Not at all; The three States that VOTED in the majority to keep marriage between one man and one woman (2008), or the several in recent years, enforced the status quo, not establish anything new. Any forcing is an after the fact attempt by a minority. Having said more than once however, those votes are not binding on any State Legislature that I know of, I find it hard for you to understand my opinions...on this issue. I am a smoker, but won't walk into a smoke free establishment, smoke and expect them to accept my right(?) as a minority.

iNow; My rather extensive business experience is with SMALL business. I don't pretend to understand or be able to explain the complexities of International Financial Institution, the multiple laws and cultures involved, and can only offer an opinion. Unlike the chaos I felt would happen with the Auto industry (producing a name brand product), banking insurance or related issues are universal. If your bank fails tomorrow (25 have this year) the only thing you will notice is a different name on their building. It's not the spending of $180B to save an institution that lost $61B in the forth quarter alone or that under normal conditions they would take 100 years to earn and pay back that 180B if then, it's the total nonsense I see in their reasoning. They are the politicians who I look at as kids arguing over bubble gums, when their issue is the very structure of American Business or Capitalism itself. Today around the US and no doubt the world, small business is cutting back. Selling off property, assets (inventories/machinery/buildings) to maintain the remainder. They don't require Chapter 11, but just do it. Protection for publicly owned companies for their stockholders is required and procedures in place to protect that business, there creditors or the many complexities involving labor, unions or all else involved. IMO, adding the Federal Government and frankly the ignorance I've heard on those procedures or the reasons these actions are and have been taken is making no sense. Said another way; Every contract written, held or backed by any segment of AIG, has either a value (income) or obligation (future expense) and in both cases will be accepted by some other Company, Investment Company (Buffett) or the private investor, to the point AIG, under AIG or another name can stand alone. I would bet the Federal Reserve (Bernanke), the US Treasury Department (Geithner) and every National Government involved already has prepared for the eventuality of just such an action, even probably assuming Chapter 11 is inevitable. The 180B or where ever they take this figure, will have meant nothing, probably adding to the PROBLEMS (new debt and delusion of stock values). That 180B will also delude the pennies on the dollar of other creditors, which will eventually have to be accepted.

Dudde; Forty thousand new Lawyers are licensed each year. We have unlimited access to our local legal structure/courts, any specific law with precedent and untold number of Legal Aid for those without funding or with a desire to promote an agenda. Yes, in todays climate, the only thing required would be time (not money) for the petitioner(s). I don't know how many claims against the US, for benefits alone are already in the pipe line, but do know three have reached the Federal Appeals Jurisdiction. Thousands of others are in local courts, just as any compliant filings by any segment of society. This is simply a process and IMO unique in the American System and has allowed thousands of changes, just or unjust to the majority. I personally hate the ACLU, but will defend there right to address any issue, even if merits are not in my mind acceptable. Frankly Judges will throw out many of these cases, but for another thread... Your point; And I think I understand it completely, is that you believe Gay/Lesbian are being discriminated against at various levels, in Society and under law, probably not to the level of iNow or proponents of forced public acceptance of a majority. It's that 'forced' that worries me and where I cannot accept in principle. The same holds true for me for Polygamist, who I defend daily, but would never defend forced acceptance on the general public. I also personally disagree with ALL State and our Federal Sentencing systems, feeling we create our own future criminal and maybe a hundred other issues. Majority rule has it's merits IMO, whether I agree or not. On misunderstanding; First I said "A minority of G/L folks" and will stand by this. Most of any group, concerns themselves with daily life, getting breakfast ready, the kids off to school, getting to work and all the average person does every day. This forum maybe has 200 (10-15 on politics) daily active member (which is high) and G/L forums run about the same numbers. We and those G/L forums are not the whole of any discussion and in both cases fewer yet are involved with actually doing anything about an issue. Back to the thread; What/Who could possibly be hurt, if the Federal Government, simply dropped the word 'Marriage' or warranted Federal Benefits to individuals, including to those dependent on the principle payee in the event of death. I don't think, today this would be an additional cost at all, possibly even a reduction in cost. I have already addressed other issue, where social funding is involved, where savings could be high in this aging society. Then this allowing the intent of the founders, where States (those sovereign independent nations) can decide for themselves, social laws. No one State today recognizes laws from all 50 States on any social issue, nor would/should they be forced to, IMO.

