If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   The CEO of Goldman Sachs just annihilated the Republican position on gay marriage. Yes, that just happened   (cbsnews.com) divider line 238
    More: Spiffy, CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein  
•       •       •

14567 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Mar 2013 at 3:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-10 03:15:20 AM
The last five seconds of that video pretty much explain why the political map of the US will resemble a 1/4-full cup of red kool-aid against a blue background in another decade.

Could be wrong about one of the Dakotas, but it'll be down to TX, LA, MS, AR, and *maybe* FL - but I wouldn't count on it, I think they are starting to "get religion", cf. medicare.
 
2013-03-10 03:32:52 AM
So, the man in charge of sachs thinks that man sacks sex with other man sacks is not just pro sacks on sacks but also pro sachs?

Yeah, ok.

/sachks
 
2013-03-10 03:38:59 AM
My wife (we got married in D.C.) has health ins through her job. We live in Louisiana and I'm not allowed to be on her health ins plan. So, when I was out of work I was on Medicaid. I fail to see how that was better than being on her ins... I guess Jesus would've been sad or something?
 
2013-03-10 03:40:05 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: It's no big deal, the Chairman simply supports butt sachs.


I thought it was sachs on the beatch.
 
2013-03-10 03:43:20 AM
Objective reality, logic, and the concept of rule of law annihilate the Republican position on gay marriage. As they do most other Republican positions on things.
 
2013-03-10 03:45:02 AM

MisterTweak: The last five seconds of that video pretty much explain why the political map of the US will resemble a 1/4-full cup of red kool-aid against a blue background in another decade.

Could be wrong about one of the Dakotas, but it'll be down to TX, LA, MS, AR, and *maybe* FL - but I wouldn't count on it, I think they are starting to "get religion", cf. medicare.


Not necessarily.  First of all, a decade is not NEARLY long enough for a huge shift like that to happen.  Secondly, you can bet that the red states will try to hold off the political consequences of demographic shifts through increasingly draconian voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.  People like to assume that the Dems will just reap in the votes as Latinos, post-millennials and other more progressive groups become a majority, but I think it's just as likely, if not even more likely, that we just get a more expansive form of Jim Crow that we have to tear down all over again later this century.
 
2013-03-10 03:48:05 AM
And, by the way, they understood why we were taking the position that we did.

because a corporation headed by a Jew is more Christ-like than their former client could ever hope to be, so the client pouted and ran off.
 
2013-03-10 03:48:43 AM
Blankfein was the first leader in corporate America to take a public stand supporting same-sex marriage in a commercial recorded early last year for the Human Rights Campaign.

Is this article seriously asking me to believe no business leader has publicly supported gay marriage before last year?  Cause this sounds like a "Hey, you think we should fact check this assertion before printing the story?  Naaaaaaah." situation.
 
2013-03-10 03:54:18 AM
Marriage is a contract.  As long as all parties involved legally give consent1, that's all that matters.

Why is this even still an issue?2

1) children cannot legally give consent, nor can turtles, dogs, cars, or the Statue of Liberty.
2) Oh yeah, because it conveniently distracts small minded people from things that actually, y'know, matter
 
2013-03-10 03:56:17 AM
The Mississippi valley and the Deep South. This is what you southern strategy and embrace of the moral majority has given you
 
2013-03-10 03:58:19 AM
As much as I dislike Goldman Sachs: Hah. Excellent.

/Time to add Goldman Sachs to the LOPCATGOPATA?
 
2013-03-10 03:59:12 AM

Jorn the Younger: Marriage is a contract.  As long as all parties involved legally give consent1, that's all that matters.

Why is this even still an issue?2

1) children cannot legally give consent, nor can turtles, dogs, cars, or the Statue of Liberty.
2) Oh yeah, because it conveniently distracts small minded people from things that actually, y'know, matter


If turtles can't even give consent, how is it that one keeps leading filibusters on important legislation?
 
2013-03-10 04:00:41 AM
The Rpublicans have always been in favor of same-sex marriage. The only reason it isn't totally legal now is because of those obstructionist liberals. Remember, it was liberal hero Bill Clinton that signed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
 
2013-03-10 04:05:36 AM

propasaurus: The Rpublicans have always been in favor of same-sex marriage. The only reason it isn't totally legal now is because of those obstructionist liberals. Remember, it was liberal hero Bill Clinton that signed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.


/2 Legs Good, 4 Legs Bad
 
2013-03-10 04:06:07 AM

Emposter: If turtles can't even give consent, how is it that one keeps leading filibusters on important legislation?


If he isn't kept occupied, he might kidnap Michelle Obama and challenge Mario to a duel over Mount St Helens.
 
