Reason.tv: Stonewall 2011-The Night NY Legalized Gay Marriage

On June 24, 2011, thousands gathered outside New York City's Stonewall Inn, anxiously awaiting the New York State Senate's vote on legalizing gay marriage.

When news came that the  bill had passed on a narrow 33-29 vote, the crowd erupted with joy.

Stonewall is widely considered the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. Forty-two years ago this weekend, a brutal raid by the New York's Police Department set off a spontaneous and prolonged rebellion that lead to the establishment of annual "Gay Pride" weekends around the world, and the slow and steady march toward equal protection under the law.

As the New York Times reported (and Nick Gillespie noted on Hit & Run), the bill's approval ultimately swung on Gov. Andrew Cuomo's appeal to several libertarian-leaning investors.

"Gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty," noted New York Magazine's Chadwick Matlin. "On that, libertarians side with liberals."

Approximately 2.17 minutes.

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of the video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

"A jubilant sense of liberation was in the air, but for many it was just a relief that the government was finally getting out of their way."

"As New York magazine's Chadwick Matlin wrote, 'When you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.'"

I would have liked to hear the narration for this piece as written by a libertarian.

[Bee Tagger]

"As New York magazine's Chadwick Matlin wrote, 'When you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.'"

The answer appears to be "yes."

[SIV]

Yup

Only thing is they never "strip away the cultural and identity politics".

[The Gobbler]

I call bullshit. And just who is this amorphous "they" of whom you speak?

[SIV]

RTFA

On a related note those "rich libertarians" include a Commentary board member neocon 2008 Giuliani backer and two big Obama donors.

[Tony]

Burn the heretic!

[Tncm]

You think libertarian purges are bad? You should see RevLeft or Democratic Underground when one of their members does so little as insinuates that maybe, just maybe free markets can work in some instances.

The bonfire and screaming can be seen and heard for miles.

[Tony]

Well, maybe free markets should try harder.

[Tncm]

Well, maybe free markets should try harder.

What.

[Mr. FIFY]

Free markets can't try harder when Team Blue is busy working harder to fuck it all up.

[Barack Obama]

Hey... this shit takes time, yo.

[A. Libertarian]

I would have liked to hear the narration for this piece as written by a libertarian.

OK:

It sucks! Who does The State think it is, regulating marriage?! This isn't a victory, it's an outrage! Fuck the state!

[Fist of Etiquette]

There's probably a middle ground. One can be happy for the development, even reverential of the historic cultural significance, but that can be done without the pretense that this is a libertarian step forward. In the battle to turn people from state worship, it's not even a lateral move.

[Bee Tagger]

^ This

[SIV]

^Ditto

[Tony]

That's why defining libertarianism as the brainless grunt "government = bad" is so pointless. This is not an increase in government power, it's the correction of an injustice under government power. I'm confident you can handle it, even if it doesn't fit neatly into a pro- or anti-government rubric.

[Bee Tagger]

I think you end up being the one with the less nuanced take on this. What FoE seems to be suggesting is that there's a middle ground to be found, one that acknowledges the leap forward for a free society to not base laws on religion but also hopes to stress that government doesn't belong here in the first place.

[Tony]

That may be fine in the abstract, but it's bad timing bordering on curmudgeonliness to bring up the irrelevant antigovernment point at the exact moment a minority is gaining equal rights. Way to rain on the parade. Heteros have only enjoyed the benefits for hundreds of years. Now that gays want in... time to abolish them!

But it's not fine, because it's an incoherent point. The only thing at issue is whether certain government rights that pertain to a certain type of contract are distributed equally. As far as I know nothing but governments and mafias can enforce contracts, so I'm not exactly sure what you want.

[Paul]

Heteros have only enjoyed the benefits for hundreds of years.

I couldn't imagine being married for hudreds of years.

But on a serious note:

Now that gays want in... time to abolish them!

In defense of libertarians, we've been speaking the "get government out of marriage" line for years. This isn't a new philosophical leg that just grew after the New York decision.

The only thing at issue is whether certain government rights that pertain to a certain type of contract are distributed equally.

On this, we agree completely. If...if the government's going to hand out favors, it's got to hand them out equally.

[Tony]

if the government's going to hand out favors, it's got to hand them out equally.

That's good enough for me.

It just seems like you guys miss out on so much by qualifying every single advancement in liberty and/or equality with your dour utopianism.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It's still not equal. It's still an exclusive benefit group. It will never be equal until it's all inclusive.

