PDA

View Full Version : Should the banks that were bailed out be punished? The Top Execs? Tea Party opinion



Wei Wu Wei
04-06-2010, 02:33 AM
I believe most people, myself included and the Tea Party (very vocally), were unhappy about the bank bailouts.

Is the Tea Party pushing for some sort of punishment on the banks and/or their top executives? How about anything to try to right the wrong of the government bailing them out with no strings attached?

Tecate
04-06-2010, 02:54 AM
I wish I had time to go off on a rant, but instead I'll just leave you with this...

The bankster bailout (bankster takeover) was the biggest scam in history. A bunch of globalist Bernie Madoff's.

Bloomberg: Maybe A Secret Banking Cabal Does Run The World After All (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aaIuE.W8RAuU)

Speedy
04-06-2010, 03:06 AM
Right after Barney Fag..er... Frank, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are punished, sure. But not until that condition is met. Fag and Todd must be punished before any exec or anyone else is punished and no one can recieve a harsger punishment than those two.

Tecate
04-06-2010, 03:30 AM
Calling it a bailout is actually being nice considering the facts. It was more like a stick-up where you get to pay the robber interest on the money he stole from you.

Oh, and the banker bailout wasn't $750 billion, it was $28.7 trillion (total taxpayer exposure) most recently reported. It's probably well over $30 trillion by now and grows at a rate of about $2 trillion per month. Bloomberg seems to be the only news outlet that's reporting on this honestly.

AIG was used as the federal reserve's holding company to funnel tens of billions to off-shore foreign central banks... DERIVATIVES... Bernanke won't say where at least $2.5 trillion went... DERIVATIVES... Government backed pension funds are being asked nicely to prop up insolvent failed banks... DERIVATIVES...

I could go on and on.

Wei Wu Wei
04-06-2010, 03:59 AM
Calling it a bailout is actually being nice considering the facts. It was more like a stick-up where you get to pay the robber interest on the money he stole from you.

Oh, and the banker bailout wasn't $750 billion, it was $28.7 trillion (total taxpayer exposure) most recently reported. It's probably well over $30 trillion by now and grows at a rate of about $2 trillion per month. Bloomberg seems to be the only news outlet that's reporting on this honestly.

AIG was used as the federal reserve's holding company to funnel tens of billions to off-shore foreign central banks... DERIVATIVES... Bernanke won't say where at least $2.5 trillion went... DERIVATIVES... Government backed pension funds are being asked nicely to prop up insolvent failed banks... DERIVATIVES...

I could go on and on.

Go back to the your Soviet Motherland you Capitalism hating traitor.

Tecate
04-06-2010, 04:20 AM
Go back to the your Soviet Motherland you Capitalism hating traitor.

Ah, yes. Our grandchildren will be quite thankful for what is being passed off today as "capitalism". They'll be paying for it for many decades to come. The gift that keeps on taking if you will.

I'm assuming of course that you are being snarky and sarcastic since I don't really know you.

FlaGator
04-06-2010, 07:17 AM
What about the banks that have paid back their "bailout" money?

Gingersnap
04-06-2010, 09:56 AM
In my mind, it's more important to fix the regulatory issues and policy initiatives that opened up this can of worms. While there have always been a few banks willing to take on huge risks, the free-for-all we saw over the past 20 years is an unintended consequence of government intrusion into lending practices.

The idea that home ownership is some kind of stand-alone virtue is ludicrous. All the qualities that made home ownership virtuous in the past were tied to specific behaviors: steady employment, thrift, delayed-gratification, and fiscal prudence. Those were the virtues, home ownership was the by-product.

We need to unravel the social engineering imposed by the government first.

Apache
04-06-2010, 10:22 AM
Go back to the your Soviet Motherland you Capitalism hating traitor.

Knock it off, you Marxist twit! You have NO room to be calling anyone a commie

Tecate
04-06-2010, 08:58 PM
In my mind, it's more important to fix the regulatory issues and policy initiatives that opened up this can of worms. While there have always been a few banks willing to take on huge risks, the free-for-all we saw over the past 20 years is an unintended consequence of government intrusion into lending practices.

The idea that home ownership is some kind of stand-alone virtue is ludicrous. All the qualities that made home ownership virtuous in the past were tied to specific behaviors: steady employment, thrift, delayed-gratification, and fiscal prudence. Those were the virtues, home ownership was the by-product.

We need to unravel the social engineering imposed by the government first.
Repealing the Glass-Stegal Act also played a huge role in creating this ridiculously large bubble of toxic, worthless paper assets. It makes the savings and loan debacle back in the 80's look like a kid's game in comparison.

Tecate
04-06-2010, 08:59 PM
Knock it off, you Marxist twit! You have NO room to be calling anyone a commie
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/commyparty.jpg

Articulate_Ape
04-06-2010, 09:02 PM
In my mind, it's more important to fix the regulatory issues and policy initiatives that opened up this can of worms. While there have always been a few banks willing to take on huge risks, the free-for-all we saw over the past 20 years is an unintended consequence of government intrusion into lending practices.