First off, I have already voted FOR a word change for the Federal Government or in short say, it's none of their business who marries who, then under the religious concepts of the Constitution. In most States TODAY, people are treated as individuals, not couples. A PERSON can do this, that or anything another person is allowed to with equal restrictions. No, a contract between two or more persons whether for living conditions or some financial undertaking is very inexpensive. It can be hand written, notarized and placed in public records at NO cost, well maybe a filing cost or done on line with legal assistance for less than 200.00 in most cases. A prenuptial agreement today, is just as costly, which actually counters State Laws. Keep in mind many of the benefits listed as for Married couples, have a time line and if not met the legally married couple, divorced in 9 years, 11 months and 25 days is no longer eligible for. iNow; are you saying any person opposing the viewpoints of the majority of members of this forum, is automatically a troll ??? Frankly, same sex marriage isn't bothered with, outside a minority of G/L folks seeking some sort of religious acceptance or maybe some benefit. I would argue, those seeking benefits, would in the end reduce the amounts received under a marriage contract, opposed to individual, to begin with...Then for religious acceptance, there going to have some problems. I certainly wouldn't advise moving to Iran to escape American attitudes.

That's my argument, it can't possibly be temporary with the potential of being permanent. No, at the time it was liquidity (unable to get short term financing) which the Fed offered... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group The results from the first loan was a $61B, 4th quarter loss, the largest ever recorded of a single company. However my scenario to you, was intended to explain Company Performance from an investors viewpoint, which should have been negative to you and for a very long period. If truly interested, the above Wiki outline is very well written. iNow; Your defining collapse of a Company (chapter 7 and liquidation period), NOT going Chapter 11. Check out the above site, drop down to 'Holdings'... Each unit of AIG has some value, each asset has as value and of major interest to the Country it's in and each contract active with AIG is and would be in progress, the day Chapter 11 was filed. What is going on today is the US Federal Government is propping up a Worldwide operation, IMO creating an artificial bottom to future values. Business would go on, contracted payment be made, customer payment continue to flow in, people working and all things required to maintain operation placed on hold, while the assets are sold off. It may be required ALL assets, including the name (AIG) be sold, but the end result of these effects would be no different than what has already happened, at least in my opinion. Yes, it is a little larger ans yes it operates around the world. The potential for recovery remains the same regardless where financing comes from and under Chapter 11, it would come from a realistic business community.

For a history of US Bailouts;http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts If the object is to restructure and either method can achieve that result, how on earth can the Federal Government spending $700B, plus, plus, plus to achieve that outcome be justified...The only way government can succeed in their current practice is to take over AIG. Think of this as your personal investment...You now own 80% of a Company, having paid to date $180B. Since you now own this 80%, who will get blamed for an inevitable failure. They are selling assets and/or parts of the operation, that have value or produce a profit (why else would another party buy). Those that could help you with your investment have left the Company or hated by a large portion of the American public, which happens to include investors. Are you comfortable with this scenario??? iNow; Can you argue/discuss/debate with anyone with out making derogatory comments toward that person or his/her methods...If your goal is for me to report a post...It aint gonna happen. Citigroup accepted $248B...52 Week high low 27.35 and .97 cents per share and now 2.63 per. Freddy Mac and Fannie May accepted $200B 33.19/.25 and .73 per share today. LB, who didn't take a dime was dropped from the NYSE, gone 'Pink Sheets' and I don't have time to research the values of each their current 14 stocks, but AM SURE it's not far off the above mentioned or others that accepted up to $700B and no telling how much more to come and I am sure, the survival of LB is equal to theirs, if for no other reason than they are being run by people that understand business, not members of Congress.

