This morning, Lloyd Blankfein, the head of one of the most prestigious investment firms in America released a video on YouTube for the Human Rights Campaign. Supporting equal rights for same-sex marriage.
Unlike many of his peers he’s not taken any bonuses in recent times – in fact, he cut his pay. And he’s the head of a Wall Street investment firm that non-students of American history may not realize was founded as a response to bigotry. Back when Wall Street firms wouldn’t hire Jews.
So, kudos to you, Lloyd. I don’t own any shares of Goldman Sachs – or any investment bank for that matter. But, as an ordinary American who thinks our Constitution and Bill of Rights mandate equal opportunity – welcome aboard!
man he’s fucking wallst SCUM
One of the hallmarks of DU. Sophisticated analysis in the comments.
How much more analysis do you need to deconstruct this piece of shit? He’s trying to gloss over his spike tailed image, we get it.
Who cares what some necktied pig has to say about ANYTHING? America will only start getting better when we drag ALL of these assholes into the street and burn them alive.
Now go ahead and put me on one of your little hall-monitor “lists”, because I don’t give a rat’s ass anymore.
He thinks everyone should be fucked over ‘equally’ because it’s just good business. Awwww, ain’t that cute.
Well he figures you’re already on your knees in front of his building begging for a job (not a bailout like they got,) he might as well kick you right in your cock sucking face.
Bald-headed thief. No one cares what he has to say.
I wonder which PR ‘expert’ thought this was a good idea. You can almost see the meeting in the GS boardroom….
PR expert: The thing is Lloyd… the thing is the majority of people think you’re a nasty piece of work. Greedy. Disconnected. A thief if you will.
Lloyd: I know, it’s disheartening. I mean can’t they see I’m doing Gods work?
PR expert: Yes. Yes. Of course. It’s really a question of changing perceptions. Make people think your one of them, so they can empathize with you. They can’t do that now, because with all your ill gotten loot you’ve amassed you are a kind of de facto royalty. Something better than the average shmo. It’s hard for people to connect with that, because most people have to work long and hard just to get food on their table. It seems somehow unfair if you will.
Lloyd: So perhaps if someone close to me died horrifically. Perhaps at the hands of a (wink, wink) terrorist, or I don’t know a OWSer could work well. Then people could empathize with my sorrow? I know some guys that can make that kind of thing happen… it’s not a problem.
PR expert: Hmm – well that’s got legs. There is a blow-back issue though. Lets put it on a back burner for now though, and try something more simple to start with.
Lloyd (shrugs): Okay. Well, what did you have in mind?
PR expert: Hmmm. It has to be something totally outside finance, because nobody is going to believe anything you say about that now. Something that shows you understand equality, that you care, something that humanizes you…
Lloyd (chortling): Sure. Equality is my middle name.
PR expert (smirking): Yes, let me think about this a bit more. I’ll get back to you.
Not impressed. He should have supported equality when it did not have the majority of popular opinion as it does now.
The real corporate heros are Apple, Disney, Intel, Microsoft, Home Depot and countless others that told the Christian Taliban to eat shit more than 10 years ago.
This guy is just stating what has been obvious for a long time. The reason he did not support it then was because he had to suck up to the taliban. He can go pound sand now.
Did you really call Apple, Disney, Intel etc heros? Just because they are evil in other ways doesn’t make them heros.
Yes, they are heros in my book. Oh, and my heros aren’t perfect.
“The real corporate heros are Apple, Disney, Intel, Microsoft, Home Depot and countless others that told the Christian Taliban to eat shit more than 10 years ago.”
Apple who make products that causes chinese workers to commit suicide.
Disney the company that is anti-semitic.
Intell the company that uses dangerous materials that pollute landfills all over the world.
Microsoft, aw hell do I even have to retell the whole 90s?
Home depot, kickback scandal.
Yeah modern pillars of ethics.
Please say this was satire and I am just not getting it?
Cursor_
Meh, You’re full of shit. By your measure, any institution, business entity or government agency is evil.
You’re a log cabin away from being a Ted Kaczynski!
As long as “equal opportunity” doesn’t translate into “equal outcome”, then I can see eye to eye with you on this.
My wife and I have been together for 27 years. We only married 10 years ago to protect our joint assets FROM the gov’t.
If I had my way all marriage would be outlawed. Like the Constitution this man proclaims to love, it’s “just a piece of paper”.
I always though this guy was a backstabbing, thieving piece of shiit, primarily taking advantage of gullible and desperate people.
