patrick.net

I'm breaking my own rules by not ignoring Mainly because the answer to this complaint is so obvious. Guess what? We ALL pay for those social services. You, me, and anyone else over the age of 18 pays for social security, pays income and sales tax, property tax and so on. We do so because that's how a modern society works: citizens pay a tax into a large pool in which those funds are used to fund public works, the military, social programs, the judicial system, public servants like the police and fire department, the public infrastructure system such as freeways, sidewalks, and public lighting.

Yet of that entire list, the only thing conservatives whine about are funds set aside to help either the needy, the unemployed, the sick, or otherwise those who either need to get or are on some sort of assistance. Not sure why. My take is because those make easy targets and they can't exactly talk back either, thus its convenient.

This is the country we live in. It was the country we were founded on. Its the country that has for the most part worked and is still the most economically advanced, most powerful country on earth. So whine and whine away. The system works despite its flaws.

Any number of people from other countries not so fortunate to live in the US, who have to scramble to find enough to eat every day or worry about whether or not they have clean running water would probably be really confused at some of those here who simply whine and complain about a system that actually takes care of their own when they country they live in can't.

I guess I'm just really tired of hearing the same ole' crap day in, day out from the right. Most statements that have to do with social services are completely hypocritical.

You want to know the irony? I probably make more than the average person on this forum. I pay a LOT of my income in taxes. A great deal of that money will probably never directly benefit me personally. I probably pay a far larger percentage of my income in taxes than many of those on the right who complain about paying taxes- many of whom probably even get a tax return. And yet you don't see my complaining. Do I care that some of that money might go to help someone who's elderly and can't maintain their lifestyle without assistance? Yes- I do care because one day that old person will be me. Do I care that some might go to someone who is unemployed? No, because I myself have been laid off twice for no fault of my own and I was awfully glad that unemployment insurance existed and I didn't feel guilty about it, seeing as I'd been paying taxes that paid for that program. Am I upset that perhaps a few people on welfare are using some of that same tax money? No. What would be the alternative? Make them live in the street? What sort of country would we be if that actually happened? We wouldn't be the sort of country most here would want to live in. Like Is said- we take care of our own. That's who we are.

Anyway, I'm sure there will be a maelstrom of silly comments to come. I've said all I care to say. The end.

But that's not what I want to know, as I agree with government providing social nets, and basic services and needs for those who can't afford them. (And that goes for EVERYONE who can prove they need them) regardless of their assets.

But that's not what's going on here.
Why are Churches and other organizations being prohibited by the United States government and local City governments, to violate peoples constitutional rights. A)To feed someone or donate their time, money or services to someone in need. and B)People's right to get feed, clothed and houses by someone other than the state or the feds?

Until the last 5 years, I've always been secure in the fact, that no matter how bad things get and no matter how poor I might be.
There "USED" to be a decent government provided social services, and even better network of various religious financed charitable organizations.

Now they have you read from a short list on the wall, and if you don't fit the short criteria then you don't get anything but a bill to help pay for the short list. While at the same time, you have your cronies, henchmen and spooks shaking down every religion and charitable organization tied with them. To the point now that 90% of the faith based hospitals since Obama took office in this country is now gone. The ones that remain, Obamacare or the new insurance regulations consider all faith based hospitals out of network.

I think people go overboard with capitalism/socialist issues lately. US has always been pretty good about keeping it well balanced.

Lately we've been losing it. I think both Republicans and Democrats have gone overboard nuts lately. Bombing Iraq doesn't grow economy, forcing everyone to buy insurance in an exponentially cost growing system doesn't either. Tax cuts on the wealthy don't grow economy, tax increases on middle class just kill the economy. Gay rights, and bullshit lines about war on xyz/women/etc... is just bullshit. This is all just lots of stupid.

CaptainShuddup says

I mean you guys talk about inequality, and Socialism to care for the old, poor and sick, you want all of those things. Just as long as a middle aged white guy and baby boomers pay for it.

...and just NOT in YOUR "Good School Districts".

It cramps your style.

And NOBODY gets NUTTIN'! Unless it came from taxmoney from the old white guys and boomers. And then you'll only get enough to keep you poor. Now don't go getting too comfortable either.

The Liberals needs you broke, hungry, stupid and pissed off at the fat old white guys.

I'm having a pretty hard time connecting your incoherant rant about socialism, school districts, and old white people with an article about moving homeless people from downtown business area's. Any chance you could translate from gibberish to english?

bob2356 says

I'm having a pretty hard time connecting your incoherant rant

I thought it was me.

CL says

bob2356 says

I'm having a pretty hard time connecting your incoherant rant

I thought it was me.

Some people seem to sort of comprehend the captains post (or at least pretend to). I'm not one of them.

FortWayne says

I think people go overboard with capitalism/socialist issues lately. US has always been pretty good about keeping it well balanced.

Lately we've been losing it. I think both Republicans and Democrats have gone overboard nuts lately.

Someone that gets it.

CaptainShuddup says

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Las Vegas in 2006, challenging a city ordinance that made it illegal to feed homeless people in city parks.

Aren't the ACLU communist homosexual freedom-haters? So, who are the "people" that have "something the fuck wrong with them"?

Are you saying liberals don't care about the poor? I don't follow your screed.

And what does FortWayne's "pox on both your houses" assessment have to do with blaming people who correctly identify income inequality and social mobility as large concerns for this country's well-being?

CL says

correctly identify income inequality

Income inequality shouldn't be government election sloganeering about comparing some black man on welfare in a ghetto to a white millionaire, while screaming racism atop their lungs.

We don't have income inequality in this country, what we have is an economy that is slow and not growing, and jobs that are constantly vanishing to overseas.

CaptainShuddup says

The Liberals needs you broke, hungry, stupid and pissed off at the fat old white guys.

Do you have dementia? Your own blockquotes contradict your statement.

CaptainShuddup says

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Las Vegas in 2006, challenging a city ordinance that made it illegal to feed homeless people in city parks.

See, complete contradiction.

Plus, the ACLU is right, as usual. It is a Constitutional right to feed the homeless.

From a religious perspective, feeding the poor is a religious tenant in many religions and in many non-religious moral systems, both of which are protected by the First Amendment .

Feeding the homeless is equivalent to giving them money for food and ensuring it is spent on food and not drugs. And from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission money is speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, giving the homeless money or anything of monetary value is protected by the First Amendment as free speech.

Hey, if corporations can bribe Congress under the guise of free speech, then the average Joe can feed the homeless under the same banner.

So, yes, the ACLU is absolutely right on this matter under two independent and indestructible pillars.

FortWayne says

Gay rights, and bullshit lines about war on xyz/women/etc... is just bullshit.

Gay rights are bullshit? Now that's a abhor position. It's as monstrous of a position as Jewish rights are bullshit. Come to think of it, the last major political force I can think of that held the position that gays have no rights was the Nazi party. Are you sure you want to take this side?

As for the War on XYZ, hell, you conservative started that bullshit with
- The War on Drugs
- The War on Crime
- The War on Christmas
- The War on Easter
- The War on Christianity

The first two were excuses to violate human rights and turn the court system into a witch hunt and a means of controlling votes. The last three are just made up bullshit.

Now, I know you conservatives hate that the left has successfully turned the tables on you by using your own rhetoric against you with the War on Women. And you know that's costing you elections. But hey, turnabout is fair play.

And the War on Women is real, unlike the War on Christianity. Sure, it's a marketing term, but you conservatives establish wide use of that marketing term, and the War on Women refers to real things like forcing a woman to have a penis-shaped object inserted into her vagina against her will before having an abortion, a transvaginal ultrasound. This meets the legal definition of rape.

Attorney General Eric Holder today announced revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s (UCR) definition of rape, which will lead to a more comprehensive statistical reporting of rape nationwide. The new definition is more inclusive, better reflects state criminal codes and focuses on the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape. The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

Yep, you conservatives have tried to pass laws making the rape of women legal. The War on Women is a very appropriate and accurate description of this behavior.

Dan8267 says

Gay rights are bullshit? Now that's a abhor position.

Yes it is, they have the same rights everyone else. They can marry one other human of opposite gender.

We shouldn't have to create all kinds of new categories for people who are into out of this world stuff like marrying same gender, poultry, bovine, or whatever else one wants to marry. And we sure shouldn't waste national dialogue time on subjects that are as silly as gay marriage.

If someone denies you a job because you are gay that's a problem, if a man can't marry a man... I say that's the law of the land.

FortWayne says

Yes it is, they have the same rights everyone else. They can marry one other human of opposite gender.

Jews have the same right to worship Christ as everyone else. Why all the fuss, Mein Fuhrer?

FortWayne says

We don't have income inequality in this country, what we have is an economy that is slow and not growing, and jobs that are constantly vanishing to overseas.

How does that negate the income inequality? You've identified a cause, but the two are not mutual exclusive whatsoever.

We as a nation bring in X dollars and nearly all of it goes to a tiny fraction of the population, the already wealthy. It's the very definition of income inequality.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Gay rights are bullshit? Now that's a abhor position.

Yes it is, they have the same rights everyone else. They can marry one other human of opposite gender.

Your statement is no different than:
Yes it is, they have the same rights everyone else. They can marry one other human of the same race.

This has already been shown to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. 1967. It applies to same-sex marriage for the exact reasons it applies to interracial marriages.

FortWayne says

We shouldn't have to create all kinds of new categories for people who are into out of this world stuff like marrying same gender, poultry, bovine, or whatever else one wants to marry.

Your assertion that same-sex marriage is equivalent to bestiality is as retarded and bigoted as the corresponding assertion in the 1960s that interracial marriages were equivalent to bestiality, and for the exact same reasons.

We have only one category of people under the law: people. Gender is not a legal category of people. All persons regardless of gender are treated the same. Gender is not a recognizable distinction in law under the 14th Amendment. Therefore if a man can marry a woman, by law, he must be able to marry another man.

In fact, to even distinguish between male and female is not even medically possible in some circumstances. There are such things as human hermaphrodites. Humans can have the following combinations of X/Y chromosomes: XX, XY, XXY, and XYY. Does an XXY person get classified as a male or female? What if the SRY gene does not become active until after birth and the person is born with a vagina? Oh, female then? And what happens when the SRY gene then becomes active after birth enlarging the clitoris and creating sperm ducts to it, effectively constructing a penis? Still female? Shit like this happens because nature, not your fictitious god, created humans and nature is imperfect.

There mere existence of a single hermaphrodite in history means that marriage cannot be defined as "to a person of the opposite gender" because there is no opposite gender to a hermaphrodite.

So far conservatives have given no reason other than their false religion for society to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Such a restriction is no different than the race and class restrictions of prior centuries. They are unjust, Unconstitutional, and Unamerican. And since marriage affects taxation and many other rights, they are a vile form of discrimination.

sbh says

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

The Liberals needs you broke, hungry, stupid and pissed off at the fat old white guys.

Do you have dementia?

If you have to ask.....

The thing is his statements are so unbelievably ludicrous. I can understand having a different, even vile and selfish, political philosophy, but I can't understand how he actually believes the world is anything like he describes it.

If CaptainShuddup were to describe they sky he'd say it was painted pink and purple by liberals and if full of gay-ass glitter. And he would not be talking metaphorically. How do you reconcile such delusional views of reality with an alleged sane person?

FortWayne says

If someone denies you a job because you are gay that's a problem, if a man can't marry a man...

Can I deny someone a job because he's a homophobe? Can I presume that any Christian is probably a homophobe and thus deny him a job simply on the knowledge that he's Christian?

Remember, someday your boss might be gay.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Really good looking lesbians should be encouraged to marry and spend their lunch breaks at public parks making out, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Dan8267 says

Gender is not a legal category of people. All persons regardless of gender are treated the same.

Yes it is a legal category. Everyone knows genders are different, and different by nature for a reason.

Laws treat women different then men in custody and other family related issues. So don't start with equal, because no where in the law they are equal.

Dan8267 says

There mere existence of a single hermaphrodite in history means that marriage cannot be defined as "to a person of the opposite gender" because there is no opposite gender to a hermaphrodite.

Yes let's change all our laws for entire 314 million people so that 50 dopey weirdos can finally feel all special about who they can marry. Things that liberals concern themselves with...

Dan8267 says

Remember, someday your boss might be gay.

I don't have a boss now, and I sure as hell don't plan on getting one.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Remember, someday your boss might be gay.

I don't have a boss now, and I sure as hell don't plan on getting one.

Then it almost certainly will be an offspring. My god is hilarious like that.

FortWayne says

Laws treat women different then men in custody and other family related issues.

And that's wrong, too. Men get fucked in the family court system. That's very wrong and very Unconstitutional. It's also the primary reason why marriage rates have plummeted.

FortWayne says

Yes let's change all our laws for entire 314 million people so that 50 dopey weirdos can finally feel all special about who they can marry. Things that liberals concern themselves with...

1. The number of people wanting to marry a same sex person number in the millions, not 50.
2. If the law is to be just, even one person's rights being violated would be unacceptable.
3. Liberals are concerned with equality under law. And anyone who isn't, is not a real American. The very foundation of American political philosophy is "all are created equal with inalienable rights".
4. Marriage equality involves literally thousands of rights.
5. Marriage equality simplifies our law and simplifies legal compliance, thereby greatly reducing costs to businesses. This is why both big business and small business strongly support marriage equality. The costs of discrimination is especially burdensome to small businesses that have to use different accounting systems where same-sex marriages are not recognized. If you were truly pro-small-business, you'd be for marriage equality.
6. If marriage equality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, then it is Christianity that must go. Freedom from a religion being imposed upon you is the most important part of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Bullshit.
It has nothing to do with the original definition of marriage.
What it means is that a hermaphrodite cannot marry at all, since it cannot align itself to one gender or the other.