The idea that home ownership is some kind of stand-alone virtue is ludicrous. All the qualities that made home ownership virtuous in the past were tied to specific behaviors: steady employment, thrift, delayed-gratification, and fiscal prudence. Those were the virtues, home ownership was the by-product.

We need to unravel the social engineering imposed by the government first.

What she said.

Wei Wu Wei
04-06-2010, 09:10 PM
In my mind, it's more important to fix the regulatory issues and policy initiatives that opened up this can of worms. While there have always been a few banks willing to take on huge risks, the free-for-all we saw over the past 20 years is an unintended consequence of government intrusion into lending practices.

The idea that home ownership is some kind of stand-alone virtue is ludicrous. All the qualities that made home ownership virtuous in the past were tied to specific behaviors: steady employment, thrift, delayed-gratification, and fiscal prudence. Those were the virtues, home ownership was the by-product.

We need to unravel the social engineering imposed by the government first.

How do you respond to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan saying that it was actually a lack of regulation (and taking part of the blame himself for this) that led to the problems we saw?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html


But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.

AmPat
04-06-2010, 09:26 PM
How do you respond to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan saying that it was actually a lack of regulation (and taking part of the blame himself for this) that led to the problems we saw?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Regulation, regulation, regulation. Do you actually believe that government morons whether elected or appointed, Greenspan included, can make sound decisions? These morons don't know how to run a lemonade stand and you want to give them more slack to further muck up our economy? If so, you are the DUmbest drone I've seen since tbe last idiot we had here.

O Blah Blah's summit where he invited his "experts" was a farce. He, OBlah Blah, is ALWAYS the dumbest person in any room he walks in. When he exits, the collective IQ rises by several hundred points.

Oh, as for the banks- a BIG NO! The morons who gave them the money are to blame. Next DUmb question.:cool:

Speedy
04-06-2010, 09:33 PM
I believe most people, myself included and the Tea Party (very vocally), were unhappy about the bank bailouts.

Is the Tea Party pushing for some sort of punishment on the banks and/or their top executives? How about anything to try to right the wrong of the government bailing them out with no strings attached?

The disgust of the Tea Party was not because they felt the Government should punish them but because the government was involved at all. No one in the Tea Party is for the government setting policy for corporations, dictating pay or punishing anyone.

Gingersnap
04-06-2010, 09:34 PM
How do you respond to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan saying that it was actually a lack of regulation (and taking part of the blame himself for this) that led to the problems we saw?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

That's like saying the big crime problem is fences, not robbers. Once banks were pressured to offer poorly secured loans to potential home owners who did not meet any existing loan criteria, obviously they were going to offload all that bad paper as soon as possible.

At that point it became a financial game of musical chairs.

However, had potential home owners been forced to meet standard mortgage requirements to begin with, much of this disaster would have been averted.

Regulating a disaster is nowhere near as important as averting or minimizing a disaster to begin with.

Wei Wu Wei
04-06-2010, 10:12 PM
That's like saying the big crime problem is fences, not robbers. Once banks were pressured to offer poorly secured loans to potential home owners who did not meet any existing loan criteria, obviously they were going to offload all that bad paper as soon as possible.

At that point it became a financial game of musical chairs.

However, had potential home owners been forced to meet standard mortgage requirements to begin with, much of this disaster would have been averted.

Regulating a disaster is nowhere near as important as averting or minimizing a disaster to begin with.

They weren't "offloading" it, they were gambling with it. They were buying and selling BETS. They weren't doing this because it was the financially responsible thing to do, they were doing this because it was making them filthy rich!

They pass the bet around, with no one to actually pay out winnings, and they collected all the money from the sales of the bets.

They didn't offload the bad paper, because the problem still showed up, but they knew very well that the government (regardless of who was in power) would let our major banking institutions fail, because if they fail, EVERYONE fails.

Knowing this, they spread the risk around and collected the winnings until finally the house of cards came down. They paid others to cover their asses in case these loan derivatives ended up in default, without proper collateral, and then in turn used this coverage as leverage for even further bets.

The whole system was essentially a scheme based on placing bets off of other bets off of other bets. the result is that the people who made the executive decisions made millions in a very short time while these banks came close to failure.

Gingersnap
04-06-2010, 10:27 PM
They weren't "offloading" it, they were gambling with it. They were buying and selling BETS. They weren't doing this because it was the financially responsible thing to do, they were doing this because it was making them filthy rich!

They pass the bet around, with no one to actually pay out winnings, and they collected all the money from the sales of the bets.

They didn't offload the bad paper, because the problem still showed up, but they knew very well that the government (regardless of who was in power) would let our major banking institutions fail, because if they fail, EVERYONE fails.

Knowing this, they spread the risk around and collected the winnings until finally the house of cards came down. They paid others to cover their asses in case these loan derivatives ended up in default, without proper collateral, and then in turn used this coverage as leverage for even further bets.