But now that I have seen his video, I love him.
“Gay Marriage” is NOT AN ECONOMIC ISSUE – it is a HOT BUTTON THE REPUKES USE to get ordinary people (the 99%) to vote against their own ECONOMIC INTEREST and for Repukes so the Repukes can give their ECONOMIC OVERLORDS – THE 1% – THE MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES – EVEN MORE ***OBSCENE TAX BREAKS*** !!! It is just the old “Divide and Conquer” stratagey (or strategery in Texas) the Rich have used since the beginning of “Democracy” !!! If you CANNOT WIN ON THE TAXING AND SPENDING ISSUE (WHICH IS WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES) – INVENT PHONY ISSUES LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO CHOOSE, RACE ISSUES, ETC TO DIVIDE THE 99% INTO SMALLER, WEAKER BLOCKS !!! If the 99% hung together on THE PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX, there wouldn’t be enough MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRE TO BUY ELECTIONS !!!
<sigh> you’re right…
But I’d be happy if we would just outlaw political parties because our politicians are equipped with the morals of gutter cats.
If we want a representative government, we’ll have to RE-create it. (There were no parties in 1776.)
If we want smaller government, we’ll have to take out the incentives for its growth too.
The error of (y)our ways is that, despite the evidence of hundreds of years of history, you keep on electing self-selected, self-anointed members of the millionaires’ club, people who have no understanding of what the lives of the citizens of this country are like.
That fits in with Einstein‘s definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Lets examine how the situation has really devolved since the founding of this country.
We’ve become a government
• OF the thousandaires (the 99%, that would be me and thee,)
• BY the millionaires (the 1%, that would be the extremely insular privileged overlords and bosses,)
• FOR the billionaires (the 12,400 individuals identified by the IRS as the people who count (though they don’t really count as they hire some thousandaires to run machines to do that.)
How is this different than the political situation that led to the founding of the United States?
It ISN’T really.
One system had privilege being a condition of one’s birth.
The situation in the United States is the (cess)pool of nobles has expanded to people that the corporations like and are willing to fund.
The first thing we do is change from an ELECTED to a SELECTED form of government.
Pick names at random out an eligible citizen pool and they’re stuck with doing the job for one, and only one, four year term.
There could/should/would be no such thing as a career in politics. (The only thing worse than getting stuck with somebody who didn’t want the job is getting stuck with some idiot who did, figuring it was going to lift him a few rungs up the social/economic ladder.)
And don’t give me that bullshit about average citizens don’t know enough about politics.
Average citizens know right from wrong and are likely to at least read a bill before they sign and pass it on.
Average citizens know enough to be suspicious and not so venial and blinded by the lure of undeserved re-election.
Eligibility requirements are:
• were you born here or are you a naturalized citizen?
• are you a permanent resident in a village, town or city within our borders?
• are you above the age of 25?
• are you healthy enough? (you don’t suffer from any clinical health issue(s) or mental impairment(s) which would prevent you from fulfilling your duties?)
• have you NEVER served on the government before?
• have you NEVER been found guilty of a violent crime?
• have you NEVER been found to be clinically insane?
Answer yes to all of these questions, you’re eligible for selection.
Don’t want to be bothered?
Go live elsewhere!
That would get rid of all PACs, K Street lobbyists, a lot of graft, waste and expense that WE’RE all paying for.
“If we want a representative government, we’ll have to RE-create it. (There were no parties in 1776.)”
Yes there were.
There were Torries and Whigs.
Try again.
And Einstein did not say that, it is attributed to him but is not a quote they can verify. Like the god quote atheists like to trot out by Epicurus.
Myth and rumour does not help an argument.
Cursor_
You may wish to retract your statement “There were Torries and Whigs”. These were British political parties, not American. The US Whig party came along around 1830 in response to Andrew Jackson.
George Washington did not identify himself with any political party and was fearful of a party system taking root in the US.
The Einstein quote is actually attributed to Ben Franklin.
Epicurus? The God paradox cannot be specifically attributed to a man who lived 2300 years ago. But it is in line with his teachings, in line with the logic of the times and generally accepted as being attributed correctly.
Maybe you’d prefer George Carlin: ~”If God is all powerful, could he make a rock so big he couldn’t move it?”
McCullough: I disagree. I think marriage is a sacred and holy state between two people who have made a lifelong commitment to each other. That’s why I’ve done it three times.
I do agree with our friend that marriage should be opened up to anyone regardless of their gaiety or gender identification. I think everyone should have equal opportunity to enjoy the misery of marriage.
Congrats on the longevity of your partnership.
Har!
We were both divorced when we met, and saw no benefit to another “legal” situation. If you want to stay together, you will, marriage just makes it more expensive to part.
As John likes to say…”It’s a money grab!”
On Craigs List, there’s a guy looking for a goat “for personal reasons”. He could use a piece of paper too.
I have 3 children with may partner of 35 years. No papers, just love and respect.
And after that amount of time, in many places you are technically married.
Sanctity of Marriage: so precious that we grant it *by default* – as long as youre hetero.
One of the worst spokesman choices ever.
woo woo CEO of GS hops on the bandwagon for equal rights
a little late and his motives are suspect of being profit driven but at least its a sign of progress
I heard once said: That gay marriage is denial of their heterosexuality. A marriage license is an attempt by some gays to seek the conformity and practice of a heterosexual life-style. The gay life-style will never be fully be acceptable completely to heterosexuals. It is that some heterosexuals just tolerate it, as humans, as a species. Humans overall are hard wired for heterosexuality for obvious reasons. Because of that, that is why a portion of the gay community seeks out and displays a heterosexual sexual life-style. There isn’t a single country, or a people(race) that puts homosexuality to it’s forefront, basing its culture around homosexuality, as it does heterosexuality. Man has been around a long time, and there have been thousands of cultures through the ages. It is in some cultures it has just been tolerated or treated as a sub-culture.
Bill Clinton to help him get elected pandered to the gay community for their vote. He lied to them making promises he never kept. Hollywood is pro-gay, yet TV and movies of gay life styles pale in number and popularity. Old Lloyd says, gay marriage is good for business.
Why is there a huge push to get the general public to accept gay marriage, by some people like Lloyd, Bill Clinton and Hollywood? I think because they want the general heterosexual population to accept something they are not inclined to accept, for no other reason than it benefits them. And it is not because the care about gay’s or gay marriage.
I personally don’t have any problem with the legal rights gays are afforded under a marriage. But insurance and other companies do for the reason it doesn’t benefit them. As well as a large portion of society – I don’t see society or this country as being a loaf of 1950’s white bread branded Hallelujah.
The issue of equal rights, is not equal for everyone. Isn’t is a bit hypocritical and about self-interest to praise and mandate rights for gays and not polygamists? Legalize gay marriage, but not polygamy? What is equal about that, is that not called preferential treatment, pandering to special interest where the rights of one group are held over another?
As a heterosexual who was born this way and never made a choice for it I don’t give a flying fuck if you marry or have sex with someone of your own gender.
So your argument doesn’t hold much water.
Cursor_
I am heartened by the quality of the comments on this thread. Not much more to say after the subject was disposed of right from the get go. moss: ha, ha. I don’t know what window dressing you prefer but isn’t the clarity of messaging to be admired in and of itself? I think so.
But I’ll dither and see if I have the energy to blather:
1. Did you notice the article put “prestigious” and “investment firm” in the same sentence? I was “for” gay marriage just before they did that. Now, I’m thinking again. Single Issue Agenda Driven Organizations to the ruin, oppression, and suppression of all other issues are never to be supported. This group is acting just like a prestigious investment firm in that action. Ha, ha.
2. It is worthy of contemplation why “the gays” would fight for rights to marry. Conformity to the societal meme. Like women fighting to be drafted. No greater proof possible the gays are just like the rest of us: dumb as shit.
3. Polygamy. Its as different as 3 is from 2. Do the math.
4. Bestiality. Funny to think that sex with animals “de-humanizes” them when its just the opposite. Pedro?
Mostly dither.
“There ain’t always unity in Class Warfare.” by Eideard.
Normally an acute critic of the Cultural Scene: I think seduced by this clever ploy all as trumpeted by this thread.
The Flat Earth Society over represented on the TeaParty Right with their anti-science, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom agenda IS NOT ABOUT class warfare. Its about separating the easily lead throat cutting Pukes from their own self interest. Its not based on “class” (give that a big sic!) but VALUES.
No–THIS craven issue hi-jack is all about CLASS WARFARE: the already too Rich taking more from the Upper, Middle, Lower, and No class people for their continued enrichment.
The “unity” of the Class Waring Uber Rich continues unabated using every tool of disinformational FUD available to them. Claiming there is “disunity” in that Monolith is there very goal.