[Michael Ejercito]

On this, we agree completely. If...if the government's going to hand out favors, it's got to hand them out equally.

What exactly is the nature of this favor? And yes, I know that New York did not have civil unions/domestic partnerships? But is it true that these favors could not be handed out equally without redefining marriage?

[Tony]

Take it up with a dictionary. If the law is truly applied equally, there can be no differences in its application. At least there is no legal justification here for doing so. Your issues with Webster's don't quite reach the bar.

[Michael Ejercito]

If the law is truly applied equally, there can be no differences in its application.

The law did apply equally. Unlike New York City's de facto ban on handguns, everyone was, by definition, not allowed to "marry" someone of the same sex.

[Mr. FIFY]

Spoken like a true statist fuck, eh, Tony.

[Paul]

It sucks! Who does The State think it is, regulating marriage?! This isn't a victory, it's an outrage! Fuck the state!

Not true. Libertarians always celebrate when another group successfully wins their fight to be taxed and regulated.

[A. Libertarian]

Except when they don't. And that's what's so great about being a libertarian: you can be and not be at the same time!

[Michael Ejercito]

'When you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.'"

I was unaware that cohabiting homosexuals were being treated like 19th century Mormon polygamists.

[Mr. FIFY]

"...but for many it was just a relief that the government was finally getting out of their way."

Mwuh?

[albo]

It will be cool to see the first wedding registry in NY with softball equipment listed.

[Mr. FIFY]

Or lacrosse gear...

[Duke Lacrosse Team]

Hey!

[Crystal Magnum]

Oh, they aren't gay... THEY RAPED ME!!!

[JD]

"Gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty," noted New York Magazine's Chadwick Matlin. "On that, libertarians side with liberals."

Unfortunately this is one of very few aspects of personal liberty where liberals believe government should not be involved.

[JD]

That didn't come out right. Let's try:

Unfortunately liberals believe that most other aspects of personal liberty should be regulated by the government.

[In Time of War]

Yeah, that jumped out at me, also. Exactly when did liberals suddenly decide the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate personal liberty? Are liberals really that delusional?

[Tony]

Liberals believe in more individual liberty than you do. They believe in it for everyone, not just people who can afford it.

[In Time of War]

And they're going to keep right on passing laws and writing regulations until everyone is free, darnit!

[Tony]

Freedom takes hard work.

[Arcaster]

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

So my hard work must be done to ensure your freedom, right?

[Tony]

I am totally certain that others have done far more hard work ensuring my freedom than you ever will.

[Leftist commentariat]

But, what of "raising consciousness"?

[Leftist idealist]

Raised consciousness is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

[Pip]

So does making money.

[Tony]

So does not making very much money.

[Arcaster]

This just in:

Tony is miserable and wants to drag everyone down to his level of misery, especially filthy, rich people.

[Tony]

This just in: libertarians want to maintain the maximum possible amount of misery in the world so that a few billionaires don't have to suffer the burden of a meaningless increase in taxes.

By the way, you must be new here. Hi, I'm Tony, and I have lots and lots of money.

[Arcaster]

So you send every dime you make over, say, $50,000 to the IRS, right? Or do you just want the government to seize money earned by others?
BTW, increasing income taxes isn't going to hit those evil billionaires.

[Tncm]

Silly Arcaster. You really think that Tony cares about the poor? Of course not! He just feels guilty about being rich, but not guilty enough to give away any significant portion of his wealth.

Can you say "champagne socialist"? 'Cause Tony sure can!

[Tony]

Actually I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy instead of that which is based on ridiculous fairy tales that exist in the service of the short-term profits of a few powerful connected entities. But feel free to ascribe it to lizard brain impulses; I know that's how you're accustomed to arriving at policy preferences.

[Britt]

Powerful connected entities like GM, GE, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. don't do well at all under the current regime, right?

Tony, your head is so far up your ass you have to pump air in through your navel.

[Tony]

Even traditionally Republican-allied powerful interests (like oil and wall street) are doing well under the current regime, and they kind of make your examples pale in comparison.

[Britt]

That's not a response at all you idiot. You assert that in a libertarian world only the connected would thrive, but that's bullshit. Connections are king because of the powerful federal government which is able to pick winners and losers. The current situation where donations to the right people get your companies bailed out and protected from competition is the system you support.