The whole system was essentially a scheme based on placing bets off of other bets off of other bets. the result is that the people who made the executive decisions made millions in a very short time while these banks came close to failure.

They offloaded the paper and the law of Unintended Consequences kicked into gear. You seem to be trying to make the argument that once one level of common sense and fiscal virtue had been breached, there should have been multiple back-up levels of common sense and virtue. That's naive at best.

If party A sells their daughters to a brothel, it's not reasonable to expect that parties C through Q will magically see the horror of what they are doing and take those daughters out of circulation.

In this case, party A thought the daughters would save some money for college while working in the brothel, party B saw that the girls were just buying shoes and snorting coke but believed that they could still work the Vegas strip, party C noticed that the girls were getting old and dropped their rates, party D thought they could still do conventions, and party E thought the investment could still be recouped with web cams and good lighting.

The conservative (not Republican) position is that the girls should have stayed in school and married some nice men before moving to a starter home that was affordable if either spouse became unemployed. ;)

Novaheart
04-06-2010, 10:32 PM
Right after Barney Fag..er... Frank, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are punished, sure. But not until that condition is met. Fag and Todd must be punished before any exec or anyone else is punished and no one can recieve a harsger punishment than those two.

Well, aren't you the jackass? Got any anti-semitic remarks? After all, we're talking banks.

Wei Wu Wei
04-06-2010, 10:39 PM
They offloaded the paper and the law of Unintended Consequences kicked into gear. You seem to be trying to make the argument that once one level of common sense and fiscal virtue had been breached, there should have been multiple back-up levels of common sense and virtue. That's naive at best.

No, I'm saying that they can abandon common sense and fiscal virtue and still profit from it, so what on earth do you expect to stop these people from gambling like this?




If party A sells their daughters to a brothel, it's not reasonable to expect that parties C through Q will magically see the horror of what they are doing and take those daughters out of circulation.

Unless Party A makes millions off of this sale.


In this case, party A thought the daughters would save some money for college while working in the brothel, party B saw that the girls were just buying shoes and snorting coke but believed that they could still work the Vegas strip, party C noticed that the girls were getting old and dropped their rates, party D thought they could still do conventions, and party E thought the investment could still be recouped with web cams and good lighting.

I'm not following your metaphor.



The conservative (not Republican) position is that the girls should have stayed in school and married some nice men before moving to a starter home that was affordable if either spouse became unemployed. ;)

Except every Party saw extremely high returns, made millions of dollars, and didn't really love their daughers because they were not daughers, they were investments.

The Top execs of these banks didn't do something stupid by placing these awful bets and selling derivatives, they profited from these decisions!

Their companies needed to be bailed out but they personally profited, and the tax payers had to bail them out.

You're saying the conservative position is what? That these bankers should have behaved smarter? They behaved BRILLIANTLY, it just so happed that what was good for them was bad for everyone else.

Are you saying the conservative position is that the bankers should followed their morals and avoided risky derivative gambling because it was economically irresponsible and could hurt million of middle class people? When conservatives figure out how to change the moral compass of other people let me know.


this story that it was regulation that forced banks to do this ignores the fact that these bankers were gambling with these derivatives for months and making big bucks from it. They weren't hurting from this, they reaped all the rewards, and used financial trickery to shift the debt onto others, and forced the bottom out from under them.

Gingersnap
04-06-2010, 10:58 PM
No, I'm saying that they can abandon common sense and fiscal virtue and still profit from it, so what on earth do you expect to stop these people from gambling like this?

Of course they can. Why wouldn't they? Do you believe that short-term profit and gain are tied to some kind of Divine Hall Monitor who rewards selfless virtue and penalizes greed?

The first principle of financial common sense was broken up and remade in order to serve a social engineering goal. That effort failed miserably (and predictably). Witch-hunting and creating new laws to penalize the opportunistic certainly make everybody look busy and well meaning but those efforts won't correct the essential problem.

I'm sure we both want more or less the same outcome here. My focus is on first principles and initial causes, yours is on disaster management.

The conservative position here is to undo the policies that created this mess in the first place. The more liberal position is to nudge the fallout and make some examples of the profiteers.

If I thought the more liberal position was the smart choice, I'd promote it. :D

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 01:06 AM
Of course they can. Why wouldn't they? Do you believe that short-term profit and gain are tied to some kind of Divine Hall Monitor who rewards selfless virtue and penalizes greed?

The first principle of financial common sense was broken up and remade in order to serve a social engineering goal. That effort failed miserably (and predictably). Witch-hunting and creating new laws to penalize the opportunistic certainly make everybody look busy and well meaning but those efforts won't correct the essential problem.

The new laws should have been put in place when these mortgages were promoted. If new laws were put in place to prevent reckless gambling and underfunded-risk-outsourcing failed mortgages wouldn't have caused the stock market to nearly collapse entirely. Also, if consumer protection laws were put in place along with promoting these mortgages less of the loans would have resulted in default.




I'm sure we both want more or less the same outcome here. My focus is on first principles and initial causes, yours is on disaster management.

The conservative position here is to undo the policies that created this mess in the first place. The more liberal position is to nudge the fallout and make some examples of the profiteers.

If I thought the more liberal position was the smart choice, I'd promote it. :D

you can't just bundle "regulation" into a blanket term on a scale from good to bad. Certain regulations alone can cause more problems, multiple regulations working in concert can help to offset problems, and while nothing can be complete without unintended consequences ,simply letting people run wild in a casino economy for such a long time is absurd.

we shouldn't reduce the argument to something as simple as regulation and deregulation, we should examine how each of these regulations effects us and how they effect each other.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 01:12 AM
Well, aren't you the jackass? Got any anti-semitic remarks? After all, we're talking banks.

Well, he IS a fag, is he not?

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 10:49 AM
Well, he IS a fag, is he not?

Do you also like epithets which degrade blacks and latinos? After all, they are black and latino are they not?

Speedy
04-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Do you also like epithets which degrade blacks and latinos? After all, they are black and latino are they not?

A person has no choice in being born a black or latino. But they do have a choice in whether they act like a niggger or spic. My black ex-wife also gave our daughters this piece of advice, "If you do not want to be called a niggger, don't act like one."

There are gays, which are cool and then there are fags. Barney Frank is a fag.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 01:16 PM
A person has no choice in being born a black or latino. But they do have a choice in whether they act like a niggger or spic. My black ex-wife also gave our daughters this piece of advice, "If you do not want to be called a niggger, don't act like one."

There are gays, which are cool and then there are fags. Barney Frank is a fag.

So how does one differentiate a 'fag' from a 'gay'?

Megaguns91
04-07-2010, 01:26 PM
So how does one differentiate a 'fag' from a 'gay'?

A gay-hater might be characterized by his going around and touting his or her apparent "straightness" and how proud they are of it.

The same thing applys for affirmative action, which you just collectively admitted is bullshit.

I think what Speedy intends to imply here is the essence of double standards. Gay people are who they are. They don't need support groups and parades and public approval of their sexuality. "Fags" as Speedy puts it do the exact opposite.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 01:28 PM
A person has no choice in being born a black or latino. But they do have a choice in whether they act like a niggger or spic. My black ex-wife also gave our daughters this piece of advice, "If you do not want to be called a niggger, don't act like one."

There are gays, which are cool and then there are fags. Barney Frank is a fag.

Thank you, Robert Byrd.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 01:33 PM
A gay-hater might be characterized by his going around and touting his or her apparent "straightness" and how proud they are of it.

The same thing applys for affirmative action, which you just collectively admitted is bullshit.

I think what Speedy intends to imply here is the essence of double standards. Gay people are who they are. They don't need support groups and parades and public approval of their sexuality. "Fags" as Speedy puts it do the exact opposite.

Naw, they need to have an entire town and its high school conspire to do a Carrie number on the Lesbian girl because she wants to bring her girlfriend to the prom.

How many gay people are acknowledged in the history books in the American classroom? I'll tell you : NONE. And before you go on some mess of crap about how the books don't feature straight people or make a point of their heterosexuality, I'll point you to the fact that you know a great deal about the heterosexuality of various historical figures in US history, up to and including the accusation that they fucked slave girls and fathered mulatto children.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 01:34 PM
A person has no choice in being born a black or latino. But they do have a choice in whether they act like a niggger or spic. My black ex-wife also gave our daughters this piece of advice, "If you do not want to be called a niggger, don't act like one."

There are gays, which are cool and then there are fags. Barney Frank is a fag.


A gay-hater might be characterized by his going around and touting his or her apparent "straightness" and how proud they are of it.

The same thing applys for affirmative action, which you just collectively admitted is bullshit.

I think what Speedy intends to imply here is the essence of double standards. Gay people are who they are. They don't need support groups and parades and public approval of their sexuality. "Fags" as Speedy puts it do the exact opposite.

See here's the thing. I'm against affirmative action, racial quotas, etc.
But parades, pride days are fine with me, so long as EVERYBODY is allowed one; Let's have a fucking straight pride day, who cares? If gays want to have one, let us straights have one too. I don't see anything wrong with any of that shit so long as there aren't double standards. If there's going to be double standards, though, then there might as well not be any pride days/parades.

I think using the words fag and whatnot are wrong though. It's a word that was used to degrade all homosexuals and put them down.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 01:34 PM
A person has no choice in being born a black or latino. But they do have a choice in whether they act like a niggger or spic. My black ex-wife also gave our daughters this piece of advice, "If you do not want to be called a niggger, don't act like one."

There are gays, which are cool and then there are fags. Barney Frank is a fag.

BTW, in case you thought that was a surprise, it wasn't. I had already been to your myspace and you tube pages.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 01:37 PM
Naw, they need to have an entire town and its high school conspire to do a Carrie number on the Lesbian girl because she wants to bring her girlfriend to the prom.

