Well, it makes sense. They left their credit card balances and car loans they couldn't afford and mortgages no sane man would have taken out, so why not more deadbeats garbage?

i you did that in america, they'd comb through the rubbish you left and find you name, then arrest you and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. freedom!

@2

Yep. Because we aren't free if others can't dump their trash in our front doorways. What was your address again?

@1, 3: How about them goings-on in Utah, you deluded bigot?

Folks are predicting marriage equality in all fifty states by the end of 2014. That's gotta rile you up, man! Being on the losing side of history really sucks, doesn't it?

P.s. that's a rhetorical question, I really don't give a good goddamn what your opinion is, since you're such an un-Christian asshole. But bang away at your keyboard if it makes you feel any better. Someone here will read whatever trash you angrily hammer out.

That's our auntie seattleblues such a compassionate woman.

Yep, a paragon of virtue, Auntie Seattleblues. Jeezus, as crotchety as they were, all of my actual aunts and great-aunts were models of Christian compassion compared to that asshole. And few of them actually identified as Christian anyway.

For no particular reason, I would really like to meet, in person, these Slog commenters just to grok their personalities:

John "Fuckwit" Bailo
SeattleBlues
Brooklyn Reader - Because he's such a cool cat.
SeattleKim - because she exemplifies grace and spirituality.

Oh, and by the way, Seattleblues, you intolerant asshole bigot, since you identify as a Christian (even though you show absolutely ZERO christian values), I gotta point this out to you. Because you're such a raging hypocrite.

Martin Luther created, basically, every non-Catholic religion when he nailed the 95 Theses to the cathedral door way back long ago.

So you, if you aren't Catholic, you owe your entire religious existence to the man who committed the greatest act of civil disobedience ever in the name of religion. Shoving bags of garbage in bank lobbies? Child's play. This man shoved the entire hypocracy and corruptness of the Catholic Church right back in its face, by the most egregious act of civil disobedience possible in the day. He was excommunicated, and he risked death. So you, Seattleblues, if you are any flavor of protestantism or the later whack-job evangelical idjit flavors, you owe your particular flavor of religiosity to that man and his act of civil disobedience.

So you're all butthurt about some middle-class people taking it out on the banks in Portugal? You're a fucking hypocrite if you dare call yourself a Christian. And, as all your posts here show, you're an asshole.

And you're gone from this thread. Dollars to doughnuts you split rather than reply to this.

@7 Seattleblue's crowning achievement in this thread is the fact that he got bored before completely reading 140 characters of text, and failed to notice that all this was in Portugal and not America.

Although I suppose it's possible he met some Portuguese while vacationing at his Italian villa. But why would he have deigned to talk to them at all while they served him his drinks?

Thank you for posting this Charles. It is a surprising and interesting response by the people of Portugal that is worth pondering. I am curious about how they made the connection between the bin collector strike and the banks. Low pay is clear, but usually it is the employer that gets the backlash and not an external player such as the banks. Have the banks done something recently that raised their ire?

The strike is in reaction to austerity measures being imposed on the garbage haulers and other public servants because of the bank bail-out.The connection seems clear to me.

@8

The person posting @2 brought up a silly comparison to America which I answered.

@7

Thank you. For anyone with any doubt about how gay 'marriage' will effect this nation, you clear those doubts up.

As to the rest, how in the world does the destruction of marriage and family in the US have to do with Portuguese losers?

Curious how calmly stated observations on my part are met with hatred, profanity and illogic, but I'm the rage filled bigot. English really is an adventure around you lot!

"As to the rest, how in the world does the destruction of marriage and family in the US have to do with Portuguese losers?"

Wait, if R74 didn't destroy heterosexual marriage, and the recent marriage equality rulings haven't destroyed heterosexual marriage; is it possible that you, Seattleblues, are wrong about marriage equality?

Nah, I'm sure it's just part of the gay master plan to destroy all marriages when we make this once proud nation into a homo-cracy.

@1,
The banks foisted their garbage loans upon people and hid or outright lied about the terms.

The people are now simply offering the banks their own garbage in return.

Some people have to pay to collect garbage... the banks are getting it for free. They should be thankful for such a gift. If they don't want it, they can simply refuse the refuse - just like the people could have refused the loans.

@13

Okay. So your hypothetical homeowner takes out a loan to buy Casa Smith. And the loan officer says about the stack of paper 'sign here, here and here'. One of those 'here' spots is a declaration that I've read and understood the mortgage terms, and agree to them. Here's a free tip- when signing any contract you should read or, better, get an attorney to read and explain to you, the document.

The vast majority of failed loans were of the 'the terms were there, but I didn't understand them' variety. Sorry, but the price of doing something that stupid is often high.

As to fraud that's much easier. Sue the bank, take your signed copy of the mortgage and the banks fraudulent one and you're golden.

But, you know, fraud is really very rare. Mostly claims of it boil down to 'the bank didn't tell me that clause was in the contract'. Well, I have yet to sign a contract whose terms were explained to me by the other contracted. Because that would be really, really stupid.

@12

Since anti miscegenation laws were ruled illegal we've had full marriage equality. What is at play is the push from deviants to call their perversion marriage., to redefine marriage so broadly that the term loses all meaning legally or morally. Since their chosen lifestyle is so borderline, it's a kind of desperate bid to make themselves feel better about their lives.

For this clarification no thanks is needed. Call it a late Christmas gift.

@15: If only gay marriage was allowed, but ANYONE could marry a consenting unrelated adult of the same gender, would you say that we had marriage equality? Because by your erroneous logic, marriage equality would be in full effect.
@11: By "calmly stated observations" do you mean "strangely worded assertions unsupported by evidence or reasoning"?

@16

Whatever you call my words they aren't angry, except occasionally and within bounds of civility. On the one occasion I have, using words like faggot and dyke to describe those afflicted by homosexual inclinations, I very clearly apologized.

When your righteous indignation applies to those with whom you agree we have something to discuss. Until then it's just noise.

By al means, marriage equality would apply to homosexual only marriage. Try legislating that, and I'll watch. See, law does, or should, express the general needs of society. Not the whiny crying of a self selected minority choosing exclusion from marriage by their lifestyle choices and then hollering "it's not faaaiiiirr!"

Auntie Seattleblues at her best when she is having a petulent frenzy.

@18

And a very happy new year to you as well.

@17: So, as a straight person, you wouldn't feel as though the law discriminated against you if only same-sex marriage was involved? Be honest now.

Just because your words aren't angry doesn't mean they're true or rational. You state your opinions as if they were fact, ignore evidence that disagrees with you, characterize people who think differently as being objectively childish and immoral, and generally lie like a rug.

@17: It doesn't matter how nice you are about being a cruel, ignorant bigot.

Gotta love the wailing flailing Auntie Seattleblues.

What is at play is the push from deviants to call their perversion marriage.

What is being called "marriage" is the consolidation of resources and cohabitation of two consenting adults. At least on a civic level, which is all we empower the law to regulate. In this sense, a marriage between two men or two women is indistinguishable from either my childless heterosexual marriage or your (ostensibly) "fruitful" household.

Drop down to the social level, and I imagine most, if not all, would admit some recourse to what C.S. Lewis refers to as eros, a mode of love distinct from philia, agape or storge; some may define that bond in spiritual terms, while others may not (my wife and I do, but our spiritual terms would be as foreign to you as the most secular of contractual marriages).

To my mind, the socio-spiritual-psychological aspects of marriage are the most important--the most rewarding, most edifying, most socially enlivening. Which is why I do not suggest that the law should have much to do with that side of things at all; what binds me to my community would not bind you to yours.

to redefine marriage so broadly that the term loses all meaning legally or morally.

I don't expect that law will make moral decisions; I don't even hold it qualified. You and I should not be placed in any position to morally evaluate one another's marriages, or anyone else's.

Legally, the meaning of marriage is simple. It's a contract.

Whatever you call my words they aren't angry, except occasionally and within bounds of civility. On the one occasion I have, using words like faggot and dyke to describe those afflicted by homosexual inclinations, I very clearly apologized.

There have been dozens of occasions; I've read one apology, and a lot of apologetics in which you explain where you're justified.

Unless there are several dozen apologies for the several occasions on which you've used these slurs, in which case you may feel free to offer links.

When your righteous indignation applies to those with whom you agree we have something to discuss. Until then it's just noise.

See, law does, or should, express the general needs of society.

Yes--the needs. The measurable, empirically demonstrable needs.

Not the whiny crying of a self selected minority choosing exclusion from marriage by their lifestyle choices and then hollering "it's not faaaiiiirr!"

Nor the subjective moralizing of individuals who have not yet, after years of debating, managed to offer a single cogent argument for why childless heterosexual marriages serve the "general needs of society" any more effectively than equivalent households headed by same-sex couples.
Posted by Seattleblues on December 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM · Report this
18
Auntie Seattleblues at her best when she is having a petulent frenzy.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on December 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM · Report this
19
@18

And a very happy new year to you as well.

What is at play is the push from deviants to call their perversion marriage.

What is being called "marriage" is the consolidation of resources and cohabitation of two consenting adults. At least on a civic level, which is all we empower the law to regulate. In this sense, a marriage between two men or two women is indistinguishable from either my childless heterosexual marriage or your (ostensibly) "fruitful" household.

Drop down to the social level, and I imagine most, if not all, would admit some recourse to what C.S. Lewis refers to as eros, a mode of love distinct from philia, agape or storge; some may define that bond in spiritual terms, while others may not (my wife and I do, but our spiritual terms would be as foreign to you as the most secular of contractual marriages).

To my mind, the socio-spiritual-psychological aspects of marriage are the most important--the most rewarding, most edifying, most socially enlivening. Which is why I do not suggest that the law should have much to do with that side of things at all; what binds me to my community would not bind you to yours.

to redefine marriage so broadly that the term loses all meaning legally or morally.

I don't expect that law will make moral decisions; I don't even hold it qualified. You and I should not be placed in any position to morally evaluate one another's marriages, or anyone else's.

Legally, the meaning of marriage is simple. It's a contract.

Whatever you call my words they aren't angry, except occasionally and within bounds of civility. On the one occasion I have, using words like faggot and dyke to describe those afflicted by homosexual inclinations, I very clearly apologized.

There have been dozens of occasions; I've read one apology, and a lot of apologetics in which you explain where you're justified.

Unless there are several dozen apologies for the several occasions on which you've used these slurs, in which case you may feel free to offer links.

When your righteous indignation applies to those with whom you agree we have something to discuss. Until then it's just noise.

See, law does, or should, express the general needs of society.

Yes--the needs. The measurable, empirically demonstrable needs.

Not the whiny crying of a self selected minority choosing exclusion from marriage by their lifestyle choices and then hollering "it's not faaaiiiirr!"

Nor the subjective moralizing of individuals who have not yet, after years of debating, managed to offer a single cogent argument for why childless heterosexual marriages serve the "general needs of society" any more effectively than equivalent households headed by same-sex couples.

Sorry about the double post. The second one probably has fewer confusing bits of c&p.

@26 your post was worth reading twice.

@24 : )

*hat tip*