God you're a dumbass.

[Arcaster]

So you're saying you don't voluntarily send all of your money over a certain line to the government? Do as I say not as I do, right? People might take you seriously if you actually took your own medicine. Until you do, you're nothing but a god damn thief.

Actually I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy...

Seriously, WTF does that even mean? You're basing your economic policy on ambiguous goals that you can't quantify, and you accuse others of believing in ridiculous fairy tales.

[Tony]

Giving all my money away wouldn't do a damn thing to change policy. I care about policy, not setting an example. And the goals are totally quantifiable. Does everyone have access to quality healthcare? For how many people is upward mobility possible? Does every resident of this very wealthy country have access to a basic standard of living?

[Tncm]

Giving all my money away wouldn't do a damn thing to change policy. I care about policy, not setting an example.

Thanks for supporting another liberal stereotype; generous with the money of others but never with their own. I'm staring to suspect you're a 14 year old highschooler, not a wealthy twenty-something.

And the goals are totally quantifiable. Does everyone have access to quality healthcare? For how many people is upward mobility possible? Does every resident of this very wealthy country have access to a basic standard of living?

Literally all of those problems have been caused by your ideology or your ideology's intellectual predecessors.

[Michael Ejercito]

Thanks for supporting another liberal stereotype; generous with the money of others but never with their own.

Sort of like George Skelton, who complains about how much of California's budget cuts would hurt the poor, and yet somehow fails to mention how much he gave to the poor.

[Tony]

Michael don't be a baby. Symbolic gestures are nice and all, but they don't amount to changing anything, which is why policy matters.

[JT]

Charity absolutely could reach many goals for people's well-being. Free clinics are among the best examples. FEMA leaves disaster areas pretty quickly, and it's the churches, charities, and community organizations that do the rest of the cleanup, and they do it better.

[Tncm]

Seriously, WTF does that even mean? You're basing your economic policy on ambiguous goals that you can't quantify, and you accuse others of believing in ridiculous fairy tales.

Progressive arrogance dictates that he has to play the role of expert (in this situation, in economics) while having given the subject but a cursory.

[Tncm]

*cursory glance.

Edit button, please.

[The Gobbler]

"Liberals believe in more individual liberty than you do. They believe in it for everyone, not just people who can afford it."

You have some serious money issues, don't you, Tony.

[Tony]

I simply don't worship it as the source of all virtue.

[R C Dean]

Show us on the doll where the money touched you, Tony.

[Tncm]

Tony's strawmen provide a valuable stimulus to the wheat industry. It's estimated that if Tony was actually to debate using logic and reason there would be an increase in unemployment among farmers by 90%, freeing up all those resources to produce things that people actually want.

[Mr. FIFY]

You're right, Tony... what you worship is big-assed government and high taxes.

[Jim]

PLEASE let this blow up into another 300+ comment thread about gay marriage so that we can finally resolve what the True Libertarian Position is, because I don't feel we reached a good consensus last time. *crosses fingers*

[Episiarch]

No homo?

[Jim]

No, homo.

[-]

After we have finally and conclusively put the "gay marriage vs. libertarianism" debate to bed, we can get to work on whether theft is really freedom, abortion is killing, and Michael Bay is the antichrist. Also pizza preferences.

[brotherben]

I'm just gonna keep my mouth closed on this one.

[Jim]

[insert appropriate gay joke]

[Ken Shultz]

"On that, libertarians side with liberals."

Maybe it's just an aesthetic thing, but I prefer "On this issue, the liberals are on the side of liberty".

[Ken Shultz]

P.S. The ninth amendment rocks!

[Paul]

This.

[Tony]

"While getting libertarians on the side of liberty remains similar to pulling teeth."

[Tncm]

Why would I waste money on "pulling teeth"? I just beat the orphans in the mouth with my cane until all their valuable molars are knocked loose.

[Tony]

I love that you guys think that the liberal stereotype of libertarians has something to do with canes and monocles.

Nobody has that image of you except you. We all think you are nerdy/unibomber-y and poor. Poor, hence chumplike. The self-made wealthy tend to be liberal. All the libertarian plutocrats seem to have family money for some reason. Prolly why they don't understand or care about the long-term.

[Tncm]

I love that you guys think that the liberal stereotype of libertarians has something to do with canes and monocles.

You completely misunderstand the joke behind that self-deprecating quip. We know that no one thinks we're 19th century industrialists, but most people think we blindly support their modern-day equivalent and/or are the equivalent.