How many gay people are acknowledged in the history books in the American classroom? I'll tell you : NONE. And before you go on some mess of crap about how the books don't feature straight people or make a point of their heterosexuality, I'll point you to the fact that you know a great deal about the heterosexuality of various historical figures in US history, up to and including the accusation that they fucked slave girls and fathered mulatto children.

Why should where a person's dick was be in ANY educational book, perhaps except in a sex ed book?
I could see if it had importance on history; let's say like if there was a rape trial or something which changed the law or had historical impact. But a person's sexuality, even if interesting to history geeks, shouldn't be in general education books. It doesn't matter.

Why should a person be known in history for their sexuality? If we're talking about someone like Harvey Milk--MAYBE--I could understand but should it be like "And George Washington was a proud heterosexual who fucked his wife every night" What does that fucking matter to history?

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Why should where a person's dick was be in ANY educational book, perhaps except in a sex ed book?
I could see if it had importance on history; let's say like if there was a rape trial or something which changed the law or had historical impact. But a person's sexuality, even if interesting to history geeks, shouldn't be in general education books. It doesn't matter.

Why should a person be known in history for their sexuality? If we're talking about someone like Harvey Milk--MAYBE--I could understand but should it be like "And George Washington was a proud heterosexual who fucked his wife every night" What does that fucking matter to history?

1- Lesbians don't have dicks.
2- Gay people are neutered in history books. Their spouses are simply not mentioned while the spouses of heterosexuals are not only mentioned but often featured even if there is no particular reason to know who they are. Martha Washington was not a person of note, other than being related to Robert E Lee as a fun fact to know and tell. Martha and George had no children, so there really isn't a reason to even mention their marriage in an historical context since his sticking his dick in her (your kind of language) didn't result in anything noteworthy.
3- Why should a person be known for being left handed? Or for having a limp? Or for being tall, or handsome, or ugly, or short, or fat, or robust, or sickly? And yet, we know a great deal about this sort of thing as it pertains to various historical figures down to who is suspected of dying from syphilis for God's sake.
4- Thank you for including Harvey Milk, but he shouldn't be the only gay person acknowledged in history books.
5- Sexual orientation isn't about fucking, it ceased to be about fucking when an entire culture of oppression and persecution forged it into an identity and a subculture or pseudo ethnicity. And even if that hadn't had happened, it's not a small thing for a group identity to form around. People bond over much less. Hell, they bond over religion.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 02:19 PM
Okay Nova. list some gay historically significant gay people and their contributions. And of course, only those that were known to be gay. Not any of this pulling it out of your ass shit. Put them out there. And I am not talking about a figure whose whole claim of being historic was being persecuted because he or she was gay.

NJCardFan
04-07-2010, 02:26 PM
So how does one differentiate a 'fag' from a 'gay'?
This is a fag(if I'm getting Speedy's meaning):
http://www.lbnelert.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/lbnelert/071018_richar.JPG

And this is a gay guy:
http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos2/doogie-howser-star-says-hes-gay-amended-CDQ.jpg



A person has no choice in being born a black or latino. But they do have a choice in whether they act like a niggger or spic. My black ex-wife also gave our daughters this piece of advice, "If you do not want to be called a niggger, don't act like one."
This 100%.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 02:29 PM
So how does one differentiate a 'fag' from a 'gay'?

Misogyny.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 02:31 PM
Okay Nova. list some gay historically significant gay people and their contributions. And of course, only those that were known to be gay. Not any of this pulling it out of your ass shit. Put them out there. And I am not talking about a figure whose whole claim of being historic was being persecuted because he or she was gay.

LOL. You crack me up. You want me to name historical figures who have been ignored or straightwashed, which I will presumably know from gay magic, and you also want to exclude civil rights as a category of historical significance.

So I'll choose a time tested standard: gay until proven straight. OK?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 02:33 PM
Naw, they need to have an entire town and its high school conspire to do a Carrie number on the Lesbian girl because she wants to bring her girlfriend to the prom.

How many gay people are acknowledged in the history books in the American classroom? I'll tell you : NONE. And before you go on some mess of crap about how the books don't feature straight people or make a point of their heterosexuality, I'll point you to the fact that you know a great deal about the heterosexuality of various historical figures in US history, up to and including the accusation that they fucked slave girls and fathered mulatto children.


1- Lesbians don't have dicks.
2- Gay people are neutered in history books. Their spouses are simply not mentioned while the spouses of heterosexuals are not only mentioned but often featured even if there is no particular reason to know who they are. Martha Washington was not a person of note, other than being related to Robert E Lee as a fun fact to know and tell. Martha and George had no children, so there really isn't a reason to even mention their marriage in an historical context since his sticking his dick in her (your kind of language) didn't result in anything noteworthy.
3- Why should a person be known for being left handed? Or for having a limp? Or for being tall, or handsome, or ugly, or short, or fat, or robust, or sickly? And yet, we know a great deal about this sort of thing as it pertains to various historical figures down to who is suspected of dying from syphilis for God's sake.
4- Thank you for including Harvey Milk, but he shouldn't be the only gay person acknowledged in history books.
5- Sexual orientation isn't about fucking, it ceased to be about fucking when an entire culture of oppression and persecution forged it into an identity and a subculture or pseudo ethnicity. And even if that hadn't had happened, it's not a small thing for a group identity to form around. People bond over much less. Hell, they bond over religion.