2013-03-10 04:06:17 AM

The Name: MisterTweak: The last five seconds of that video pretty much explain why the political map of the US will resemble a 1/4-full cup of red kool-aid against a blue background in another decade.

Could be wrong about one of the Dakotas, but it'll be down to TX, LA, MS, AR, and *maybe* FL - but I wouldn't count on it, I think they are starting to "get religion", cf. medicare.

Not necessarily.  First of all, a decade is not NEARLY long enough for a huge shift like that to happen.  Secondly, you can bet that the red states will try to hold off the political consequences of demographic shifts through increasingly draconian voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.  People like to assume that the Dems will just reap in the votes as Latinos, post-millennials and other more progressive groups become a majority, but I think it's just as likely, if not even more likely, that we just get a more expansive form of Jim Crow that we have to tear down all over again later this century.


Texas will be blue by 2020.  Way too many old white Texans dying off and new voters are not friendly to the GOP.
 
2013-03-10 04:06:59 AM
Nah, I'm pretty sure the Republican position is based upon the Book of Leviticus.. ignoring everything else.
 
2013-03-10 04:08:35 AM

Alphax: Nah, I'm pretty sure the Republican position is based upon the Book of Leviticus.. ignoring everything else.


Everybody knows that almost all of Jesus' sermons condemned gays, it was just such common sense that nobody bothered to write them down.
 
2013-03-10 04:13:19 AM

Jorn the Younger: 1) children cannot legally give consent, nor can turtles, dogs, cars, or the Statue of Liberty.


What about dolphins?
 
2013-03-10 04:15:03 AM
No one should be able to get married.

Wake me when rational people take control of "marriage" away from the government. Marriage should no longer be a thing. If religious nuts want to label their monogamous life-pairings "marriage", then let them.

But the legal designation should be abolished.

If people want tax breaks and immigration rights for agreeing to have sex with only one person (an understandable expectation), then call it a civil union. I don't want to hear the word "marriage" outside of a church.
 
2013-03-10 04:15:11 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: As much as I dislike Goldman Sachs: Hah. Excellent.

/Time to add Goldman Sachs to the LOPCATGOPATA?


Umm....maybe.
 
2013-03-10 04:15:27 AM
When your banker tells you what to think...
 
2013-03-10 04:21:17 AM
My vote is for the wholesale oppression of GOPers just as they have oppressed blacks, women, and gay people.  In fact, I suggest something worse than oppression.
They are all farking scum and shouldn't be tolerated in our society.
 
2013-03-10 04:21:22 AM

nobodyUwannaknow: When your banker tells you what to think...


And takes the moral and ethical high ground..
 
2013-03-10 04:23:13 AM

Harry_Seldon: Jorn the Younger: 1) children cannot legally give consent, nor can turtles, dogs, cars, or the Statue of Liberty.

What about dolphins?


Theoritically possible, if anyone ever gets a complete translated lexicon of the language they use.  To the best of my knowledge, the only actual translated communication between dolphins and people was when a dolphin did a double-backward somersault through a hoop whilst whistling the Star Spangled Banner.

It is a faily complicated communication, as these things go, so not a bad place to start, but unless there is enough understanding in both directions for the dolphin to properly express that they understood before they could give consent.  You'd also probably need to talk to a marine-biologist (and maybe a marine-sociologist) to determine what the Dolphin Age of Consent would be.

So short answer, no, not a dolphin either.
 
2013-03-10 04:25:13 AM

gayb: No one should be able to get married.

Wake me when rational people take control of "marriage" away from the government. Marriage should no longer be a thing. If religious nuts want to label their monogamous life-pairings "marriage", then let them.

But the legal designation should be abolished.

If people want tax breaks and immigration rights for agreeing to have sex with only one person (an understandable expectation), then call it a civil union. I don't want to hear the word "marriage" outside of a church.


No.  You're wrong.

1) Churches / Religions don't own the term "marriage", it's been around (as a concept) much longer than any currently extant religion.

2) marriage is not an agreement to only have sex with one person.  There are plenty of married people who have sex with people other than their spouses.
 
2013-03-10 04:28:44 AM

propasaurus: The Rpublicans have always been in favor of same-sex marriage. The only reason it isn't totally legal now is because of those obstructionist liberals. Remember, it was liberal hero  dumbassBill Clinton that signed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.


ftfy
 
2013-03-10 04:35:10 AM

MurphyMurphy: So, the man in charge of sachs thinks that man sacks sex with other man sacks is not just pro sacks on sacks but also pro sachs?

Yeah, ok.

/sachks


What he said, but with this playing in the background
 
2013-03-10 04:39:48 AM

MisterTweak: The last five seconds of that video pretty much explain why the political map of the US will resemble a 1/4-full cup of red kool-aid against a blue background in another decade.

