>>millions more people lose their jobs then they did, car part manufacuers go bankrupt with GM and Chrysler gone, and zero cars can be manufactured in the US for a decade. <<

Bankruptcy doesn't mean they cease to exist, it means they get a chance to make themselves profitable again by renegotiating contracts. Not only would they have a chance to fix themselves and become profitable again (which would involve manufacturing cars in the USA and demand for parts), but even their lost business would be available to Ford to pick up (which would involve manufacturing cars in the USA and demand for parts).

>>The stock market crashes, the government isn't bailing out anyone, so they aren't backing people's investments, so everyone who owned an account in any bank that goes bankrupt loses everything, which is a huge percent of the country.<<

Accounts are already insured up to $100,000 or whatever the dollar amount is, so I have no idea where you're presuming "everyone" who had an account would lose "everything." I said failing banks should not be given taxpayer dollars, not that the federal government should break the law and abandon money it has insured.  Additionally, not everyone had an account in a FAILING bank. I don't have more than $100,000 anywhere. I wouldn't have lost a DIME, yet you've just said I'd lose "everything." You're losing me here because you're wrong on the facts.

>>the value of the dollar is a tiny fraction of what it used to be because there is no stability in the US because the government isn't backing their businesses.<,

Vague generalizations. Inflation because the government is handing out money like candy is what is going to destroy our dollar. Letting failed business fail and letting profitable business pick up their business strengthens our economy and our dollar, not weakens it. Our dollar isn't strong because the government props up failed businesses, it's strong because the free market picks the winners, resulting in a net increase in production, and the government DOESN'T prop up failed businesses.

>>also, giving companies money that are losing money isn't throwing money away. what does the company do with the money? they are giving that money to other business and employees most of whom are probably in the US. and what are those other busninesses and employees doing with the money? they are giving it to other businesses and other employees and it keeps being given and used by more and more people, primarily in the US.<<

They're mostly buying stock in the juggernaut USA government because it's [interest] free money to invest with sure return. It's not helping anyone. It's lining their pockets. Follow any of the bailout money and you'll be disgusted by the stupidity of the lawmakers who gave it out.

Why does everyone pretend the sky was going to fall? Our economy took a hit. But these failing companies still had funds and assets available to liquidate and we have laws to handle bankruptcy which do not necessarily involve these companies disappearing. The market was slow, which it was right to be, but not nonexistent. The monetary system wasn't going to explode by our losing failed companies. No matter how large the hit would have been, it's only going to be worse down the road as we explode our debt to socialize their failure. This is a direct affront to the free market and its successes and will result in the same communist failures we've seen repeatedly across the globe. This is presumably why you've had to make up claims about how much the average citizen would have lost. I don't know anyone with more than $100,000 with any single bank who'd have lost a dime. People know what their accounts are insured for. If they don't care enough to protect their assets it's their free choice to lose them. I don't recall where in the constitution or where in any contract I've agreed to that I would pay for the shortcomings of my countrymen. Making up things about how much everyone would have lost doesn't explain anything, it's a rationalization for actions which you apparently already know were irrational, in addition to unjust. It's nice to say that it would hurt everyone to justify bailing out the failed bankers who worked hard to produce massive failures, but doing so only seems rational so long as you ignore the facts that you're exaggerating the harm to the populace and ignoring the even greater cost to the populace when their currency is devalued.

Again, I point out to twosidedeath that many of these companies are just paying the government back with other government money. Many haven't become profitable, they're just fudging their numbers and the corrupt leaders giving out the money are pretending not to know exactly what's going on.

These bailouts are just putting off the pain. The longer we put it off, the worse it will be. If you want to argue that they were NECESSARY to put off the pain, sure, I agree. But I don't agree that putting off the pain and making it worse in the future is a desirable goal. You're wrong on the facts in claiming that automakers (and their suppliers) would disappear from the country because of bankruptcy--bankruptcy was their chance to renegotiate contracts and become profitable. You're wrong on the facts to presume that every American would pass Ford up as an American-built alternative to failed automakers. Sure there would have been pain, but the simple fact is that the pain to come is going to be worse because we put it off.

