patrick.net

Quigley says

See? I believe socal has made his point. People like you always try to bring everything around to gay marriage. Thhhhhuper!

HE was directly responding to a post about gay marriage, you stupid fuck. I didn't bring it up. Your reading skills suck.

Quigley says

See? I believe socal has made his point. People like you always try to bring everything around to gay marriage. Thhhhhuper!

@Quigley, that's way out of line. First of all, Homeboy didn't bring the thread to gay marriage, socal2 and I did:

curious2 says

socal2 says

What is the House doing right now?

Probably voting to repeal Obamacare, which can't be repealed in this Congress because the Republicans lost the 2012 election by campaigning on the platform that you disingenuously revise and then unconvincingly de-emphasize. Earlier in the year, they were borrowing and spending millions of dollars in a futile effort to stop gay couples from getting married, which is yet another issue where Republicans are not even trying to help "the MAJORITY", in fact a majority support marriage equality. The Republicans have become less like a serious national political party and more like a tent full of faith-healers trying to stage a revival. The only reason they even control the House is because of gerrymandering, most voters chose Democrats in 2012.

Socal2 then launched into a distraction calling the Constitution a "girly" issue.

Second, socal2 hasn't made any point, he's merely a partisan drone trolling with misrepresentations of his party's platform. He is too dogmatic and intransigent to understand that on the Internet, he can't just make stuff up and pretend it's the platform, because people can read the actual platform. Instead of wasting everyone's time trying to fool us about his party, he should be trying to change his party. Frankly, you've chosen the wrong ally if you think socal2 is going to stand for your Constitutional rights or anyone else's; with friends like that, you don't need enemies. He and Bop69 illustrate why their party lost, and it's in large part because they don't care about the Constitution at all, they only care about their misguided crusades. If socal2 made anyone's point, it would be President Obama's: the Democrats have built a winning coalition comprising a majority of voters, while the opposition is reduced to praying that they can hide their own platform and lie about what they believe and somehow steal a win in 2016.

Does anyone still read curious2's posts? I've had him on ignore for quite some time, but I can see on the index page thread previews that he's still stalking me. He seems kind of obsessed. I can't imagine anyone would be interested in any of the garbage he has to say. Too bad ignore doesn't work on the index page.

Homeboy says

Does anyone still read curious2's posts? I've had him on ignore for quite some time, but I can see on the index page thread previews that he's still stalking me. He seems kind of obsessed.

Actually, Homeboy, twice as many people ignore you as me, and I have more than twice as many "Likes". So yes, people still read my posts. Anyway I don't stalk you, don't even pay much attention to you except when you spam the index page with your frantic and obsessive threads defending Obamacare, at least five so far today. Your addiction to those "not habit forming" SSRIs that you can't afford has made you anxious for any legislation to shift the cost onto your neighbors, and forces you to Ignore contrary information. Your descriptions of bouts with depression read like a 17th century American Indian trying to drag settlers into rain dancing: Oh the droughts are terrible, we must all do rain dances to end the droughts and bring on the rain. Nevermind that the rain dances are totally unrelated to the rain, you say anyone who points out that fact doesn't understand how bad your droughts are, and you keep popping your pills that you can't afford, and shifting the costs wherever you can.

Ah, another post from curious loser. I don't know what he said, but I'm sure it was lame.

curious2 = Homeboy = curious2

Bap33 says

curious2 = Homeboy = curious2

Yes, I invented another name so I can stalk myself and then put myself on ignore. You need to cut down on the crack a bit, pal.

curious2 says

Actually, Homeboy, twice as many people ignore you as me, and I have more than twice as many "Likes".

You actually look stuff like that up? You really need a hobby or social life or something.

The U.S. is finished when 60% of the population is eligible for free healthcare, an Obama cell phone and food stamps. We, unfortunately are already there.

bob2356 says

You actually look stuff like that up? You really need a hobby or social life or something.

Curious2 has a hobby - stalking me. Pretty shitty hobby, but I guess it's the best a loser like him can do.

carrieon says

The U.S. is finished when 60% of the population is eligible for free healthcare, an Obama cell phone and food stamps. We, unfortunately are already there.

Yeah, it's pretty sad how the oligarchs stole all the wealth and forced the middle class onto food stamps. The rich get richer and the rest get boned. We are no longer the greatest country in the world. Probably not even in the top ten anymore.

Homeboy says

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

Virtually every economic and social problem in our country today can be traced back to the breakdown of the family and staggering increase in percentage of kids being raised by single parents.

Liberals think they can alter the typical family structure, supplementing it with State support and it will have no impact on our society or health of our kids.

Well the jury is back and we have plenty of data showing how Liberals have mainstreamed single parenthood in our culture in the last 4 decades (via State welfare) and have doomed generations of kids born to poverty and single parents.

All I am saying is that folks like me who have no hatred for gay people, yet are concerned about the long term implications of divorcing (pun intented) procreation from marriage (as gay marriage certainly does) should not be listed as bigots. Especially when Liberals still haven't owned up to the damage their policies and advocay have already created with the massive increase in illegitimacy (and guaranteed poverty) in the past 4 decades.

socal2 says

Liberals still haven't owned up to the damage their policies and advocay have already created with the massive increase in illegitimacy (and guaranteed poverty) in the past 4 decades.

And when are conservatives going to own up to the damage their economic policies over the past 4 decades have inflicted on the middle and lower classes?

finehoe says

And when are conservatives going to own up to the damage their economic
policies over the past 4 decades have inflicted on the middle and lower
classes?

Last I checked, Democrats have had quite a hand in the economic governance over the last 4 decades holding the White House, majorities in Congress and Governerships.

It's like when people want to blame the entire 2008 crash on Bush or the Republicans and totally ignore that Democrats had total majorities in Congress starting in 2006.

Or it's like when Democrats want to blame all of the big blue Democratic run bankrupt cities like Detroit and Stockton or the dysfunction of California on Bush or the Iraq war or something.

sbh says

socal2 says

Liberals have mainstreamed single parenthood in our culture in the last 4 decades (via State welfare)

I'd say it's pretty lame to pin this on liberals. Yes, their side, democrats actually are the ones that advocate some types of state help for the poor, but don't kid yourself, this had to happen, and we would have paid in other ways ( crime, prison, inhumane treatment of many people) if we didn't have it.

Welfare has been anything but perfect, and has caused some problems while it solved others. On the negative side, a welfare culture has grown. On the upside, countless people have been able to rise out of poverty in part because of temporary or even medium support from welfare. And no, I'm not talking about myself.

Pinning welfare on the left is like pinning all wars and defense spending on republicans. Everyone knows and agrees these things are needed, but when it comes time to negotiate what the government spends on these and how, the politicians play their game, with the partys taking sides.

I know it fits your propaganda though to blame it all on the left.

I could just as easily argue that welfare is covertly what the right wants, because it allows their corporate overlords to keep wages lower than they otherwise could be.

marcus says

He is pathetic little man. I guess I once called him an idiot or something. Since then, he followed me around for quite a while trolling me. Sometimes I would see his lame attacks from the front page - or viewed a thread with ignoring off. That alone would launch him on to one of his little rants about me. That was his favorite troll, to claim tha I was obsessed with him (this comment is sure to get the same kind of respnse).

I put him on ignore a long time ago because his posts didn't make any sense. Just so much gibberish. But he's like a bulldog in an argument - he just won't give up. So it was too frustrating to try to argue with him, because I'd spend half the time wading through these incoherent rants, trying to respond, and then getting an even angrier and even more incoherent rant in response. Anyway, ignoring him seems to have really made him incensed, because I constantly see the beginnings of rants against me on the preview page. Once I was browsing the site and hadn't logged in, and saw one of his posts in full. It was this horrible hateful vitriol spewed at me, just totally out of the blue. I hadn't even said anything to him. I think he had made up a clever name for me, like "homefool" or something. Wow. I'm thinking the guy's mother didn't love him enough.

socal2 says

Virtually every economic and social problem in our country today can be traced back to the breakdown of the family and staggering increase in percentage of kids being raised by single parents.

Bull-fucking-shit.

And again, complete non-sequitur. The issue of single parents raising kids has nothing to do with the issue of gay people getting married. But I suspect you knew that and you're just trolling - trying to get a rise out of someone by pretending to be an ignorant bigot.

socal2 says

Last I checked, Democrats have had quite a hand in the economic governance over the last 4 decades holding the White House, majorities in Congress and Governerships.

The word "Democrat" is not synonymous with the word "Liberal". That being said, if conservative economic policies are so great, why are almost all of the states with the top per capita Blue, while ALL of those at bottom Red?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

"My Past Stay's Hidden" - Oh my God! Here comes an "s".

Or maybe he's saying: My past stay is hidden? Maybe he doesn't want us to know where he's stayed.

marcus says

Everyone knows and agrees these things are needed,

nope. welfare as it is done be demoncrates is not needed.

I hate those demon crates.

finehoe says

The word "Democrat" is not synonymous with the word "Liberal". That being said, if conservative economic policies are so great, why are almost all of the states with the top per capita Blue, while ALL of those at bottom Red?

Maybe cooking meth in your barn doesn't pay as well as it used to.

sbh says

I'm more Liberal than most, and I'm unsure what role welfare has played in
inducing poverty over the last 4 decades....I'll give you that. But just by
looking at the Red southern states, where no Liberal dares openly exist, the
rampant rearing of white single parent children cannot be blamed on licentious
Liberals fucking their way through life.

I don't understand. Are there no Federal welfare benefits that provide these perverse incentives?

marcus says

I'd say it's pretty lame to pin this on liberals.

Did you miss the 2012 election and the Democrat's "Life of Julia" cartoons that essentially showed how the government will support a girl from cradle to grave.......even if she has children out of wedlock?

The massive increase in child illegitimacy is STAGGERING. The massive increase in just a few short decades coincides almost perfectly with the major increase in welfare benefits since the Great Society programs of the 60's.

Why do you suppose illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed despite abortion, birth control and sex-ed being more available now than at any time in human history??

I think it is clear as mud that Govenrment welfare policies are changing behavior and providing bad incentives.

Anecdotal only - but one of my co-workers has a daughter who has a 5 year old daughter and refuses to marry the father because she says she will lose her State benefits.

Since it is almost impossible to be a single parent and not live a life of poverty, shouldn't the US Government have economic policies that discourages this destructive behavior?

How does our country survive when over half of all new births are to single parents?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=all

This massive change to the traditional family structure is responsible for virtually all of our country's social problems in terms of crime, poverty, terrible education scores (despite record spending) and on and on and on.

Civilization is fragile as the last 40 years of data have proven out. I just think Liberals should give some pause before screwing up the family structure any more than they already have trying to substitute government welfare for a traditional 2 parent household.

Homeboy says

The issue of single parents raising kids has nothing to do with the issue of gay
people getting married. But I suspect you knew that and you're just trolling -
trying to get a rise out of someone by pretending to be an ignorant bigot.

Sure it does.

The same liberals who are saying "what harm is it to allow gay people to get married" were saying "what harm is it to have a good single mother raise children with State support".

As I just pointed out to Marcus, the last 40 years of history has shown how fragile civilization is and it only takes a few foolish government programs or positions to fuck up civilization as we see now with so many kids being born to single parents and guaranteed poverty.

Again, why is illegitimacy skyrocketing despite abortion, birth control and sex-ed being as ubiquitous as the air we breathe now? Something is responsible for changing our culture. I think it is a no-brainer to look at the bad incentives our government offers people to continue their destructive behavior.

I also believe marriage is about procreation above all else. That is the only reason why the State was involved in the marriage business in the first place. Yes I know some couples choose or can't have children. But they are the exception since the vast majority of US marriages (80%+) end up creating new children and tax payers. All I am saying is that marriage should continue to be mainly about creating a stable civilizational structure to create the future generation to pay into our entitlement Ponzi Schemes.

socal2 says

Liberals think they can alter the typical family structure, supplementing it with State support and it will have no impact on our society or health of our kids.

Oh really? Well how come conservative Christians in the US have a higher divorce rate than liberals? If your argument is about healthy family structure then I fail to see how your point can possibly be made seeing as how conservatives are clearly not showing us the ideal model of what a family should be seeing as how much they divorce one another.socal2 says

Sure it does.

The same liberals who are saying "what harm is it to allow gay people to get married" were saying "what harm is it to have a good single mother raise children with State support".

I'm glad that the Internet is archived these days because one day someone is going to come back and read comments like that and either laugh or be amazed.

Guess what? Conservatives have always and will continue to lose every single issue they try and stand for. That's the way its always been and will continue. So feel free to continue on in a futile attempt to stop the unstoppable.

finehoe says

That being said, if conservative economic policies are so great, why are almost
all of the states with the top per capita Blue, while ALL of those at bottom
Red?

For starters - I think you are confusing private economic performance and government performance. Most of the big Blue states like California, Illinois, New York are suffering through bankruptcies and have massive unpayable pension liabilities that helped bankrupt Detroit. Most Red States aren't suffering through municipal bankrupticies like we are seeing in California and Michigan.

When you look at your list, the top states are DC or states next door that have been living high on the hog from all the taxes the rest of the country sends to the Feds. So not exactly a great example.

Secondly, most of the Red states at the bottom of the list have much higher minority populations then the lilly-white states like Conneciticut and New Hamshire. If you want to compare earning power (and education scores) segmented by race you would see a different picture.

edvard2 says

Oh really? Well how come conservative Christians in the US have a higher divorce
rate than liberals?

"Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South," said Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau. "In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces."
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html

edvard2 says

Guess what? Conservatives have always and will continue to lose every single
issue they try and stand for.

Pension reform?
Education reform?
Monetary policy?
Tax reform?
Immigration reform?
Abortion?
Domestic energy production?
Union reform?

Quick - lets get back to talking about the important stuff like gay marriage!

socal2 says

edvard2 says

Oh really? Well how come conservative Christians in the US have a higher divorce

rate than liberals?

"Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South," said Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau. "In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces."

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html

Did I say anything about the South? Nope. I said Christian conservatives. As someone who did grow up in a conservative area, I'd say the real reason is because a lot of conservatives I knew got married like right after high school and were immature. But that doesn't change the fact that compared to liberals, conservatives get divorced at a higher frequency, and hence I've kicked the leg out of one part of your weak argument, so now for the rest.socal2 says

Quick - lets get back to talking about the important stuff like gay marriage!

I can make a cute list as well:
1: Decision to become an independent country. Conservatives of the day before the American Revolution favored staying as a colony. Aren't we all glad out liberal founding fathers were right?

2: Civil Rights

3: Environmental regulation and standards

I could go on but I'm starting to feel guilt since this is such an easy debate.

But nevertheless, get used to keep right on losin' because just like the hands on a clock, conservatives can't stop progress.

edvard2 says

Did I say anything about the South? Nope. I said Christian conservatives.

And most Christian Conservatives live in the South.

You have no point.

The study that most Libs point to with this talking point measured: "Rates throughout this report count the marital events reported in the past 12 months per 1,000 men or women in the population 15 and older." (p.2)

They didn't compare it to married couples in the different states.

Since Liberals are less likely to marry than Conservatives, of course they will have a lower divorce rate.

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of these liberals that don't marry also are single parents living off of us tax payers. At least the divorced conservative men are probably paying some child support instead of dishing it all off on the State.

What scares me about Obamacare? The cost! My husband and I purchase a high deductible plan that costs us $772 pr month. When I go to Cover California and and put in our age and income, the monthly cost for a Silver plan is $1170 pr month. How is that affordable? By the way, we are 61 and 55, and make a combined income of $75,000. Not much for the Bay Area. It all makes me nervous.

socal2 says

And most Christian Conservatives live in the South.

You have no point.

Of course I have a point. Ok, so let's say that you are right and that more conservative Christians live in the South, which is not exactly accurate anyway seeing as how also huge number of them live in states like AZ, UT, NV, NM, CO, and MN. But if I am going to play along and say sure- Southern Christian conservatives get divorced more, well that goes along with the base demographic the GOP is left with: Conservative Southerners. So that being the case and if the case you're making is that of comparing the familial examples of liberals and conservatives, well then the core representative base of the GOP has a higher divorce rate than the core base of liberals. So once more, whatever attempt you were trying to make about the wholesomeness of what I interpret to be of a typical conservative family and then comparing that to an assertion that liberals have wreaked havoc with that example doesn't have a leg to stand on. You lost this debate.

GRACE123 says

What scares me about Obamacare? The cost! My husband and I purchase a high deductible plan that costs us $772 pr month. When I go to Cover California and and put in our age and income, the monthly cost for a Silver plan is $1170 pr month. How is that affordable? By the way, we are 61 and 55, and make a combined income of $75,000. Not much for the Bay Area. It all makes me nervous.

Obamacare isn't eve available yet. How can you be coming up with these numbers when it isn't even available?

http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/Default.aspx
Healthcareexchange.ca.gov It's all there!

Shortcut to the calculator here:
http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html
Another issue is, are they checking your IP address, because they don't ask for a ZIP code and premiums will vary by locale; SFBA is a high cost area. They ask (rhetorically) "How Much Will You Save," but the answer for many is a negative number, as in either more spending or a penalty.

Here is the link for the consumer. Click on Read More and you will see a place to get an estimate.
http://www.coveredca.com/

One more.....cost estimate calculator:
http://www.coveredca.com/individuals_and_families.html