Nobody has that image of you except you. We all think you are nerdy/unibomber-y and poor.

Why would we want to do away with welfare if we were poor?

You'd be real popular at RevLeft. Most people there are a little more graphic, though. For example, you simply throw tired insults at me. Seasoned members of RevLeft would describe in scrupulous detail how my body and the body of every member of the Mises Institute or CATO will be horribly mutilated in post-revolutionary America.

Poor, hence chumplike.

This is where the hatred of a different social strata comes in. Tell me again how badly you want to eat the rich.

The self-made wealthy tend to be liberal.

You're telling me that the rich and well-connected who benefit from regulatory capture and taxation tend to support regulatory capture and taxation and not the people who would do away with those things and introduce unfettered market forces?

Next you'll tell me that water's wet!

Prolly why they don't understand or care about the long-term.

I thought the long run wasn't our problem because we'll all be six feet under when the full effects of credit expansion/capital consumption/artificial economies of scale hit.

[Arcaster]

*like*

[Tony]

Why would we want to do away with welfare if we were poor?

Why do rich people favor higher taxes on themselves? Maybe you believe it's the right thing to do even if you suffer.

Also, it could be that you are under the influence of some serotonin-based delusion that you will be among the ranks of those every single ounce of whose ultra-elite status you so heartfeltly defend.

RevLeft would describe in scrupulous detail how my body and the body of every member of the Mises Institute or CATO will be horribly mutilated in post-revolutionary America.

Ick. I'm not a revolutionary. Not that we don't need one. I bet the liberals get there first... hard to draw a crowd to die for the cause of Paris Hilton getting a tax break.

This is where the hatred of a different social strata comes in. Tell me again how badly you want to eat the rich.

Not to say the poor are all chumps, just those who subscribe to a political ideology designed to keep them poor.

This is where the hatred of a different social strata comes in. Tell me again how badly you want to eat the rich.

Which side of regulations and taxes is the Chamber of Commerce on again? This is where things get silly. The rich and well-connected's decades of buying influence in order to decrease regulation and taxes for themselves... all a smokescreen to get more regulations and taxes.

I thought the long run wasn't our problem because we'll all be six feet under when the full effects of credit expansion/capital consumption/artificial economies of scale hit.

Pshh, sometimes I'm the only one in the room to give a shit about the species beyond my immediate lifespan. Radical selfishness makes the world go round, after all, or at least that's what gruff female Russian-accented voices in your head tell you. Which of course is nothing but ironic when considering the fact addressed above that you work so hard against your own economic best interests.

[Tncm]

Why do rich people favor higher taxes on themselves?

They prefer higher taxes on business because they can shoulder the costs better than smaller firms and thus drive them out of the market.

Maybe you believe it's the right thing to do even if you suffer.

BARF.

Also, it could be that you are under the influence of some serotonin-based delusion that you will be among the ranks of those every single ounce of whose ultra-elite status you so heartfeltly defend.

Based on my top hat, monocle and legions of underpaid child laborers I'd say I'm already on the top, thanks.

Ick. I'm not a revolutionary. Not that we don't need one. I bet the liberals get there first... hard to draw a crowd to die for the cause of Paris Hilton getting a tax break.

What? Do you even know what RevLeft is? Man, all my off-color jokes are wasted on you people.

Not to say the poor are all chumps, just those who subscribe to a political ideology designed to keep them poor.

Poor progressives are pretty damn stupid, aren't they?

Which side of regulations and taxes is the Chamber of Commerce on again?

Now you're just griefing.

1.) The Chamber of Commerce primarily represents small businesses because they don't have the power to lobby on an individual basis like corporations do.

2.) They came out in strong favor of the stimulus packages and other Obama economic programs.

You aren't even trying now.

The rich and well-connected's decades of buying influence in order to decrease regulation and taxes for themselves... all a smokescreen to get more regulations and taxes.

No, the rich have been advocating for more taxes and regulation explicitly because they want more taxes and regulation. They understand how those things help them; you don't. Google and Amazon have been doing it recently in favor of the FCC. There are countless examples throughout history, you just aren't looking.

Pshh, sometimes I'm the only one in the room to give a shit about the species beyond my immediate lifespan.

Based on the poorly-constructed policies that you ape from poorly-constructed Paul Krugman articles which he takes from poorly-constructed economics theories I'd say you only really care about your emotions.