If you're worried about a market collapse, do you take comfort in the fact that American markets will simply become irrelevant when we stomp the value out of the dollar and the rest of the world takes up a different currency, congratulating us on shitting away our wealth and becoming a developing country? Because then a "collapse," which you're calling a big hit to the market, wouldn't matter. It strikes me as odd that people are advocating taking a HUGE hit to our monetary system later as a solution to avoid a big hit now.

Nonsense distracts from the real problems we have. We need to address them. Government bailouts will not make failed bankers suddenly competent. Government bailouts will not make American products competitive on a world market, while we pay state employees six figure incomes with huge benefits for work about as good as a monkey would do, and corrupt politicians line their union thug supporters' pockets while they rob Americans of a productive and wealthy future.

>>You guys ARE making a profit from said companies.<<

Not from all of them. And it only hurts our nation that mismanaged companies (AKA Losers) are being propped up at a cost to companies which actually produce wealth. We're only hurting ourselves, no matter that not ALL of the companies are an endless pit to throw away our money down.

Most of them are paying the government back with other government money, Arocalex. They've not miraculously become productive members of industry suddenly. They're just learning to perform illusions.

>>The govt bailed Wall Street out beccause it was conned into thinking it could not afford to let wall street go bankrupt.<<

Maybe some of them are dumb enough to have thought what some of the ignorant populace is conned into thinking, but I would imagine that the greater majority of those in power (being much closer to it and the people in it) were bought off, not conned. They'd have to be exceptionally stupid to believe the nonsense sold to the general public.

>>My comment was a response to the assertion that gay people should not be able to marry because they can't knock eachother up and are thus living a destructive lifestyle for society, reducing the overal fertility of society. Couples with an infertile partner also can't knock eachother up and also reduce maximum possible fertility of society. So the argument that fertility as such should necessarily have an impact on who is allowed to marry (and thus our legal definition of marriage) is invalid, because we don't care about it two bits when it is an intergender marriage. <<

Who asserted that infertile people and/or homosexuals are destructive to society? I've been very clear in my explanation that marriage (and families) form the most fundamental building block of society for thousands of years, and this is the basis for the institution and rationalization of government recognition and encouragement of it. You've never responded to my argument, only this assertion. I guess you concede my points.

Additionally, you confuse form for coincidence. This has already repeatedly been addressed. That some married couples cannot reproduce as a matter of coincidence and homosexual couples cannot reproduce as a matter of form does not make them analagous. You miss this point in repeatedly statements like the following:

"So the argument that fertility as such should necessarily have an impact on who is allowed to marry (and thus our legal definition of marriage) is invalid, because we don't care about it two bits when it is an intergender marriage."

As I have repeatedly explained in this thread, the coincidence of infertility in a heterosexual couple does not make them analogous to the form of a homosexual couple. One can produce families, the building block of society for thousands of years. One cannot. That a small number of heterosexual couples are unlucky and cannot bear children does not make homosexuals able to bear children. You don't seem to realize this. That a small number of heterosexual couples are unlucky and cannot bear children does not change the fact that heterosexual couples create families. It doesn't change the fact that children are primarily socialized by their parents and are best raised by a mother and a father, as men and women communicate differently, are different psychologically, physically, emotionally, physiologically, and chemically. I'm not arguing that children are better off in institutionalized care than raised by homosexual couples (whole 'nother topic!), just explaining what has gone over your head for pages now: Heterosexual couples can make families and homosexual couples cannot. Heterosexual couples perform a fundamental function in society that homosexual couples do not.

It's just a fact, yet you repeatedly deny it. The argument that, because infertile couples can marry, gay couples should be able to has been refuted. Get over it. Find another argument. Gay couples absolutely CANNOT perform that same function in society that is so important that heterosexual couples do. There is a reason for government to recognize and encourage heterosexual couples. The same reason does not exist for homosexual couples. You can argue whether or not it is a good reason to recognize or encourage marriage, but the same reason simply does not exist for homosexual couples.

>>my comparison with infertile people was perfectly valid for the argument that gay people cannot reproduce<<

So what I posted on form vs coincidence was all over your head? I'm not insulting your intelligence, but you're not even engaging me on the subject matter. It appears to be entirely lost on you. You're exactly whose arguments I was paralleling to the ape position, you just can't comprehend simple statements refuting your position.

>>my comparison with infertile people was perfectly valid for the argument that gay people cannot reproduce<<

" that gay people cannot reproduce" is not an argument. And if you meant the argument that infertile people can still get married, so why can't gay people? I already addressed it. And it was clearly entirely lost on you. Rather than respond, you're just insulting your own intelligence.

>> the mother you have not spoken to in 30 years cannot steal the money you left to your partner in your will because, as she says, "But they weren't a real couple, the law says so, so the will is illegal, so I should get the money".

I could go on ad infinitum....<<

I'll bet you could. Because you're making stuff up. Whoever you give things to in your will is not dependent upon being a real, gay, or imaginary couple. There's no stipulation in the law that says you can only give certain things to certain relations in your will. I'd love to know how you came to believe that there is.

I agree that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else--the right to have whoever they want visit them in the hospital, the right to have their possessions go to their partner in the event of their untimely demise, presuming that such a union has been recognized and that's clearly what they wanted. We don't want boyfriends and girlfriends stealing stuff the deceased would rather have go to mom, either. But this is not a matter of homosexual rights, rather of individual rights. Sure, I'm fine with being able to designate anyone for visitation rights. Sure, I'm fine with being able to designate (in addition to one's will) someone as a life partner who gets your stuff when you die in the absence of a will. There's no need to change the definition of the word marriage or hijack an institution that's existed for millennia in order to extend these rights to where they ought to be.

>>THAT is the crux of the matter, straight people want to pretend that the word marriage makes them special, makes them members of their own special club, but ultimately it is just a word, and any argument over that word is pathetic.<<

You're arguing that making sense is pathetic. Good luck with that one. Words have meaning. When you misuse them pretending you're making sense, you acknowledge that your logic is flawed and deception is required to appear to make a case. Homosexual couples, for instance, do not engage in any of the functions that heterosexual marriages do that make them fundamental to society. The meaning of the word is the point you continually miss. Homosexual couples do not fulfill the fundamental position in society that heterosexual couples do. Homosexual "marriage" would be using the same word to describe a completely dissimilar union. It's ignorant or dishonest, because it's not an accurate description of homosexual unions. They are incapable of the same function in society that defines marriage. I'm sorry that you're offended by nature, but there's no argument to be made that homosexual couples are capable of the same function in society which is responsible for the most basic building block of societies for thousands of years. They're not.

>>as for comparing infertile people to apes, I'd say that sort of comparison is what cluttering the debate.<<

Whoever argued that homosexual unions are parallel to heterosexual unions which are infertile cluttered up the debate with fallacious logic that teenagers are taught not to fall victim to. My reference was stressing _that they're not comparable_, which those who argued that homosexual people should be able to marry for the same reasons infertile people are were arguing. I'm sorry that my refutation of their claim was over your head. Functions of said couples was the subject, not legal standing. In reference to function the legality is irrelevant. My point was simple and apes demonstrated it simply (not simply enough for you, sorry). And "subjects?" Wow. I laughed out loud! Again, over your head. Perhaps responding to things that are over your head is what's cluttering up the exchange.

Technically, it's only a debate if there is engagement. This is as much of a debate as adversarial campaign ads are.

>> "and by the way should you not be able to marry if you or your girlfriend was infertile or she had her tubes tied?"<<

Form != Coincidence. A man and a woman can't have a baby if the man's junk gets cut off. An ape and a woman can't have a baby no matter what, ever. Neither can have a baby, but there's still a significant difference between them.

>>if your main argument against gay marriage is lack of fertility, then marrying infertile women is also a destructive lifestyle<<

Also untrue, as has already been addressed in this thread. In addition to missing the point entirely. Which is ironic, in a post you opened by claiming he missed your argument.

This nonsense is addressed in any decent formal logic 100 level course... When someone's arguing about a form, pointing out a coincidence doesn't engage their argument. That an infertile person and an ape are both unable to produce children with a human being does not make them equivalent options as partners in society, nor does it make them deserving of certain status or incentivization by society. That men and women's junk works together is evidence of their roles in the natural order. That a particular man or woman lacks functional junk doesn't mean they cease to exist in the natural order. It just means that their junk happens not to function. It's a matter of coincidence with no bearing on the fact that men and women have certain natural roles and functions. That some cannot perform a particular function as a matter of coincidence doesn't change anything. It's not evidence of anything. It's not the basis for a sensible argument for anything.

War between Republicans and Democrats? What alternate universe is that going on in? The parties have been dominated by progressives for decades. It's the highway to fascist socialist government at 55 mph or 65 mph. Take your pick. Bush bailed out the banks and insurance industries. Obama had a TOTALLY different plan... bailing out deadbeat homeowners, auto makers, etc etc.

They're shouting "Justica!" and they're angry. They must be stupid. That's exactly what he got.

I want to read it with an open mind but the opening question is just ignorant. There are still motivated members of this group who murdered thousands less than a decade ago. That they're currently busy with more pressing fights in areas like Pakistan that they have a more urgent need to win in order to resume attacks on the US doesn't make them less deadly of a threat. It just makes their more deadly capacities preoccupied at this time.

He mistakes government expansion and an ignorant populace with overreaction. Government didn't expand to employ tens of thousands to produce reports nobody will ever read because of an overreaction to 9/11 (nice subject line). It expanded like that because our elected leaders don't care, and our people are too ignorant on average to get anything right. Stupid people doing what stupid people do have 9/11 as an excuse to keep at it--nothing more.

>>And it's just an example of some of the things the US has done in the past, that are even remember nowadays, and that have shaped the way the world views the US.
In that way it is very relevant, even if hiroshima/dresden was 65 years ago.<<

You're still arguing that it's relevant because 2 wrongs make a right, or that most of the world is barbaric enough to believe so. Repeating past wrongs is not a recipe for avoiding them in the future.

>>Provide universally known facts or quotes if facts aren't universally known.<<

If you don't have any interest in learning basic facts on public record or listening to or reading statements made by the Imam, I'm not interested in taking additional time to make up for you not wanting to take 5 minutes to learn about what you post about. It's bad enough to bother posting in response to people making absolutely ridiculous claims which directly contradict what the imam has said directly. I'm not going to spend more time looking for audio on the internet I've seen on the news a dozen times because you choose not to be aware of what's going on. Nothing I've pointed to is obscure.

A quick google search shows me how painful looking for real sources are now. A number of Arabic sites have removed interviews with Feisal Abdul Rauf, and there are countless pseudo news sources cluttering searches. Until I choose to spend a few hours pouring over garbage to find the interviews I've listened to with my own ears before, you just keep pretending he loves America. His views on spreading Sharia and implementing an Islamic state (there's no set framework) in a democracy or any other state aren't hard to find.

>>Wouldn't you be pissed off at those damn countries trying to, in fact, conquer your country and give some to other people, who came from elsewhere. I know I would. I know I would hate the people taking my country's land. I know I'd try to fight them off.
Now what happened in Palestina's case? This exact thing happened.<<

No, it's not. I guess you hold the position that there are no penalties for losing wars.

>>What happened next? 6-day war maybe in which Israel even took land that was designated as Palestinian and even from country's trying to aid Palestina/help them.<<

I think you meant to say, "from those who attacked them." Because "[t]his exact thing happened."

>>So, what did Palestina do? They recognized they wouldn't win an all-out war so they started a guerilla war, against all of the people who took their land, using rockets and suicide bombing.<<

The Israelis didn't take their land. It was given to them. Primarily by the USA. After it took part in pwning the land's former owners. A long, long time ago. Maybe I should start with a history of the creation of Israel. Or go years earlier, when its former owners sided with the wrong blokes and got pwned.

Suicide bombing civilians isn't a guerrilla tactic. Guerrilla warfare is tactical. Demonstrating a lack of respect for human life by sending in young men and women to blow up themselves and as many civilians as possible doesn't win wars. It shows your democratic enemy that your population contains significant numbers of murderous barbarians.

>>Would you call that Justified?
I would.<<

So you support eye-for-an-eye justice, revisionist history, and condone murdering civilians when you're upset. I'd take up arms against a foreign invader, but it'd be their soldiers and military infrastructure, not their civilians shopping at a mall for new clothes for their growing kids. I wouldn't rationalist that was just. But you do.

