Politics And Current Events

[Troy Loney]

But same-sex weddings are becoming increasingly common.

Define "common".

Let's say same-sex weddings are legal in all 50 States and territories (which will likely happen at the Supreme Court soon).

What percentage of weddings in a given year would be same-sex?

Common enough that you probably know a couple who has participated in one in the last five years.

Going to my first gay wedding next month.

[Troy Loney]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... -c-w-cooke

So much for Bernie...

I must not be male then, I can honestly say that I have NEVER had that fantasy.

I think it goes without saying that we didn't require any empirical evidence to prove that Bernie Sanders is not an authority on sexual fantasies.

[Freddy Rumsen]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... -c-w-cooke

So much for Bernie...

I must not be male then, I can honestly say that I have NEVER had that fantasy.

I think it goes without saying that we didn't require any empirical evidence to prove that Bernie Sanders is not an authority on sexual fantasies.

I wonder what Martin O'Malley's reaction to this story is.

[ExPatriatePen]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... -c-w-cooke

So much for Bernie...

I must not be male then, I can honestly say that I have NEVER had that fantasy.

I think it goes without saying that we didn't require any empirical evidence to prove that Bernie Sanders is not an authority on sexual fantasies.

I could probably make a joke about Bernie Sanders having fantasies that involve subjectification ... But I'll pass

[columbia]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... -c-w-cooke

So much for Bernie...

I must not be male then, I can honestly say that I have NEVER had that fantasy.

I think it goes without saying that we didn't require any empirical evidence to prove that Bernie Sanders is not an authority on sexual fantasies.

I wonder what Martin O'Malley's reaction to this story is.

[Algernon]

Lmao

I'm not saying that the Bernie Sanders of 40 years ago was right but just lol

50 shades of grey?

Not to mention, go look at the statistics for genres of porn and the demographics they are popular with

[ExPatriatePen]

Lmao

I'm not saying that the Bernie Sanders of 40 years ago was right but just lol

50 shades of grey?

Not to mention, go look at the statistics for genres of porn and the demographics they are popular with

Yeah... I'll be moving on now... Not an area that I want to delve in to with a bunch of other males.

[Algernon]

And here I thought 5af was a judgement free Zone....

[grunthy]

Fun times.

[tifosi77]

But same-sex weddings are becoming increasingly common.

Define "common".

It will probably never be more than about 3%-5%. Right now, it's probably no more than a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

But 'any' is strictly speaking more common than 20 years ago.

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fspZiT8TdBE

[tifosi77]

The slippery slope I'm speaking of deals with the erosion of personal freedoms and the level of involvement of the government in your personal life. That extends to businesses that you've spent your life building.

Which goes back to the still unanswered question of what role the corporate entity plays if it is selectively permeable by the humans directing the entity.

[ExPatriatePen]

Which I've answered in that I believe there's been too much indemnity factored into the process.

[tifosi77]

So should a business owner who chooses to self-pierce the corporate veil and impart his own religious beliefs on the conduct of his business be able to enjoy the protection of the corporate veil in a civil lawsuit?

[tifosi77]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... -c-w-cooke

So much for Bernie...

If you read the bits of the essay that are on the Mother Jones link embedded in the National Review link, it seems that Bernie is saying that these latent fantasies are problematic. Not sure if the full essay is what's shown on the MJ site, but just from the part that is there, any seems wildly misplaced and out of context.

[shmenguin]

So libertarians must be opposed to any public service like roads, schools, police, etc right? They're funded by the tyrany of mandatory taxation. Certainly they don't stand for that. They all would build or barter for their own infrastructure if given the opportunity I'm sure.

No

so libertarians want help from the government...until they don't.

[Kaiser]

But same-sex weddings are becoming increasingly common.

Define "common".

Let's say same-sex weddings are legal in all 50 States and territories (which will likely happen at the Supreme Court soon).

What percentage of weddings in a given year would be same-sex?

Whatever % wanted to get married, and that's the only part of it that matters.

[grunthy]

So should a business owner who chooses to self-pierce the corporate veil and impart his own religious beliefs on the conduct of his business be able to enjoy the protection of the corporate veil in a civil lawsuit?

The corporate veil doesn't always protect you now.

[ExPatriatePen]

So should a business owner who chooses to self-pierce the corporate veil and impart his own religious beliefs on the conduct of his business be able to enjoy the protection of the corporate veil in a civil lawsuit?

How many times do I have to answer this Tif?
If I build a business I should be able to run it pretty much the way I want within reason. And no, if I'm considering it an extension of myself I then need to take personal responsibility for any possible harm.
Besides, what's being put "at risk" are generally the fruit of such business.

[shmenguin]

considering the need to avoid slippery slopes, can you really throw in "within reason" so casually?

[grunthy]

So libertarians must be opposed to any public service like roads, schools, police, etc right? They're funded by the tyrany of mandatory taxation. Certainly they don't stand for that. They all would build or barter for their own infrastructure if given the opportunity I'm sure.

No

so libertarians want help from the government...until they don't.

Not all libertarians believe in anarchy, just like not all democrats believe in all our social programs or not all republicans believe same-sex marriage should be outlawed.

[Shyster]

The sole purpose of a corporate entity is to provide a barrier between the individuals who operate the business and the conduct of that business.

Respectfully disagree. There are many other reasons for corporations than as a liability shield. Corporations can have perpetual life; people do not. Corporations make distributed ownership easy through the issuance of shares. It's much harder to add or remove partners to a partnership, for example. In fact, for many years it was the case that a partnership would automatically dissolve as a matter of law if there was any change in the composition of the partners, so everyone would have to essentially re-form the business whenever they wanted to add or remove a partner. Corporations can raise money much more easily through the issuance of shares on public markets, and it's vastly easier to trade shares than add/remove other business interests. There are also numerous other issues related to taxation, recordkeeping, management, and the like.

[shmenguin]

So libertarians must be opposed to any public service like roads, schools, police, etc right? They're funded by the tyrany of mandatory taxation. Certainly they don't stand for that. They all would build or barter for their own infrastructure if given the opportunity I'm sure.

No

so libertarians want help from the government...until they don't.

Not all libertarians believe in anarchy, just like not all democrats believe in all our social programs or not all republicans believe same-sex marriage should be outlawed.

i'm trying to find the line where government should step back. it seems to be a foggy area.

[tifosi77]

So should a business owner who chooses to self-pierce the corporate veil and impart his own religious beliefs on the conduct of his business be able to enjoy the protection of the corporate veil in a civil lawsuit?

The corporate veil doesn't always protect you now.

That doesn't answer the question posed.

[tifosi77]

So should a business owner who chooses to self-pierce the corporate veil and impart his own religious beliefs on the conduct of his business be able to enjoy the protection of the corporate veil in a civil lawsuit?

How many times do I have to answer this Tif?
If I build a business I should be able to run it pretty much the way I want within reason. And no, if I'm considering it an extension of myself I then need to take personal responsibility for any possible harm.
Besides, what's being put "at risk" are generally the fruit of such business.

Once is sufficient.