Dan8267 says

There mere existence of a single hermaphrodite in history means that marriage cannot be defined as "to a person of the opposite gender" because there is no opposite gender to a hermaphrodite.

Not in the LBGabcxyz community of liberalists, Ft....
Gender has no meaning to that crew....

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Gender is not a legal category of people. All persons regardless of gender are treated the same.

Yes it is a legal category. Everyone knows genders are different, and different by nature for a reason.

The original definition of marriage is the wife is property traded for cattle. Here are some other ancient, Christian definitions of marriage...

I don't give a flying fuck about how marriage worked or was defined in Bronze Age societies. The bottom line is that if our modern government recognizes any marriages as legal statuses, it must under the 14th Amendment recognize same sex marriages. Period.

When it comes to American law, the Constitution trumps the Bible every single time.

There is no legal justification for two men living together having to pay higher taxes than a man and a woman living together. None whatsoever.

So tell me, exactly what rights do you bigots want to deny gays from having and why? The right to file joint tax returns? The right to spousal health insurance? The right to veteran survival benefits? There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law alone. Exactly which ones of these should be denied because a life-partner owns a penis?

You know what. Forget about making gay marriage legal. Make straight marriage illegal. Revoke all rights and benefits from marriage altogether and have the government recognize NO marriage. If straight married people can't share these rights with gays, then they don't deserve to have them either. A few years without these benefits will probably change their minds.

Yes there is.
Smokers are being taxed out the ass for the medical cost runups their filthy vile habits generate, the same should be applied to intentional spreading of AIDS.

Why should the rest of us have to pay for same sex AIDS proliferation throughout the world? Tax the incubators of the disease! They made deliberate choices to engage in behavior that is costing us our health care system!

Oh...I forgot. The fruit borne of pleasure fucking, be it AIDS or BABIES should be borne by the american taxpayer...Thanks Sarah Flunkie!

Dan8267 says

There is no legal justification for two men living together having to pay higher taxes than a man and a woman living together. None whatsoever.

Oh...I forgot. The fruit borne of pleasure fucking, be it AIDS or BABIES should be borne by the american taxpayer...Thanks Sarah Flunkie!

SoftShell says

Why should the rest of us have to pay for same sex AIDS proliferation throughout the world?

That is one of the stupidest things ever utter by mankind. If you want to decrease the proliferation of AIDS, you should strongly encourage gays to marry each other. One, same sex marriage is monogamous. Two, nothing kills sex faster than marriage.

CaptainShuddup says

The move came after Benjamin Abbott recorded police officers in September 2010 telling him and his friend they needed a permit to pass out food to the homeless.

Don't know much about the specifics of this case. Journalism is unlikely to provide it.

But.... why didn't they just get the permit?

Cops are often expected to enforce various bullshit local things, they may not like it, but they didn't make it up.

When you talk about permits to serve food, I'm guessing the fingerprints all over those ordinances will be from businessmen who like putting up barriers to the casual hot-dog sellers. They of course pass it off as concern for the public, but it's really their own pockets they are protecting.

My favorite example was Georgia used to not allow alcohol sales on Sunday. But oh wait, restaurants could still serve drinks on Sunday. When it came time to vote on repeal, guess which group backed opposition? Go on, guess.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me, that everyone on Fox News, is deeply concerned about homeless people.

bob2356 says

Any chance you could translate from gibberish to english?

Not a chance in the world.

Dan8267 says

The original definition of marriage is the wife is property traded for cattle. Here are some other ancient, Christian definitions of marriage...

It says women should get stoned. Cool.

Pretend you are playing chess, not checkers....take your statement out to it's logical conclusion.
if one is married, and one is not getting sex, then one is likely to seek out of wedlock sexual affairs.
Thus the proliferation of AIDS continues.

Oh, and it's 'uttered'.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Why should the rest of us have to pay for same sex AIDS proliferation throughout the world?

That is one of the stupidest things ever utter by mankind. If you want to decrease the proliferation of AIDS, you should strongly encourage gays to marry each other. One, same sex marriage is monogamous. Two, nothing kills sex faster than marriage.

Why limit your analysis to "christian definitions"?
Again, you are playing checkers, not chess.

Hindu Marriage joins two individuals for life, so that they can pursue dharma (duty), artha (possessions), kama (physical desires), and moksa (ultimate spiritual release) together. Its a union of two individuals from the opposite sex as husband / wife and is recognized by law.