>>And to be honest, some of the Israelian civilians really are an active part of Israel's land grab, actively colonizing Palestinian land.<<

I don't agree with all of Israel or the USA's actions. But when you repeatedly defend suicide bombing and rocket attacks all on civilians you leave room for Israelis to argue that they need a buffer zone for the safety of their people. Murderous barbarians leave no room to argue that they're being victimized. They intentionally murder civilians. Nobody cares about the concerns of murderous barbarians. Nobody is doing Palestinians a favor by murdering Israeli civilians. Those calling the shots are just securing their power by encouraging hatred of Israel and deflecting blame for the state of the Palestinian people, who are as fearful of their terrorist leaders as they are of Israelis. (I'm not seeking to argue over the exact rate of fear here, as that would obviously be difficult to ascertain--I'm pointing to the brutality of the Palestinian authority, something I would take issue with if I had to live under. And be harmed for it.)

>>So what would you do as a Palestinian? Bomb the civilians.<<

Wrong. If China invaded the USA and started moving in Chinese, I wouldn't rationalize that murdering the relocated civilians was just. That's the sort of thing an idiot without values would do to vent his juvenile frustration. It wouldn't solve anything. It would make things worse, because the Chinese who had conquered my home would surely take action to protect its civilians from future attacks of the sort. And it wouldn't be right, regardless of being counterproductive.

Thank you for your honest contribution to the discussion. Honestly, your post has been the most refreshing in many days. I think that your rationalizing of civilian murder is morally deplorable, but I respect your honesty.

This is why I do not hesitate to condemn Rauf as such a barbarian. He too rationalizes the murder of civilians. If he cannot even share our value that human life is sacred and murdering civilians is wrong, then he supports terrorism by sharing its barbaric, murderous [lack of] values. If he cannot agree that civilian murder is NOT the way forward, then he cannot contribute anything of value in the fight to be rid of it. In the fight to be rid of civilian murder, the man who doesn't even share it as his goal isn't any help in winning the fight. I'm with you on condemning numerous actions by Israel and the USA--a lot more than are evident from the course of this thread, certainly--but I do not believe that murdering civilians is just. And it's not productive, because nobody who agrees with me that civilian murder is wrong gains respect for anyone who engages in it--Quite the opposite.

>>and tbh, i'd say almost none of the a-hole groups are comparable to the nazi's...<<

I don't know about Hamas and Palestinians in particular, but Hitler is idolized by many in the middle-east. There might be more valid comparisons than "almost none."

Edit: Personally, I believe that the US ought to have put its foot down and set Israel straight. We empowered Israel to protect itself, and so I believe we ought to have kept them from annexing Palestinian territory. Then they'd have moral ground to stand on if suicide bombings and rocket attacks continued, and I wouldn't hesitate to support whatever means they deemed necessarily to protect themselves. As long as they weren't doing anything morally questionable to contribute to the problem. That's why the Israel situation is so messy. It's not like either side is a saint and victim. Just as Palestinians aren't doing themselves any favor by not stopping all suicide and rocket attacks on Israel, Israel isn't gaining my support by continuing to take land years after they should have been clear about their limits and kept to them. Obviously, the US's leaders are by-and-large progressive pansies too busy ruining our country to justify a power-grab when it all goes to crap, and they've grossly failed in their obligation to keep in check an Israel which they had a primary part in creating and empowering.

Thought I'd throw that in there for understanding's sake. I think Palestinians are as much of victims as Israeli civilian victims of attacks. Whether out of fear or ignorance that has Hamas in power, it's terrorism I object to. If Palestinians engaged in peaceful protests demanding that Israel stick to its original borders and Palestinians be left to theirs, I would be 100% behind Palestinians and against Israel taking more land than its original borders.

He said other things which I was referring to, Chickenwingz. I've pointed these out. You failed to summarize the argument against the mosque. I'm not going to bother with responding to yet another attack on the straw-man. You beat the straw-man to death. He's defeated. He concedes defeat. But he's not posting here. So whatever.

>>"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
Another one here would be the napalm bombing in vietnam and My Lai. The My Lai massacre, does that ring a bell?<<

Your examples are decades old and the general consensus (for most of them--I'm not interested in debating the use of nuclear arms in Japan unless you know your history) is that they were wrong. Using examples of US wrongdoing to try to justify terrorism is disgusting. I believe that both are wrong. That Christians killed civilians 65 years ago (very relevant [that's sarcasm]) is arguing that two wrongs make a right? I don't think that argument is really worth responding to. It's silly.