Could be wrong about one of the Dakotas, but it'll be down to TX, LA, MS, AR, and *maybe* FL - but I wouldn't count on it, I think they are starting to "get religion", cf. medicare.


Nah.

Texas is a lot closer to going blue than some of the other states you're taking as a given, the corporatist faction is by far the biggest segment of our politics and the GOP is alienating them as fast as they're alienating every other demographic.

gayb: No one should be able to get married.

Wake me when rational people take control of "marriage" away from the government. Marriage should no longer be a thing. If religious nuts want to label their monogamous life-pairings "marriage", then let them.

But the legal designation should be abolished.

If people want tax breaks and immigration rights for agreeing to have sex with only one person (an understandable expectation), then call it a civil union. I don't want to hear the word "marriage" outside of a church.


Christianity is about 1500 years old from founding.  Even if you ignore actual history and go with the date they use internally, a bit short of 2000 years old.

Marriage as a government-brokered contract for forming families is 10000+ years old, with estimates going up to a million years (albeit that's probably stretching it, kind of guessing on the purpose of neanderthal ceremonial shiat and so on), meaning it's possibly half the age of our species.

So... no.  fark off.  It's solved a lot of societal problems since basically civilization was invented and has nothing to do with religion (unless your government is a theocracy, obviously), so we're keeping it.
 
2013-03-10 04:42:12 AM
Honestly, it makes sense. Why alienate a portion of the population based on something that does not affect anyone else? That's just a waste resources. I understand the business aspect of it and I believe that's really the only side he is considering. It just so happens to coincide with, you know, basic human rights. Which is a rare occurrence so you might want to make a note of this.
 
2013-03-10 04:57:34 AM

gayb: No one should be able to get married.

Wake me when rational people take control of "marriage" away from the government. Marriage should no longer be a thing. If religious nuts want to label their monogamous life-pairings "marriage", then let them.

But the legal designation should be abolished.

If people want tax breaks and immigration rights for agreeing to have sex with only one person (an understandable expectation), then call it a civil union. I don't want to hear the word "marriage" outside of a church.


Marriage is basically contract law. The religious ceremony has nothing to do with the legal rights and obligations. The ceremony is quite separate from the license to marry.
 
2013-03-10 04:57:58 AM
So the CEO of Goldman Sachs just figured out what every other major corporation figured out a decade ago?  And this is somehow news?

/yawn
 
2013-03-10 05:00:01 AM
Bravo for 'gayb' for so many hits.
 
2013-03-10 05:19:06 AM
*yawn*
 
2013-03-10 05:31:45 AM

gingerjet: Bravo for 'gayb' for so many hits.


it's 5am on a sunday, we apparently take whatever we can get.
 
2013-03-10 06:07:15 AM
So in other words, "fark biatches*, make money."


*Defined here as nosy, simpering jackholes.
 
2013-03-10 06:09:41 AM
And, as always, there will (and already has been) the "oh marriage is something no government should mess with, civil unions for all!" bit.
If only there weren't thousands of laws and regulations using the word marriage in very specific ways.  If only our legal system weren't based on specificity of language.  If only it were easier for people to be adults and mind their own damn business.


/If only.
 
2013-03-10 06:16:10 AM
Thanks CBS news, everyone loves autoplaying videos!
 
2013-03-10 06:19:04 AM

JerkyMeat: My vote is for the wholesale oppression of GOPers just as they have oppressed blacks, women, and gay people.  In fact, I suggest something worse than oppression.
They are all farking scum and shouldn't be tolerated in our society.


if you believe them they already are. I am in seattle and work with a tea bagger. She loudly and irritatingly expresses her views, often, and how terrile it is to live somewhere where everyone is at political odds with her.

I treat her as someone delightfully eccentric. I will sometimes try to intentionally provoke her, but that rarely works. Most recently I made a sexist joke about women knowing everything about strollers because they were made to be mothers, and she ended agreeing with me and said she wished all women stayed home.
 
2013-03-10 06:25:37 AM

gingerjet: So the CEO of Goldman Sachs just figured out what every other major corporation figured out a decade ago?  And this is somehow news?

/yawn


But, you see- he is laying the costs out. he should have done that years ago . All big corporatians could have done this .
 
2013-03-10 06:29:04 AM

Jorn the Younger: So short answer, no, not a dolphin either.


What about the Irish?
 
2013-03-10 06:48:25 AM
Nice sentiment, but it smacks of opportunism, along the lines of the massive undertake that hotels embraced the green initiative.  IE-as long as society is on the side of it, we have to go with it to protect and/or increase profits.
 
2013-03-10 06:49:33 AM

Rixel: Nice sentiment, but it smacks of opportunism, along the lines of the massive undertake that hotels embraced the green initiative.  IE-as long as society is on the side of it, we have to go with it to protect and/or increase profits.