1-You get my point (no pun intended). I just don't think sexuality should be mentioned in any case unless it has some historical merit--if the figure's sexuality had an impact on history, like the example of Harvey Milk.
2-I don't know too much about Martha Washington but I get your point. But I don't think anyone's spouse or beloved should be mentioned unless it pertains to history. It can be mentioned passingly if giving a short biography of the figure. For example, Hadrian and Antinous could be mentioned as not only were they a very early visible gay couple but both are known through history for their actions.
3-I've never seen someone's handedness being mentioned in a history book, unless it was a book focusing on one person. As for talking about their illnesses or physique, they might be mentioned because a figure's health or mental well being can have an impact on history. For example, some believe Hitler had syphillis and it was untreated, leading to his increasing insanity. Others believe King George III had bouts of insanity. Both are pertinent because their mental status and physical health had great implications on the course of history.
4- I was just mentioning him since he is a major, modern, well known LGBT figure. Of course there are plenty of others.
5-You're right.

By the way, are you a female? Just wondering.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 02:37 PM
Okay Nova. list some gay historically significant gay people and their contributions. And of course, only those that were known to be gay. Not any of this pulling it out of your ass shit. Put them out there. And I am not talking about a figure whose whole claim of being historic was being persecuted because he or she was gay.

Hadrian is one I can note off the top of my head. He was a Roman Emperor, had a male lover named Antinous; he might've been gay or bisexual, we'll never know for sure. He was famous for the defensive wall named after him in the Empire's British territories and for a policy of "Peace through Strength" or threat of. He patronized the arts in his Empire and rebuilt the Parthenon. He also built a Parliament for the Romans' Greek colonies.

He popularized beards throughout the Empire.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 02:51 PM
Hadrian is one I can note off the top of my head. He was a Roman Emperor, had a male lover named Antinous; he might've been gay or bisexual, we'll never know for sure. He was famous for the defensive wall named after him in the Empire's British territories and for a policy of "Peace through Strength" or threat of. He patronized the arts in his Empire and rebuilt the Parthenon. He also built a Parliament for the Romans' Greek colonies.

He popularized beards throughout the Empire.

An his being bi or gay had nothing to do with his contributions to history and I am pretty sure he did not go prancing around drawing attention to how fabulously gay he was either. And if he was gay, it does not detract to what his contributions to history were.

That is what is so infuriating to the limp wristed, light in the loafers, swishy gays. We care about the history but really do not give a fuck if the person making history was gay or not. And if the person was gay, we do not celebrate it with anymore than a "big fucking deal" acknowledgement if that.

That would be as stupid as the hoopla over including a black firefighter on the 9-11 statue a few years ago. The statue was based on a famous photograph and there was no Black person in the photo. Why the demand to scew history just to make it PC?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 03:04 PM
Okay Nova. list some gay historically significant gay people and their contributions. And of course, only those that were known to be gay. Not any of this pulling it out of your ass shit. Put them out there. And I am not talking about a figure whose whole claim of being historic was being persecuted because he or she was gay.


An his being bi or gay had nothing to do with his contributions to history and I am pretty sure he did not go prancing around drawing attention to how fabulously gay he was either. And if he was gay, it does not detract to what his contributions to history were.

That is what is so infuriating to the limp wristed, light in the loafers, swishy gays. We care about the history but really do not give a fuck if the person making history was gay or not. And if the person was gay, we do not celebrate it with anymore than a "big fucking deal" acknowledgement if that.

That would be as stupid as the hoopla over including a black firefighter on the 9-11 statue a few years ago. The statue was based on a famous photograph and there was no Black person in the photo. Why the demand to scew history just to make it PC?

Hey, I agree with you, a person's sexuality shouldn't matter...

AmPat
04-07-2010, 03:11 PM
1- Lesbians don't have dicks.
2- Gay people are neutered in history books. Their spouses are simply not mentioned while the spouses of heterosexuals are not only mentioned but often featured even if there is no particular reason to know who they are. Martha Washington was not a person of note, other than being related to Robert E Lee as a fun fact to know and tell. Martha and George had no children, so there really isn't a reason to even mention their marriage in an historical context since his sticking his dick in her (your kind of language) didn't result in anything noteworthy.
3- Why should a person be known for being left handed? Or for having a limp? Or for being tall, or handsome, or ugly, or short, or fat, or robust, or sickly? And yet, we know a great deal about this sort of thing as it pertains to various historical figures down to who is suspected of dying from syphilis for God's sake.
4- Thank you for including Harvey Milk, but he shouldn't be the only gay person acknowledged in history books.
5- Sexual orientation isn't about fucking, it ceased to be about fucking when an entire culture of oppression and persecution forged it into an identity and a subculture or pseudo ethnicity. And even if that hadn't had happened, it's not a small thing for a group identity to form around. People bond over much less. Hell, they bond over religion.

May I suggest that nobody cares a hoot in Hell whether you prefer licking phallus or munching carpet? People do care when you throw your preferences in their face and make political choices based upon that one thing. Get a grip and live your life like a human being and not a whining piece of crap who defines yourself by your sexual preferences.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 03:30 PM
An his being bi or gay had nothing to do with his contributions to history and I am pretty sure he did not go prancing around drawing attention to how fabulously gay he was either. And if he was gay, it does not detract to what his contributions to history were.

That is what is so infuriating to the limp wristed, light in the loafers, swishy gays. We care about the history but really do not give a fuck if the person making history was gay or not. And if the person was gay, we do not celebrate it with anymore than a "big fucking deal" acknowledgement if that.

That would be as stupid as the hoopla over including a black firefighter on the 9-11 statue a few years ago. The statue was based on a famous photograph and there was no Black person in the photo. Why the demand to scew history just to make it PC?

LOL. After Antinous died, Hadrian declared him to be a god and built a temple to him.

Speaking of which, how dare they slap us in the face with the sexual orientation of whomever that was who built the Taj Majal.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 03:30 PM
May I suggest that nobody cares a hoot in Hell whether you prefer licking phallus or munching carpet? People do care when you throw your preferences in their face and make political choices based upon that one thing. Get a grip and live your life like a human being and not a whining piece of crap who defines yourself by your sexual preferences.

No.

PoliCon
04-07-2010, 03:40 PM
1- Lesbians don't have dicks. True - but that doesn't stop a large percentage of them from wishing that they did.



2- Gay people are neutered in history books. Their spouses are simply not mentioned while the spouses of heterosexuals are not only mentioned but often featured even if there is no particular reason to know who they are. Martha Washington was not a person of note, other than being related to Robert E Lee as a fun fact to know and tell. Martha and George had no children, so there really isn't a reason to even mention their marriage in an historical context since his sticking his dick in her (your kind of language) didn't result in anything noteworthy.
Martha was the first First Lady. That IS significant.


3- Why should a person be known for being left handed? Or for having a limp? Or for being tall, or handsome, or ugly, or short, or fat, or robust, or sickly? And yet, we know a great deal about this sort of thing as it pertains to various historical figures down to who is suspected of dying from syphilis for God's sake. And yet we don't know these things unless there is a reason to know who they are in the first place.



4- Thank you for including Harvey Milk, but he shouldn't be the only gay person acknowledged in history books. There is no reason what ever to even mention Milk. His significance in history is non-existent. Alexander the Great on the other hand is significant.



5- Sexual orientation isn't about fucking, it ceased to be about fucking when an entire culture of oppression and persecution forged it into an identity and a subculture or pseudo ethnicity. And even if that hadn't had happened, it's not a small thing for a group identity to form around. People bond over much less. Hell, they bond over religion. culture or oppression and persecution? :rolleyes:

Speedy
04-07-2010, 03:41 PM
LOL. After Antinous died, Hadrian declared him to be a god and built a temple to him.

Speaking of which, how dare they slap us in the face with the sexual orientation of whomever that was who built the Taj Majal.

The builder of the Taj Mahjal was gay? News to me. Does not keep it from being a hell of archetectural masterpiece. And you know what, it is no more a masterpiece because the builder was gay. The Taj Mahjal is historic because of the archetecture the sexual preferrence of who built it has no bearing on it's history. Besides, the story behind that building as I know it is that a man built it as an homage to a woman he loved. Guess what? That is the history behind it. It is not flouting the sexuality of anyone in your face, it is fact.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 09:05 PM
The builder of the Taj Mahjal was gay?

Because that's what you got from my post? OK.


It is not flouting the sexuality of anyone in your face, it is fact.

It absolutely is. And your response is as ill thought out as straight people who claim they don't flaunt their sexuality, right after they introduce "my wife (Latin for person I'm fucking)" and walk through the mall arm in arm.

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 09:23 PM
Because that's what you got from my post? OK.



It absolutely is. And your response is as ill thought out as straight people who claim they don't flaunt their sexuality, right after they introduce "my wife (Latin for person I'm fucking)" and walk through the mall arm in arm.
Nice, you turned a bank thread into an all about gay me thread!

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 09:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 09:50 PM
Nice, you turned a bank thread into an all about gay me thread!

No, for that you can thank whomever it was that felt a childish impulse to call Barney Frank a name which also insulted every gay person in the country.

In real life I would have simply turned his way and yelled, "Stop being an asshole." , hopefully so sharply that everyone for 100 yards looked at him and wondered what disgusting thing he must have done.

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 09:55 PM
No, for that you can thank whomever it was that felt a childish impulse to call Barney Frank a name which also insulted every gay person in the country.

