http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/more/02/16/phelps.ap/index.html

To be fair, I think it was said at the time that the money was a loan to get them by until they could ask for more money later. But, that doesn’t change the point that the government’s actions ensured that the auto companies (and others, too, I’m sure) would be looking for the same treatment again.

BTW, how many of the programs funded in the pork package that just passed will be back begging for more money when this batch starts running low? The annual stimulus game has begun and it won’t end any time soon. All to be paid for by printing, borrowing, and taxing. Corresponding to those three things, it seems like a good time to keep your money out of dollar-denominated assets (because the inflation will hit them), think twice before lending the government money to waste (e.g. buying bonds) for that same reason, and shoot anyone reaching for your wallet.

Fred Phelps and his band of assholes stage what I would consider to be much more offensive demonstrations, and you don’t hear anybody on the left calling for christians to be institutionalized as a result.

Tempting as the thought might be, as a libertarian I’d have to say no.

As for it being a politically correct cause–well, Fred Phelps and his band of assholes stage what I would consider to be much more offensive demonstrations, and you don’t hear anybody on the left calling for christians to be institutionalized as a result.

Now, imagine you see them marching down a street in your city. I maintain that a perfectly natural reaction, entirely divorced from any issues of Homosexuality, is “What a bunch of jerks”.

Certainly they’re good at protecting cops who are under investigation for shooting, raping (yes in B-more), and beating suspects.

The argument is simple. The patient has CLEARLY elected to make this individual (just ignore they are in a domestic partnership) their decision maker for heath care for a time when they cannot make that decision themselves. Not only that, they did so in a clear, well understood, legal manner with a durable power of attorney. While Florida may not choose to recognize gay and lesbian and a potential class which may not be discriminated against, the simple fact remains, they broke the law and they violated the most central tenant of bioethics. That being the idea that a patient’s self determination to choose 1) what is done for them when ill and 2) to determine who will make those decisions for them on their behalf if they are unable to determine for themselves.

I second #1. As for the Christian groups that opposed Langbehn, what does this say about you? No wonder Christianity has gottena bad rap. They are the modern-day Pharisees.
e.g. Matthew 12, the Pharisees get upset when Jesus heals a cripple on the Sabbath (and therefore works)

I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I wholeheartedly believe that homosexuals should be able to have civil unions and delegate these rights via contracts. The state has no right to determine what marriage is between people at or near the age of majority and above (I have no problem with an emancipated 14-15 year old getting married). Let people practice gay marriage, polygamy, marry their dog for all I care.

The only way that Christians will be free to enforce our religion’s teachings on marriage on our coreligionists is in a society where the state has no direct authority over marriage, and where the church can use voluntary disassociation to purge itself of unrepentant members.

Okay, George, Nancy and Harry, you can put your hands down now.

”
Radley: “I can understand (but don’t agree with) conservatives who don’t want to give up the word “marriage” to same sex couples.”

The remedy for this: Take the state out of “marriage.” Marriage is a religious concept. In this scenario, couples could get “married” in the church of their choice if they wished, or they could put together a civil contract. It may not be as romantic as “goin’ to the chapel,” but I think it would be a fair (and libertarian) way to handle this issue.
”

That’s exactly the problem now. The state’s NOT defining marriage… religious nutters are being allowed to dictate policy and define what ‘marriage’ is. The state just enforces it.

‘Marriage’ is the legal contract of a committed relationship that bestows certain rights to each partner. It must be administered by an unbiased entity based on the needs of it’s population.

The meddling of religious nutters has created a situation where you CAN’T just put together a civil contract. The majority of people have been force fed this whole “marriage is for families like us” crap for so long that they spout it as a kneejerk reaction, just like cops do when they say they’re “keeping us safe” by kicking our doors down.

Like it or not, the word ‘Marriage’ means “committed human pairing” and needs to be defined as such for all legal purposes. If people want a more restrictive sub definition of marriage for their own group, like “Catholic Marriage”, that’s fine! But the law cannot differentiate between the two.

Ditto for all the fucktards in Congress who voted for the Porkulus Bill.

The remedy for this: Take the state out of “marriage.” Marriage is a religious concept. In this scenario, couples could get “married” in the church of their choice if they wished, or they could put together a civil contract. It may not be as romantic as “goin’ to the chapel,” but I think it would be a fair (and libertarian) way to handle this issue.

Face it, an adult male who walks in a parade – ANY parade – wearing kinky bondage gear is an exhibitionist jerk, regardless of sexual orientation. The Gay argument “what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms is nobody’s business” would be absolutely iron clad if there was not an obnoxious minority that apparently wants to make it impossible to NOT know all the disturbing details.

There is Political Activism, and there is playing Shock the Squares. The first is a civil right and the path to other civil rights. The second is self-indulgent idiocy and ostentatiously counterproductive. And the legitimate political goals of Gays will continue to hit roadblocks so long as the Gay movement is OR APPEARS TO BE more of the later tan the former.

It isn’t nice, but it is true. If you want to make real progress you don’t engage in shock tactics purely for fun, for the same solid reasons that you don’t run for public office as an Orange candidate in Dublin.