So what you're saying is gay for pay?
 
2013-03-10 06:50:29 AM
Marriage is dead. If a contract can be terminated by any one party for purely selfish reasons with no punishment or repercussions, then it doesn't really exist. No-fault divorce was created to mollycoddle women, assuming they shouldn't be held to the rigid, unforgiving standards of a more typical economic contract because women were considered (by those who were writing the laws) to be weaker and in need of special protection. (Mainly because of domestic violence fears. Even though domestic violence has always been a legitimate reason for terminating a marriage. And even though half of all domestic violence cases today involve an exchange of blows and the remaining 50% is evenly split between men and women who are brutalized by their partners.)

Anyway, giving marriage to gay people in its current state is like handing them the keys to a car with no wheels on it. Maybe gay marriage can "fix" the institution by forcing the state to allow both partners to be treated equally in divorce and family court (seeing as how gender will no longer have any bearing on who can enter a marriage contract and who can't. If you treat marriages between heterosexuals differently than those between gay people, then the institutions can't reasonably be declared the same, now can they?)
 
2013-03-10 06:51:51 AM
So, does this mean that his robbing the country blind and nearly wrecking the global economy is all forgiven now just because he wants deh gheyz to marry?
 
2013-03-10 06:54:38 AM

TV's Vinnie: So, does this mean that his robbing the country blind and nearly wrecking the global economy is all forgiven now just because he wants deh gheyz to marry?


this. Its like whenever gamers criticize EA, they come back with "but we are the best at representing the LGBT community!" And claim you are a bigot for criticizing their unrelated gaming atrocities.
 
2013-03-10 06:59:14 AM
Marriage is a contract, no different than a business contract. Anyone who thinks it isn't, I invite you to spend a term in law school comparing what you learn in Contracts and in Community Property. Dissolving a marriage is not one whit different than divvying up a business partnership, and no more and no less acrimonious when it comes to who has to give up what.

When even children get argued over like they were just one more piece of jointly-titled property, then we can forget this nonsense about "family" and "romance" and admit that marriage is just a property agreement like everything else and all this hearts&flowers crap is window dressing. And if it really IS about love and wanting to form a long-term relationship, then the gender of the parties involved should be completely irrelevant. What's important is that they're agreeing to stay together forever because they love each other. And if they're going into it open-eyed about the fact that they're sharing the property 50-50, then so much the better.
 
2013-03-10 07:08:45 AM
so are Republicans about the country, business, or poverty?

it's like they're always changing
 
2013-03-10 07:17:54 AM

Jorn the Younger: gayb: No one should be able to get married.

Wake me when rational people take control of "marriage" away from the government. Marriage should no longer be a thing. If religious nuts want to label their monogamous life-pairings "marriage", then let them.

But the legal designation should be abolished.

If people want tax breaks and immigration rights for agreeing to have sex with only one person (an understandable expectation), then call it a civil union. I don't want to hear the word "marriage" outside of a church.

No.  You're wrong.

1) Churches / Religions don't own the term "marriage", it's been around (as a concept) much longer than any currently extant religion.

2) marriage is not an agreement to only have sex with one person.  There are plenty of married people who have sex with people other than their spouses.


Answer to #1: Marriage may not have always been tied to religion, but it has always been thought of as a private contract between two people (or families). In this day and age, the idealized form of marriage is believed to exist between two consenting, non closely related adults. It's debatable how much involvement the State should have in that contract. (Especially since much of the state interference with marriage in the 20th century was done to ensure that whites and blacks didn't marry each other.)

There's no reason two people couldn't draw up a civil contract allowing the combining of their resources, the ability to inherit money and visit each other in the hospital, etc. And then have marriage be a social institution joining their hearts together and demonstrating their commitment to each other to the world. If I and a partner declare ourselves married, and draw up a civil contract to deal with our resources, then who is the State to come along and say that we are not married?

Also, if I follow a religion that frowns on gay marriage, (or if I'm one of those rare people who are against gay marriage for secular reasons) who is the State to come along and force me to acknowledge any two individuals (whose union I oppose) as married?  The State shouldn't be in the business of either promoting or condemning ideologies. It should just create a safe framework that lets people do and believe whatever the hell they want.

And most people should just mind their own business and leave each other the hell alone.


Answer to #2: Most people enter into a marriage contract with the expectation that they'll be faithful to one person. One or more participants having sex outside of marriage may not be an official grounds for divorce anymore, but cheating is still a common catalyst for divorce.
 
2013-03-10 07:26:01 AM
i think "marriage" should be like used for temporary hookups too.  basically ANY time you sleep with someone you have to notify the government
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report