In real life I would have simply turned his way and yelled, "Stop being an asshole." , hopefully so sharply that everyone for 100 yards looked at him and wondered what disgusting thing he must have done.
You joined a forum that you knew would be 99% straight and then announced to everyone three posts into your stay how you prefer to have sex. Why don't you discuss politics and events and when the gay comments come, just grow a thicker skin. Most of us don't care if you like to screw tree stumps in January and would like to keep it that way!

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 10:05 PM
You joined a forum that you knew would be 99% straight and then announced to everyone three posts into your stay how you prefer to have sex. Why don't you discuss politics and events and when the gay comments come, just grow a thicker skin. Most of us don't care if you like to screw tree stumps in January and would like to keep it that way!

1- Conservative and jackass bigot are not synonymous.

2- If sexual orientation isn't of interest, then why did someone mention it?

3- My skin is plenty thick. Thick skin doesn't mean that you don't call an asshole on his act, it means that you don't get your feeling hurt in the battle.

4- If you don't care about sexual orientation, then you have no reason to make personal insults in that vein, do you Missy?

Rockntractor
04-07-2010, 10:09 PM
1- Conservative and jackass bigot are not synonymous.

2- If sexual orientation isn't of interest, then why did someone mention it?

3- My skin is plenty thick. Thick skin doesn't mean that you don't call an asshole on his act, it means that you don't get your feeling hurt in the battle.

4- If you don't care about sexual orientation, then you have no reason to make personal insults in that vein, do you Missy?

We toss personal insults at each other constantly here. Don't expect to have some sort of protective status, your not at DU. Nova you have as much right to be here as anyone else, but don't expect us to change to accommodate you.

Speedy
04-07-2010, 10:36 PM
It absolutely is. And your response is as ill thought out as straight people who claim they don't flaunt their sexuality, right after they introduce "my wife (Latin for person I'm fucking)" and walk through the mall arm in arm.

Oh, I get you now. How offensive to turd burglars that a man and a woman (like God intended) walk through the mall arm in arm and not a head is turned. Well guess what you limp wristed pole smoking bastard. That is the way of the world. That is the natural way of things. How bloody terrible that a pride of lions is made up of a male and a bunch of females and there are no big prides of male lions listening to Queen and giving each other decorating tips. How terribly unfare that a bull in a herd of cows flouts his hetrosexuality in your face.

You may not be sick, but if you are a homosexual you are an anomaly, an evolutionary dead end and downright weird to most people and deserving of death to Muslims.

You have a right to work at any place that will hire you. You have a right to live where you want, to vote and to everything everyone else does. But you do not have a right to demand that anyone, me or anyone else see you as normal because you are not. You do not have a right to demand that I do not show my affection to a woman because that is normal. Two guys can kiss and it will always be thought of as weird because it is not normal and do it if you want, but normal will it ever be.

You can look upon a man and a woman showing affection to each other in public with contempt, with disdain, envy or avarice but even if you are as queer as a football bat, you can not say that a man and woman displaying affection to each other is not normal. Two dudes kissing is not normal and while it may be acceptable to some people, but normal? Two hot chicks kissing, as hot as it maybe, can not be called normal either.

It won't be. Ever and your silly demands that hetrosexuals stop their normal behavior because you can't do it and have it accepted as normal is not going to change anything.

Novaheart
04-07-2010, 11:52 PM
Oh, I get you now. How offensive to turd burglars that a man and a woman (like God intended) walk through the mall arm in arm and not a head is turned. Well guess what you limp wristed pole smoking bastard. That is the way of the world. That is the natural way of things. How bloody terrible that a pride of lions is made up of a male and a bunch of females and there are no big prides of male lions listening to Queen and giving each other decorating tips. How terribly unfare that a bull in a herd of cows flouts his hetrosexuality in your face.

You may not be sick, but if you are a homosexual you are an anomaly, an evolutionary dead end and downright weird to most people and deserving of death to Muslims.

You have a right to work at any place that will hire you. You have a right to live where you want, to vote and to everything everyone else does. But you do not have a right to demand that anyone, me or anyone else see you as normal because you are not. You do not have a right to demand that I do not show my affection to a woman because that is normal. Two guys can kiss and it will always be thought of as weird because it is not normal and do it if you want, but normal will it ever be.

You can look upon a man and a woman showing affection to each other in public with contempt, with disdain, envy or avarice but even if you are as queer as a football bat, you can not say that a man and woman displaying affection to each other is not normal. Two dudes kissing is not normal and while it may be acceptable to some people, but normal? Two hot chicks kissing, as hot as it maybe, can not be called normal either.

It won't be. Ever and your silly demands that hetrosexuals stop their normal behavior because you can't do it and have it accepted as normal is not going to change anything.


"Did you seriously just stamp your foot? I thought girls only did that on TV."

AmPat
04-07-2010, 11:58 PM
No.

Then suffer the consequences in silence. FOOL!:cool: