patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

Fact, there are no documented ancient Gay marital unions.

there's also not a lot of mainstream documentation regarding the giant penises found on Egyptian artifacts, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

http://libertycrier.com/finance/everyone-a-millionaire-social-security-vs-private-retirement/

Honest Abe says

Imagine you took the money that the government takes from your paycheck to invest into social security and used it instead to privately invest for retirement?

Yeah that sort of apples to oranges misdirection works well on SUCKERS, who can't comprehend the difference between a Paygo insurance plan and a Ponzi scheme. Imagine you'd invested it all with Bernie Madoff, you'd be RICH....if you got out early before his fraud was uncovered. Con men are good at appealing to naked greed and avarice and playing that up, and downplaying risks.

What does this SPAM have to do with the thread BTW? Nothing that I can see.

Vincente, wouldn't you like the opportunity to be able to make the decision whether to invest on you own, or participate in a government sponsored retirement plan? [freedom of choice]

Or do you prefer to let our "wise" government leaders make all the decisions which affect your life?

CaptainShuddup says

Gays if you listen long enough to them, even Abraham Lincoln was Gay.

I know, right? Just because he slept with a man in a small bed and later wrote him love letters.

Honest Abe says

Vincente, wouldn't you like the opportunity to be able to make the decision whether to invest on you own

Wouldn't you like the freedom to get in on the ground floor of my scheme? We are buying stamps in one country and selling them in another, and taking advantage of exchange rates. People smart enough to see what a GREAT scheme this is, could be bazillionaires!

It's very seductive. It's playing on greed not certainty.

V - prove to me your company or idea is worth investing in and I'll consider it. I didn't say I would, I said I'd consider it.

Certainty almost always yields a lower return. You know the risk-reward scenario, right.

YOU "invest"with SS and after 25 or 30 years your nest egg is ZERO, and you get $300 per week.

The other scenario, after 25 or 30 years your nest egg is $3.5M, and a weekly income of $3,500. Seriously, which sounds better to you? I said seriously, no liberal mumbo-jumbo.

BTW, average stock market returns for the last 5 years = 2.3%, over the last 10 years 4.5%, the last 20 years 9.4% and the last 25 years 10.5%. Thats not greed, that's just being fiscally prudent...but the government forces you to accept their wonderful, guaranteed zero return investment...yuck.

Why not do both Abe? This way SS protects you from, say, a housing bubble that brings down the market and your retirement with it.

And then the Government doesn't have to help keep old people, widows and orphans from eating cat food.

Honest Abe says

YOU "invest"with SS and after 25 or 30 years your nest egg is ZERO, and you get $300 per week.

It's not an investment scheme, it's an insurance plan.

Your misunderstandings, whether deliberate or out of ignorance, just cause further mayhem from that point.

Socialized Insecurity is more of a ponzi scheme than anything, whereby the newer and fewer workers support the older and more numerous retirees.

And I do understand whether SS is an insurance plan or not, because its not. Helvering vs. Davis among other things stated Social Security "was NOT a contirbutary insurance program" [emphasis added].

Glad I could clear that up for you, Abe.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/duped-by-congressional-lies/article/727066

My Florida insurance provider (who takes a month to write a policy, yes that long) JUST EMAILED ME TO TELL ME HER INTERNET WAS DOWN AND SHE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TIL TOMORROW TO WRITE IT UP. She emailed me.

My internets down, I'll blog you later.

Honest Abe says

Socialized Insecurity is.....

Obviously you've mistaken this for FreeRepublic.com. Where everyone tries to top each other for hip ways to rename things in derogatory fashion.

But I understand. What with your namesake being gay and all, you are traumatized and delirious.

Be careful out there y'all. I've heard it starts with sucking on straws....

?1343334660

OK, since you guys can't deliver:

CaptainShuddup says

She also noted that in Clinton's administration Civil Union recognition was a sure thing, but that wasn't good enough. Because they wanted to fuck with the church and ram their agenda down the religious rights throats, they demanded marital rights. Which a Civil Union by another definition is "Marriage". But it wasn't good enough.

You are so full of shit. Are you on Fox News Payroll?

The reason why many gays demanded full equality and full marriage rights and the 1,100+ rights that go along with marriage is because we realized that resistance on the right was not about marriage at all.

This is evidenced by the fact that Christianists opposed gay people even when they timidly asked for domestic partnerships and civil unions. Hell, they, the christianist right, opposed any legal recognition of gay persons, contracts, job protections, housing protections, etc. Anything to make the life of a gay person just a little more tolerable was fought tooth and nail. Hell, you guys are still fighting against any law that would attempt to decrease the incidence of anti gay bullying for our youth. In TN you can't even say the word gay in schools. It is now illegal. WTF? You would rather see gay teens kill themselves than to offer up any meager protection or support that may be gained via a gay straight student alliance. No, you fight these too. You have blood on your hands. You simply don't give a shit about kids either.

This whole fight is all about humiliating and dehumanizing gay people. It has nothing to do with marriage at all. The anti gay marriage issue by the christianist right is simply cover for their animus and bigotry. Your cover is off, you have been exposed for who you really are. You don't give a crap about marriage at all. You only care about putting an entire group of people out to pasture simply so that you may feel a tinge better about yourself, which obviously is not much. Pathetic to say the least.

Here is just another anti gay reality. In spite of trying to get some anti discrimination laws on the books to protect gay people from simply getting fired for who they are, the Employment Non Discrimination Act has failed to pass for over 20+ years. And some of you even think gays have equal rights in this country and that civil unions or domestic partnerships where they are offered cleared all this up? Think again. Like I said, this has nothing to do with marriage. It is all about hate and bigotry.

The Original Bankster says

Gays demand that the entire world be twisted into a shape that makes them feel better about what they know subconsciously is a derangement.

something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/gP3RfOnJaC8

Buster says

Here is just another anti gay reality.

Kind of funny since.. in California the law isnt about discrimination as some believe, but rather at will employment.

You can quit anytime and they can get fired anytime!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment :

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

thomaswong.1986 says

Buster says

Here is just another anti gay reality.

Kind of funny since.. in California the law isnt about discrimination as some believe, but rather at will employment.

You can quit anytime and they can get fired anytime!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment :

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

But to fire people for immutable characteristics, (such as race, age, physical ability, etc.) as well as mutable (religious preferences) are protected against firing for simply having these traits or beliefs. Being fired because one is gay should not be allowed just like firing someone because they choose to be Catholic or because they happen to be 55 years old should not be either.

Buster says

Being fired because one is gay should not be allowed

Once again you are misinformed..

thomaswong.1986 says

Buster says

Being fired because one is gay should not be allowed

Once again you are misinformed..

Typical. I just cited a bunch of court cases that prove that you are misinformed. And a bigot.

I worked with gay people before.. none got fired. they dont walk around
with GAY all over them.. they act and perform as would any other person.

if anyone went to work and acted like a gay drama queen and caused problems
then they should get fired.

you cited no court cases.. just a map!

Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.

Just one source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions. In November 2008, however, California voters narrowly approved a proposition designed to overturn the decision of that state's supreme court. The legality of the voters' action is now an issue in the California courts. Meanwhile, many states have, by legislation or voter initiative, enacted "defense of marriage" laws to keep marriage an institution exclusively for a man and a woman.

Buster says

Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.

Ideally, people ought to to able to fired for any reason at any time.

Biased employers will not last very long in an efficient economy. Therefore the government should focus on making the economy efficient instead.

On the other hand, I strongly support gay marriage rights. If one wants to defense marriage, he should oppose divorce.

Peter P says

Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.

Ideally, people ought to to able to fired for any reason at any time.

Because of their colour, their age, marital status, sex, religion, handicap, etc? Most would disagree, even hard core capitalists.

Peter P says

On the other hand, I strongly support gay marriage rights. If one wants to defense marriage, he should oppose divorce.

Totally agree.

Buster says

Peter P says

Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.

Ideally, people ought to to able to fired for any reason at any time.

Because of their colour, their age, marital status, sex, religion, handicap, etc? Most would disagree, even hard core capitalists.

Yes. In an ideal world. The best way to remove bigotry is to let its perpetrators fail so hard in the market that they have no more influences. Remember, unwarranted biases are exploitable inefficiencies.

But I understand that the ideal world does not exist.

Greed is good because it transcends prejudice.

@Buster, Oh Bullcrap, the only Gays discriminated against in this country are the fat ones.

was there a Sexual Deviant Nation election for a leader named "Buster"?

ImBetterNU says

the lord jesus christ will come donw on the soddomites dont you worry, Buster!!

readin is 4 pussies

Almost 2000 years and we're still waiting... Jesus? Are you out there?

Makes a guy wonder...

Cloud says

The next liberal trump card for raw power in the future, after that is making it perfectly legal for a man to pee in a public bathroom with your 11 year old daughter is .... lower the age of consent.

The line "The Man Boy Love Association" have been standing in is getting shorter and they are licking their chops.

The perversion of society is simply a raw power grab by depraved under achievers: Liberals.

If the man needs to pee and just does that, so what? These issues - and ironically a lot of the perverted crimes they are trying to prevent - seem to be prevalent in the US only. I guess I must be a criminal at times, when I need to piss or crap, I use whatever bathroom is available (starting with the men's room first of course). Sorry, I really don't care who else is in the bathroom ;)

[...]

Buster says

Peter P says

On the other hand, I strongly support gay marriage rights. If one wants to defense marriage, he should oppose divorce.

Totally agree.

If you got rid of divorce, no one would get married. It would be too big of a risk.

[...]

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

If you got rid of divorce, no one would get married. It would be too big of a risk.

Whole countries (e.g. Ireland) prohibited divorce for long periods of time. People still got married.

It would be too big of a risk in America. We live in a disposable culture.

if there were more brothels, there would be less devorce.

Bap33 says

if there were more brothels, there would be less devorce.

I am all for legalizing prostitution.

curious2 says

The resulting processed food is full of fat and sodium, fattening up the customers even more than the chickens, so the morbidly obese "heavy users" can offload their medical costs onto everyone else via Medicare and Obamneycare

i liked your post, however this is incorrect. Fat and sodium content of the chicken in a chick fila meal, are the last thing that would make a would be consumer overweight. Eating fat doesn't make one fat, and sodium is the boogeyman. The 120g of sugar in the soda pop and the carbs in the bread and the fries are what make people fat.