Hmmmm. Ok. Monolith goes too far. Doens’t come near to making a balance, but I’ll let it sit.
Does gay marriage, plural marriage, etc. contribute to bigger houses, more urban sprawl and more 4x4s on the road? Do they contribute to maintaining America’s dominance of the rest of the Universe? Otherwise they’re peripheral and trivial issues. Focus on priorities as listed. Without those priorities all life is meaningless.
Marriage is a historic relic that remains embedded in our culture long after governments became secular. Marriage vows are an oral contract between free individuals.
The government should not be involved in the marriage contract, either by giving preferential treatment to married couples, or issuing a license that gives the government’s “permission” to enter into a contract.
Free association of individuals should not be regulated by the government.
Marriage should be treated no differently than individuals that voluntarily co-habitate for whatever reason.
Inequality results from the government giving preferential treatment to one group of individuals over another group.
Say Orchi==while I “basically agree” (whatever that means) with what you say, lets examine the opposing view?
Not all groups of people are the same. Some are more valuable to a society than others. For instance: those bearing and raising the next generation are more valuable than those who are not. Lets assume that all the other valuable traits one might raise in counterpoint are equally spread between the rearing and non-rearing cohort?
Why should government not support those who create the ongoing concern called “society?”
Why should government not support those who create the ongoing concern called “society?”
Government is the creation of a society, not the other way around.
I cannot thing of one single reason why government should be involved in the free association of individuals that wish to co-habitate.
Perhaps you might think of one.
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
COME: let us reason together. Can we at least get on the same train? Lets first meet at the same train station?
Re read.
Re post.
Sounds like your society would resemble Brownian motion. Just whoever you manage to stick to huh?
it’s funny to see so many people posting things to the effect of “this guy is a supreme douchebag in every respect, but with this…..with this he’s spot-on.” rather than saying “y’know, if this douchebag SUPPORTS this, maybe there really IS something wrong with it”. and I’m really trying to figure out if eideard is on his side or not.
you people have absolutely no minds of your own.
Parsing, always parsing:
Government is the creation of a society, not the other way around. /// I’ll grant you your point: so what? Every society (ie two or more people) create government, no exceptions. So, your point is irrelevant. Can you see that? Yes, irrelevant. The question is not who created what, but once unavoidably created, what are the rules going to be. I have now put you at the right station: find the train and get on it.
I cannot thing of one single reason why government should be involved in the free association of individuals that wish to co-habitate. /// Exactly so. Thats why I posted my question and gave you a thing to thing about. You might look within yourself to devine why you don’t see that?
#
tcc3 says:
2/6/2012 at 4:43 pm
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. /// Hey tcc3, a rare fail on your part. The word/concept of marriage does not appear in my post. If you want to define marriage as those engaged in bearing and rearing the next generation, then we will be on the same train.
For the record: this is an EXAMINATION of one of the opposing views. Not an advocacy of it.
See the difference? Same train, different track?
woooooo woooooo!
Indeed. I know the devils advocate when I hear it. But since others (like Pedro) use that very argument, I didn’t want to let it stand.
I realize you didn’t say marriage – but that actually makes my point. Marriage does not equal procreation. The argument that marriage’s purpose is to promote procreation, and that’s why homosexuals shouldn’t marry, is fallacious.
Yes–but the issue I raised that you are supposed to be responding to is NOT MARRIAGE. You make the Devil’s Argument WHEN the devil appears, not during the Angel’s Harp Playing introduction.
By skipping the chorus to your own intermission, you missed the entire first act. Lets Recap:
Do you think its legitimate or not for a government to recognize population breeders and raisers as having different needs/rights than those who don’t?
AND btw==I do note your equating my fine parsing with Pedro’s Donkey Turds. You do that again, and I’ll have to downgrade you to tcc-2. You know what No 2 is right?
Learn from the missteps. progress with agility.
Sorry Bobbo, was not my intent. I just don’t want to see people like Pedro emboldened by having people appear to agree with them.
Going back to the overture, as it were: yes I belive that society/government has the ability to encourage/promote/support the creation of the next generation.
Pedobear–was that you? Saying someone was spot on while you disagreed with him?
Advocating voting rights for polygamous under age animal cohabitants. Why am I not surprised????
Ha, ha. Good to see PedoBear skirting the porn filter so consistently. Only exercise he gets besides……..you know. Course, as soon a DU finds the anti-Bestiality Button, PedoBear will have to revert to posting as Alfie again.
I don’t know which is worse.
Is it possible that this man, despicable as many hold him to be, has a valid opinion on some other matters, separate from GS.
Why would somebody have to re-examine their thoughts on same-sex marriage just because this fellow supports it?
If he spoke out against barbecuing kittens, would you then have to reconsider your abhorrence to the idea of those lovely little playful kitties being slow roasted over mesquite wood, basted with sauce and served up with coleslaw and potato salad?
I can do without the potato salad, but slow roasted kittens? Sounds delicious…
Our Good Cappin says: “Is it possible that this man, despicable as many hold him to be, has a valid opinion on some other matters, separate from GS” /// Quite true, BUT ON THIS ISSUE: he’s douchebag obvious in his attempt to play idiots for the fools they are. I don’t fault you Cappin for being taken in as you have been. You are projecting your own innocence and gullibility onto this business leader. Why would the head of a totally corrupt organization lie about any issue that directly relates to the success of his corrupt syndicate? Why indeed. He “could be” telling the truth, because you know, gays are people too.
I wonder how long the list is? “I love america too?” “I was in fear of a pink slip once.” “I was unemployment.” “I made all my own money.” “Increasing minimum wage prevents people from getting their first job.”
Ha, ha. Yeah, I know it sounds too much like Rumney. The reason for that should be “obvious,” but it could be something else.
And thats why kiddies have no candy on the hard, hard streets of High Finance. Say, what is the future sell mark on sugar these days?
WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE HIS/HER HEAD UP THEIR OWN ASS ON THIS ISSUE?! I MEAN EVERYONE!
The question about gay marriage isn’t even the right question. The question should be if married persons, gay or straight, should be given any special privileges, rights, or advantages when it comes to EQUAL TREATMENT!!!
Therefore, the government should NOT recognize marriage in any way shape or form! PERIOD!!!
And the reason is simple: CHOOSING TO BE MARRIED (OR UNIONIZED OR WHATEVER) IS NOT FAIR TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO NOT BE BE MARRIED! AND (here’s where the gay part makes sense) IT’S ESPECIALLY UNFAIR TO THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO GET MARRIED!!!
Same sex union of a man and a woman?
Well no wonder. Lloyd Blankfein wears silk boxers.
God has spoken.
Where is the catch? It will probably cost money somehow.
tcc3 says:
2/7/2012 at 8:29 am
Sorry Bobbo, was not my intent. I just don’t want to see people like Pedro emboldened by having people appear to agree with them. //// Glad we are on the same train. …… but…..when have you seen anyone agree with Pedro? I’m a pretty regular reader here and I’ve never seen that. Sure you aren’t confusing that with what you see all the time: people agreeing with one another that Pedro is a waste of time? Close, but very different.
Going back to the overture, as it were: yes I belive that society/government has the ability to encourage/promote/support the creation of the next generation. /// Well, you missed it again. The question posed was: “Why should government not support those who create the ongoing concern called “society?” and in china today with their one child policy you can see another aspect of the same issue: Why shouldn’t government restrict those who are over populating society?
So many silly posters here living/thinking in a vacuum they exist in a vacuum separate from their kind. We all affect everyone else even if we never directly interact. Think of yeast in a wine bottle.
*
pedro says:
2/7/2012 at 9:54 am
Aaaw, afraid of reality. Come out of that closet already. //// tcc3==see? No one is going to agree with that. Your anticipation of the best argument PedoBear could ever make gives him waaaaaay too much credit and amounts to a waste of time. All things to the measure deserved.
Yea, verily.
Well… my nephew can barely afford to support his family, with the home building trade in the slump it’s in. And getting married would cost his GF, a huge hit in pay and/or taxes. I forget what it is now. But I can understand why the two of them have put off making it legal. As I’m sure many other hetero couples have. So if the gays are willing to suffer the very same economic hit, for that marriage licence. Well then Ok. The country needs their extra revenue. But somehow I’m sure the gays’ idea of equality, isn’t that they should suffer or sacrifice equally with the heteros. No minority ever has. And the gays only want the positive benefits of marriage, without any of the negative costs. For this arrangement, they’ll settle for being treated equal.
Exactly how does a lousy 3% of the population get so much political coddling? When the other 96% (minus the rich 1%) simply get ignored? Maybe we all ought to play the Gay card, in order to get things changed in our government. Gays for Ending War. Gays for National Health Care. Gays for All Electric Cars. Yeah, I sure the politicians will easily tumble for those “gay” causes. NOT!