Radical selfishness makes the world go round, after all, or at least that's what gruff female Russian-accented voices in your head tell you.

My libertarian conscience is the voice of Cornelius Vanderbilt, thank you very much.

Which of course is nothing but ironic when considering the fact addressed above that you work so hard against your own economic best interests.

I'm sure.

[Ken Shultz]

"While getting libertarians on the side of liberty remains similar to pulling teeth."

How can you say that after the Koch brothers gave all that money to Cuomo?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4964.....ch-Problem

[Mr. FIFY]

But... but... the Koch brothers are teh evul! MediaMatters said so!

[Keith Olbermann]

The Koch brothers cause cancer.

[squarooticus]

I would much rather the state get out of marriage entirely, but absent that this is a positive development. I do, however, bristle at the notion that libertarians are ever on the liberals' side: liberals being right on this one is analogous to a stopped clock being right twice a day.

[Groundhog Day]

Didn't we do this yesterday?

[Michael Ejercito]

I would much rather the state get out of marriage entirely, but absent that this is a positive development.

How is this positive? As Robert wrote

I would hope it [how the definition of marriage should be decided] to be the same as for language in general: custom. That is, nobody gets to decide by fiat. It's a question of fact: What do people mean when they write that word in a legal document?

Allowing a legislature to impose a new definition is as unjust as allowing the sovereign to decree a new meaning of thaler, dollar, pound, etc. -- or to bestow a right to do so on some other party. Oops, guess they did that already.

And he also wrote in that same thread:

I used to think it [fighting over the definition of a word] was fucked up, but now I realize it's important not to let gov't usurp language, or it then can change any legal arrangements simply by decreeing new meanings of words. You want to sue the maker of a product that injured you? Too bad, the legislature has just decreed the meaning of that product to be "thing that will injure you". You want the right to carry a gun? OK, but the legislature has just decreed "gun" to mean "gum".

I do, however, bristle at the notion that libertarians are ever on the liberals' side: liberals being right on this one is analogous to a stopped clock being right twice a day.

Libertarians are also on Dick Cheney's side.

[Tony]

I would hope it [how the definition of marriage should be decided] to be the same as for language in general: custom. That is, nobody gets to decide by fiat. It's a question of fact: What do people mean when they write that word in a legal document?

Allowing a legislature to impose a new definition is as unjust as allowing the sovereign to decree a new meaning of thaler, dollar, pound, etc. -- or to bestow a right to do so on some other party. Oops, guess they did that already.

Sounds suspiciously like the 'bargaining' stage of grief. Custom, not legislatures, should be determining this aspect of law? Oh do tell, whose custom?

[Michael Ejercito]

Sounds suspiciously like the 'bargaining' stage of grief. Custom, not legislatures, should be determining this aspect of law? Oh do tell, whose custom?

The general custom of the populace. In other words, legal definitions, in general, should conform to the customary definition and understanding, and marriage is no exception.

If legislatures defined words to depart from the customary definition and understanding, one could get absurd results like people being guilty of drunk driving merely for being passed out drunk in the back seat, even without proof there was an attempt to drive the vehicle.

[Tony]

You say "The general custom of the populace," but all I hear is "conservative Christians." Most of the country supports gay marriage now. Who the fuck are you to tell them they have to defer their democratic will to "custom"?

one could get absurd results like...

Wow, every angle of this debate has a slippery-slope response. Why again should equal protection be denied to gay people because you are uncomfortable altering an entry in the dictionary?

[Michael Ejercito]

Most of the country supports gay marriage now. Who the fuck are you to tell them they have to defer their democratic will to "custom"?

So why have no voter initiatives to enact gay "marriage" ever gotten on the ballot?

[Tony]

Furthermore, you don't think legislatures are capable of redefining "drunk" all on their own without the rhetorical leg up of giving gays equal rights? I sure as hell am not drunk after two glasses of wine, but tell that to the breathalyzer.

Words are defined by how they are used in reality, not by a Platonic ideal. As marriage laws become equal, dictionaries will change their entries. It will be okay I promise.

[Tony]

Furthermore, you don't think legislatures are capable of redefining "drunk" all on their own without the rhetorical leg up of giving gays equal rights? I sure as hell am not drunk after two glasses of wine, but tell that to the breathalyzer.