My point; LB, AIG and for that matter any large financial today are already in the same shape. Lehman Brothers is simply doing it the old fashion way and filed chapter 11. Those that accepted federal funds, are today no better off or are their chances for pulling threw any better. http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/usbanks.html What I think you simply don't understand is filing Chapter 11, is a process the Federal Government circumvented to establish an International Confidence in the US Financial System, which has failed. "AIG is GINORMOUS compared to LB" what ever that means is not equal to 'Significantly Larger" and both are dwarfed by others or in fact a fraction of AIG, who are no better off. Short of making the entire US Banking System a Federal entity, or the hoped for reversal in the economy (will take years) the Federal CANNOT continue to back these firms, IMO. Think about it, $180B to prop up one Financial that at its peak held a little over a trillion in total assets. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged According to them;http://moneycentral.msn.com/companyreport?Symbol=AIG Lehman Brothers, has already subdivided into about 12-15 separate business and trying to sell off parts to maintain the rest...http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/common/findsymbol.asp?Company=lehman+brothers&nextpage=http%3a%2f%2fmoneycentral.msn.com%2fdetail%2fstock_quote Yes, others are interested in AIG parts already. Think India and Canada have already bought rights and split from the main company in one or another category and others have made offers. As for their and all these financial, the mortgage assets are today worth about 1/2 the listed asset value, with any real value being artificial or not known. An example, I hope to buy two homes next week, for about 1/2 what they last sold for, in the hopes the bottom of the market here as been established....some financial will eat those losses, including owed taxes, while I will be liable for repairs etc, from no one living there the past year.

As you, rehashing arguments over the same issues, is really getting boring.. However short of Federal Tax Laws, States have the authority today to treat any individual with or without regards to gender preference. Think 6 have no State Income Tax and most others are based on what is paid to the Federal. Federal Grants to States are made on population, not how many married couples, on and on...As for City/County and/or Property Taxes (School Taxes), they are based on the property, not who lives on the property. Might add SS/Medicare is based on the worker, not his/her status as are the payouts. Any person, can enter into a Contract with another or a number of others to determine most anything they please. If incapacitated, this person or that will make my decision or that person will be in charge of something else, child care, estate or whatever. As for inheritance law, without a formal will and in some cases with a will, you would be surprised how States differ on whats legal or can be probated. In one State, you can will an estate to one of five children in total or various amounts, but in many others (if you have moved) your estate will automatically be divided between the total. Having said all this, I would always advise any married couple, any couple period or any individual to establish a 'Living Trust' when in doubt, which over rides most State Laws on a number of issues and can be set up for about the price of 'Last Will & Testament'. Donating body parts, distribution of assets, turning off/on life support and other issues can be addressed and the parties involved can be any person you want...

What 'DNA' is asking for is the reason AIG has an advantage to accept Federal Funds, over just filing Chapter 11. GM for instance believes the word 'Bankruptcy' would hurt sales. In either case the end result has to be 'reorganization' which Chapter 11, offers a somewhat organized reorganization, under mandatory arbitration (a Judge or panel of), where accepting Government Funds allowed the Company to reorganize, while paying off debts, obligations and so forth from the managements opinions. Both systems, involve the same problems, previous contracts to the actual sale of assets. As for AIG being so gigantic, NO it's not nor is it the point. It is simply the exposure to a particular problem in the economy at a given time, in this case exposure to a declining mortgage market, where assets held by a company have declined below assumed market values. LB, when filing Chapter 11, listed 639B in assets and in short AIG, listed on its Oct. 2008 quarterly filing 1,022B, I would bet having dropped substantially since. LB, is to date the largest asset holder of any Company to file Chapter 11, but is suffering and existing no less than AIG or any other Federally Funded bailout financial. LB is still listed on the 'Pink Sheets', has the potential for recovery, yet being sued by every previous Stock Holder, Creditor or supplier, no less than AIG, or any other financial in trouble.