Comments on: Elliot Spitzer versus Jim Cramer

By: Andy Lewis

Andy Lewis — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:30:00 +0000

Spitzer’s right and Cramer’s a piece of shit. This has been another in the series Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

By: JAMES

JAMES — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:45:14 +0000

Elliot spitzer is an idiot he has no idea what is going on in the real world all he is a spoiled rich kid. the only way he know how to conduct business is through blackmail.

This comes from
http://www.stonezone.com

When Governor David Paterson fired the head of the New York Commission on Public Integrity because of the agency’s willful attempt to leak information and derail the Spitzer/Troopergate investigation, he replaced him with… a stooge of Eliot Spitzer.

Although Commission officials were accused of keeping Spitzer’s top aides apprised of material facts uncovered in the investigation, Paterson has appointed Michael Cherkasky, a longtime Spitzer pal and dirty tricks operative.

By: mountainaires

mountainaires — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:11:05 +0000

Jim Cramer is a buffoon. The man has no credibility whatsoever. He’s rude; coarse; and a liar, to boot. Spitzer wins this debate hands down.

By: mountainaires

mountainaires — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:07:38 +0000

Getting breast augmentation is unchristian?! In whose bigoted little world? What farce. Prejean answered a question put to her. She was polite, tactful, and honest. But fascist thugs on the left don't like her opinion, her personal beliefs, so they're attacking her like a nest of vipers. Shame on them all.

By: Texas Playwright

Texas Playwright — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:32:22 +0000

Agree. I’m from Texas, do not condone extramarital affairs, think they are private business between spouses, and would not want a good, smart public servant hounded out of office because of such behavior if no public laws were broken, i.e., using public money to fund trysts.

No one is all good or all bad. Some are mostly good, or mostly bad, like I think bho the fraud and his thugs are. Spitzer’s bulldog reformer’s zeal may finally wake the rest of America up to AIG and other parasites on our national economy.

By: Linda C

Linda C — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:08:35 +0000

If the Californian beauty queen has a right to her “opinion” , then people have the same right to criticize her.

I am very tired of prejudiced opinions being called “moral truths and values”. It is simple. If one has these prejudicial opinions, then keep them to yourself and out of my life and the law. If you personally don’t believe “gay marriage” is right for you, then simply don’t get one. You may still be married by any Elvis Impersonator of your choice.

The Christian Church was not involved in marriages until the 8th Century. Until then, it was considered to be a matter of the state. The church simply blessed the union if the couple so desired. When the church took on as the sole definer of what is a marriage, it simply was not between a man and a woman, but only certain men and women. In present day Israel, many couples live without being married or travel abroad to be married simply because Israel only legally recognizes religious marriages. However, many couples cannot get their church or temple to marry them because it does not meet the particular “religious definition” of marriage. Therefore, I think some people should be careful of exactly what they wish for, since many of them might not pass the “religious test” themselves.

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:40:43 +0000

The biggest problem comes with that other word “divorce”.
Under a purely religious marriage ceremony, divorce would not be allowed. Some churches can be incredibly harsh on divorced parishioners/congregants (even to a point where both divorcés are forced out of the church) and some denominations would not allow divorce, except where cruelty is involved.
The civil law FINALLY (during the 1960s and 1970s) began excising* itself from the entanglements of religious law by doing away with “fault” divorce. We really do not want a return to those days. No one benefits from a marriage where the couple is largely forced to stay together when they no longer want it.

*I was going to write “divorcing”, but changed my mind.

By: Seattle Moss

Seattle Moss — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:37:40 +0000

Congrats Josef
You have just become the image of Perez Hilton on this blog…

BARF!!

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:23:01 +0000

Please. That woman’s a damned hypocrite.
She uses her “moral values and beliefs” when they suit her.
Please explain, in as many words as needed, how posing seminude and getting a boob job, and then entering a beauty contest is evidence of her deep values and her Christian heritage.
She has no problems (like so many other religious hypocrites) in picking and choosing the Bible to suit her needs and ignoring those things that don’t.
I’d note that NOW opposes beauty pageants (and has done so, due to their reliance on something incredibly superficial, for decades). Why the fuck should NOW be defending the woman?

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:10:06 +0000

Bullshit. You’re using that same old fundy straw man argument. NO COURT has ever forced a Catholic church be party to the interfaith marriage of a Catholic to a Baptist, nor has any court ruled that a person wishing to marry someone of another faith be required to change his/her faith in order to fulfill the marriage. There are denominations, and whole religions, where one person may be required to convert to his/her future spouse’s religion in order for the couple to get married in that church.
I have yet to hear of any gay or lesbian couple demanding that they be married inside any specific church, especially one that refuses to accept same-sex marriage. The only people who hold to this outdated bullshit argument are of the same mindset that would have refused service to an interracial couple 50 years ago.
As to this additional crap over polygamy, yes, one person really constitutes a whole movement. The simple reality is that polygamy does exist in this country (and while it’s not legal, the government doesn’t usually go out of its way to prosecute polygamists unless minors are involved–usually in the sense of child “brides”). But, so what? WHO is really hurt by polygamy? Are you? Am I? No. The key point is CONSENT.
If some people would spend as much time worrying about the REAL threats to marriage (like spousal abuse, divorce, infidelity) as they do worrying about same-sex couples getting married, things would be a hell of a lot better.
As to this “civil union” shit, when currently “married” heterosexual couples agree to their being “civilly united” instead of having a *special* term for their state-sanctioned joinings, I’ll be happy to accept civil unions for gays instead of pushing for marriage. (I’d also appreciate those con-servatives most loudly arguing against same-sex marriage agree to put an end to their “serial marriages”. It would also be nice if the Catholic Church would cut out its hypocrisy and religious fiction of “annulment”.)

By: CG

CG — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:56:43 +0000

Spitzer gets my vote too Susan. Thanks, by the way, for offering both videos to contrast the different points of view.

By: JustMe~~

JustMe~~ — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:17:39 +0000

I agree SM….
Being punished for exercising her rights to free speech is an affront to all Americans.

By: Diana L. C.

Diana L. C. — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:58:45 +0000

Why can’t we go to a system in which all people, homosexuals included, to get the legal and financial benefits of what we now call marriage, must for matter of public interest first get a civil union certificate? If they then want to make it a religious union, they can go to whatever religious authority they want to get the marriage certificate. Then the gay community could fight the religious organizations and leave politics out of it.

I have always felt that gay couples should have the same legal and financial rights that heterosexual couples have. In fact, since I am protesting marriage after two failed ones, I refuse to marry the man I call my husband (my common law he is) simply because my protest is that it should be as hard to get married as it is to get divorced. (My last ex kept me in court for over seven years!) So I often facetiously say I am for gay marriage because gay couples should also have the right to “enjoy” the divorce courts.

The religious ceremony should be different from the civil procedure.

I know this is something others have said, but I just never get a good explanation about why a religious person would oppose that system. I just don’t get it.

By: getfitnow

getfitnow — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:07:45 +0000

I agree with you Seattle Moss. This young woman spoke from her heart and was very tactful not to offend those who have a different opinion. And she has been castagated for speaking truthfully. People may not care ’cause it’s only a beauty contest. My feeling is that everybody’s right to free speech needs to be protected. The left has become vile in its attacks on those that don’t agree with them. We remember Hillary and Bill, Joe the Plumber, and of course Gov Palin. I’m not surprised at this point, but disappointed at the deafening silence by “women’s organization. Where is NOW?

By: termo

termo — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:52:04 +0000

If that’s where it ends.

I am not sure it will end there.