Words are defined by how they are used in reality, not by a Platonic ideal. As marriage laws become equal, dictionaries will change their entries. It will be okay I promise.

[Tony]

I would hope it [how the definition of marriage should be decided] to be the same as for language in general: custom. That is, nobody gets to decide by fiat. It's a question of fact: What do people mean when they write that word in a legal document?

Allowing a legislature to impose a new definition is as unjust as allowing the sovereign to decree a new meaning of thaler, dollar, pound, etc. -- or to bestow a right to do so on some other party. Oops, guess they did that already.

Sounds suspiciously like the 'bargaining' stage of grief. Custom, not legislatures, should be determining this aspect of law? Oh do tell, whose custom?

[Tncm]

Oh do tell, whose custom?

Henry Ford and George Carnegie, of course!

Now who wants to help turn the bones of these poor people into a statue dedicated to Hitler?

[R C Dean]

Am I the only one here who finds the whole gay thing has gotten pretty tedious?

[Tony]

Try being gay and having to endure heterosexuality.

[Terr]

You brave man.

[R C Dean]

Poor Tony. Can't get laid by anybody from any gender.

[Tony]

Just saying... talk about tedium.

[Mr. FIFY]

What's to endure? Just ignore it, like most people ignore homosexuality.

[Leftist language policeman]

That's hate speech!

[Tony]

Just not you, who finds it "tedious."

[Mr. FIFY]

It IS tedious.

[Tony]

Unlike the vibrant, dynamic culture of libertarianism.

[Tony]

Unlike the vibrant, dynamic culture of libertarianism.

[Tncm]

Why should gays get special attention? You like the same sex. Ooooh, would you like a medal?

[Mr. FIFY]

Beats the state-worshiping tendencies of Team Blue and Team Red.

[Tony]

Just equal rights. Sorry if that inconveniences you.

[Tncm]

Try being an Austrian and having to endure neo-Keynesians.

[Michael Ejercito]

An N.Y. town clerk is refusing to sign licenses for same-sex couples .

I wonder how Michael Bloomberg, who routinely denies pistol permits, thinks about that.

[Mr. FIFY]

"I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy"

Sounds good.

When's it gonna happen?

Sure as fuck not now, with Team Blue spending our great-great-grandkids' money...

[Tncm]

"I just want good, sustainable economic and fiscal policy"

Why in the world did he differentiate between economic and fiscal policy? Doesn't fiscal policy have profound effects on, you know, the economy?

Oops, I forgot. Tony's a neo-Keynesian, so he thinks that increasing the money supply can magick more goods and resources into the economy (MULTIPLIER EFFECT!!!).

There's actually a reason inflation can temporarily boost employment, and it isn't very pretty; since wages typically lag behind prices, when inflation is occurring labor becomes cheaper in real terms and thus more of it can be employed by firms. This looks like a good thing until you realize that 1.) these laborers are now effectively poorer while their employers are effectively richer and 2.) all the other terrible things that inflation causes (artificial expansions and contractions in industries, reducing the propensity to accumulate capital, coordination problem due to oscillating prices, elimination of inflation profits in the long run, inability to import as many goods and services from abroad, etc) still happen.

[shrike]

Spoken like a good Christ-fag.

[Tncm]

I'm an atheist, actually. But nice try.

[Mr. FIFY]

To shrike, all capitalists are Christ-fags.

[Mr. FIFY]

"Giving all my money away wouldn't do a damn thing to change policy"

And neither would confiscating every niblet of wealth from everyone with a net worth of more than a hundred grand, Tony.

There just isn't enough money to fill the holes YOUR FUCKING PARTY is digging.

Oh, and THEIR FUCKING PARTY, as well.

[Tony]

Really... we're here again. Raising taxes won't result in more revenues. Got it.

[Tony]

Really... we're here again. Raising taxes won't result in more revenues. Got it.

[Mr. FIFY]

Won't do any good if your Team Blue pigfuckers keep throwing money down the shitter.

[Tony]

Get one thing right in your life: Republicans are mostly responsible for this country's debt. Wars, tax cuts, unfunded Medicare expenses, and the recession were all done by them.

[Tncm]

Okay, spoof. It's gotten too out of hand to be Tony. Even he has limits.

[Mr. FIFY]

Spending 800 billion dollars of nonexistent money didn't cause any debt. Got it.

[Tony]

To prevent even more debt caused by the previously referenced Republican disasters. It's not like anyone offered up a reasonable alternative. And it's not like the Republicans whose really lame talking points nobody buys but that you parrot dutifully have any ideas other than what they already tried.

[Mr. FIFY]

Behold!

"See?? We TOLD you we prevented a financial meltdown!"

Post-game quarterbacking at its finest.

[Mr. FIFY]

However, this thread is about the hoo-ha over the gay-marriage decision, which is just as trivial as saying a five-percent tax hike will cure all our ills.

[Winston Smith]

Tony is double-plus good.

[Jay Carney]

I could use people like you and Tony on my staff, to help bamboozle the press and the gullible fucks that lap up what my boss says.

[MSNBC]

We like the cut of your jib, Tony.

[Jib-Cutters Union Rep]

Ain't NOBODY cuttin' NO fuckin' jibs 'less WE say so.

[Mr. FIFY]

"Does every resident of this very wealthy country have access to a basic standard of living?"

1. There goes the jealousy again. (Yes, we know... you brag about the size of your income. But you're still a wealth-jealousy participant.)

2. Where is it guaranteed that everyone have access to what you describe?

[Mr. FIFY]

Oh, and don't rely on that tired old "it's in the preamble" bullshit. That is no excuse for attempted egalitarianism by legislative means.

[Tony]

It's not jealousy, and it's guaranteed by the facts of the world. There are other wealthy countries in the world, and even though they are less wealthy than the US, they manage to provide these things much better. It's just a question of priorities. Why is your priority defending obscene wealth over human welfare and dignity?

[Mr. FIFY]

Say there was one guy with a net worth of a trillion dollars, and your friends at the IRS found a way to liquidate his entire net worth down to the point of selling his last pair of socks.

Now... do it at least ten more times, and MAYBE we'd be able to fill the holes your fucktard hero Obama is digging at this very moment.

Oh, wait... there's no such thing as a trillionaire.

Never mind.

Well, in the meantime, regale us with tales of how raising taxes five pennies on the dollar, will solve all our problems. That's a knee-slapper every time you tell it.

[Tony]

Look I'm in favor of economic stimulus, which is not tax hikes. But I've been boxed in to defending tax hikes based on the presumption that we should be worried about debt. It's not because of some petty emotional issue, but because when you want to balance budgets, you have to raise revenues, especially if you can with little trouble to anyone. Your hysteria about how it will never be enough is a ridiculous excuse for not doing anything. Curiously, the only solution to the problem YOU care about above all else is a radical imposition of your entire ideology in one swoop.

[Mr. FIFY]

It's not hysteria... it's fact.

[Tony]

It's lame Republican talking points. They aren't even trying anymore and you still lap it up.

[Tncm]

Why in the world are you debating him? People have tried to show him how wrong he is countless times; he just doesn't care.

So just laugh, Mr. FIFY. Just laugh!

[Mr. FIFY]

It's fun watching him lie and accuse anyone who dares disagree of being gullible regarding "lame Republican talking points".

[Mr. FIFY]

Answer the other parts of my post above, Tony... same parameters.

[Mr. FIFY]

"It just seems like you guys miss out on so much by qualifying every single advancement in liberty and/or equality with your dour utopianism."

Pot, kettle.

[Mr. FIFY]

Geez, Tony, you should be happier than shit right now... one more state decided it gets to hand out permission slips at whatever the going rate is these days for fucking pieces of paper dispensed from a government agency...

[Tony]

I am happy about it. The question is why it chaps your hide so that gay people are getting equal rights. Gay people want equal marriage rights. What possible reason is there to deny it to them? So far you haven't offered anything convincing. "They can marry someone of the opposite sex, therefore they are equal" is ridiculous and you know it. It's effectively the equivalent of saying that anyone can marry a member of their own race, so interracial marriage is OK to outlaw.

[Idiot Savant]

Tony,

How does not letting gay people marry really hurt them?

[Mr. FIFY]

Way to call me a bigot without actually using the word, Tony.

[Tony]

I don't know what you are except a person straining very hard to find excuses not to support equal rights.

[Idiot Savant]

"bigot" doesn't mean much to people anymore.

[Rashguard]

Over 1300 legal rights come with the word 'marriage' - take those away an you can have the word back!

[Idiot Savant]

gay marriage is for fags, haha.. j/k, it is for straight people who think they're fags. Right god?

[???? ????]

thank you

[????]

Not Funny

[nike air max]

is good