- Apr 19, 2007
- 4,950
- 11
- 81
Michigan man sues Govt over the AIG Bailout
- Thread starter venkman
- Start date
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
The court system should sue him in turn for wasting everyone's time and money.
Edit: Does the AIG money even qualify as a "bailout"? Isn't it a loan with a 2 year timeline, backed by the government taking a huge chunk of equity? I was just reading about this in Fortune magazine.
Edit: Does the AIG money even qualify as a "bailout"? Isn't it a loan with a 2 year timeline, backed by the government taking a huge chunk of equity? I was just reading about this in Fortune magazine.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,123
- 12,764
- 136
Whatever. Call me when someone actually wins (via a court ruling) one of these bs lawsuits. Filing them is the easy part, winning them is the hard part (if you're even lucky enough to avoid having it dismissed up front by a judge).
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Well if that's the case, I'm sure NONE of the banks should have been bailed out. How many Christian-based and Jewish-based dioceses do you think would have gotten loans from the likes of WaMu or Wachovia (among others).
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Yes. AIG is the best possible "bailout", assuming the company continues to operate profitably and eventually buys its shares back from the government. In the meantime, the government stands to make quite a profit on the deal (which will hopefully but doubtfully be used to offset costs / lower our taxes).
Not that this is what our tax dollars should be used for, but I'd rather have a "bailout" that I stand to benefit from long term, vs. a "bailout" in which I take a rather sizeable immediate and permanent loss.
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
Does this mean if times get much worse, the Government will be legally unable to bail out any food companies that offer "products that comply with Jewish Kosher principles" ?
This lawsuit is a pile of horseshit filed by a X-ian loon who is under the delusion that America is a X-ian nation.
Just for the record, America is an Agnostic nation.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Makes no sense.
I don't get the anti-Christian part either. How is that anti-Christian? Not that it would matter.
I don't get the anti-Christian part either. How is that anti-Christian? Not that it would matter.
Easy. Anti-Christian is code for anything you don't understand or disagree with.
Islam? Anti-Christian.
Judaism? Anti-Christian.
Purchasing shares in a financial institution with ties throughout the entire economy? Anti-Christian.
Supporting Obama? Anti-Christian.
Questioning Bush? Anti-Christian.
See how easy it is? Makes perfect sense once you think about it that way. . .
Islam? Anti-Christian.
Judaism? Anti-Christian.
Purchasing shares in a financial institution with ties throughout the entire economy? Anti-Christian.
Supporting Obama? Anti-Christian.
Questioning Bush? Anti-Christian.
See how easy it is? Makes perfect sense once you think about it that way. . .
I heard an interview with the guy this morning, or more correctly the non-profit group that took up the case...Robertson I think his name was. At first I thought the suit was unfounded, dumb and moronic.
When he laid out the case and why - he's got a very strong case.
When he laid out the case and why - he's got a very strong case.
I didn't hear the interview so I don't know the specific arguments he presented. Nor apparently were his arguments persuasive enough for you to remember and repeat so I can only speculate and infer from what I've skimmed.
Here's how I'd sum up what's in the filing:
1) Islam is bad.
2) AIG has Shariah-complaint investments.
3) Bailing out AIG and its terrorist funds is tantamount to approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting a bad religion.
4) This all makes AIG bad.
Ignoring the "bad" BS that equates anything remotely Arabic sounding with terrorism, here's why the argument fails. It's apparently claiming it's unconstitutional for the government to invest in any company that has any small section that tailors its products to a particular religious faith or may make donations to a religious charity. This would mean that a restaurant chain that offers some additional meatless selection during Lent couldn't be bailed out by the government. The same goes for a company like P&G that might have a Kosher food section and donates to a Jewish charity to try and woo buyers. And if Amazon had the temerity to sell Bibles? Forget about it. The government wouldn't be able to offer a different menu to its employees during religious holidays, nor Kosher foods to observant Jews, nor sell religious books in any public university bookstore. That is in essence the argument being made, but tailored here to Islam.
Part of this reason this lawsuit will likely fail, federally funded cafeterias will still offer Kosher food, and you'll still be able to pick up a copy of the Bible at college is that none of these things have a primary religious purpose. AIG's out to sell its investment funds. That cafeteria's out to feed people. And that bookstore is there to peddle those professors' texts. Trying to make money off of a subset of people who happen to follow a religion isn't an endorsement of that particular religion by any means. And donating money to a charity that might make those religious people look more favorably upon your business is marketing and good business, not a government establishment of a religion.
By passively investing in a company doing these things (or bailing one out) the government doesn't run afoul of the establishment clause. They only way it'd happen would be if the government sought to actively make some sort of decision into what was religiously permissible. That is, if in bailing out AIG, the government agency wrote a guideline defining what was permissible in its Shariah-complaint investment to satisfy Islamic law, that would definitely be unconstitutional.
Just my $0.02.
Here's how I'd sum up what's in the filing:
1) Islam is bad.
2) AIG has Shariah-complaint investments.
3) Bailing out AIG and its terrorist funds is tantamount to approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting a bad religion.
4) This all makes AIG bad.
Ignoring the "bad" BS that equates anything remotely Arabic sounding with terrorism, here's why the argument fails. It's apparently claiming it's unconstitutional for the government to invest in any company that has any small section that tailors its products to a particular religious faith or may make donations to a religious charity. This would mean that a restaurant chain that offers some additional meatless selection during Lent couldn't be bailed out by the government. The same goes for a company like P&G that might have a Kosher food section and donates to a Jewish charity to try and woo buyers. And if Amazon had the temerity to sell Bibles? Forget about it. The government wouldn't be able to offer a different menu to its employees during religious holidays, nor Kosher foods to observant Jews, nor sell religious books in any public university bookstore. That is in essence the argument being made, but tailored here to Islam.
Part of this reason this lawsuit will likely fail, federally funded cafeterias will still offer Kosher food, and you'll still be able to pick up a copy of the Bible at college is that none of these things have a primary religious purpose. AIG's out to sell its investment funds. That cafeteria's out to feed people. And that bookstore is there to peddle those professors' texts. Trying to make money off of a subset of people who happen to follow a religion isn't an endorsement of that particular religion by any means. And donating money to a charity that might make those religious people look more favorably upon your business is marketing and good business, not a government establishment of a religion.
By passively investing in a company doing these things (or bailing one out) the government doesn't run afoul of the establishment clause. They only way it'd happen would be if the government sought to actively make some sort of decision into what was religiously permissible. That is, if in bailing out AIG, the government agency wrote a guideline defining what was permissible in its Shariah-complaint investment to satisfy Islamic law, that would definitely be unconstitutional.
Just my $0.02.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter