So what you are saying is that slavery can be okay? It's a simple question based off of your comments. Why can't you answer it?
And like I have said any great country can not be built without slavery.
I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?
Somehow this is going to be turned into a USA dominates the world because it was able to trade people as property and avoid giving 'icky' folks the same rights. Dominate the world! Ban tiny umbrellas!
And we now see the absurd lengths to which the "supporting traditional marriage" crowd will go to to avoid having to say "because I think what you guys do is icky."
Hey, that's not fair. I support gay marriage AND I'm proud to admit that I think what you guys do is icky!!!
Very nice! On the other hand, what the ladies do, I may not necessarily describe as icky.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Somehow this is going to be turned into a USA dominates the world because it was able to trade people as property and avoid giving 'icky' folks the same rights. Dominate the world! Ban tiny umbrellas!
It could. I don't have any problems or issues with tiny umbrellas though.
Man+Man, Woman+Woman, is not the equivalent to Man+Woman.
I never understood the "equality" issue here. You can't force genders to be equal. They are biological.
Moreover, I have no idea why granting gays the right to "unite" instead of "marry", wouldn't solve the issue. Keep the word that meant one definition for 1000s of years (make one side happy), and give gays the rights they want so badly (other side happy). Because it is rights they want, right? Not the word "marriage"?
Hmmm...
Not so sure about that. If they want marriage - then I think the issue is more fishy because it seems to me they want a public form of approval on their form of relationship. And there is no way that will ever really happen. There will always be some who disapprove - and that's their right. Just take the civil union, realize your relationship is biologically different - so a different word is fine, and that solves that.
Regardless, government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If they are, there should be a good reason. I can see why a government that propped up ponzi schemes would need youth. So, one reasonable argument I never understood the anti-gay marriage crowd doesn't use is "future taxpayers". By definition, gay couples can't procreate and create new taxpayers. Some would respond, well some couples can't either. True. But, the government doesn't know that. They know heterocouples have the possibility to do such.
Even that argument though is bogus. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage - period, financial or not. If gov't was out. That would solve this issue entirely. And leave us to discuss real issues.
I come in here and read nonsense from both sides. You're all crazy.
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?
No great country or empire has been built without it.
Alright, I am just going to make the assumption that under the circumstances that have been described that you believe it is fine to own, trade and force human beings to work. That is correct, right? I thought you told it like it is, tough guy. Why can't you answer my question?
I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?
No great country or empire has been built without it.
Alright, I am just going to make the assumption that under the circumstances that have been described that you believe it is fine to own, trade and force human beings to work. That is correct, right? I thought you told it like it is, tough guy. Why can't you answer my question?
And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.
And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.
I like being called a tough guy.
It's unreal how you have danced around this question. Because it was used doesn't mean that it is right or that it was a needed.
And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.
Technically, all countries were built on slavery at some point in time. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyplace that has a squeaky-clean past.
And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.
Technically, all countries were built on slavery at some point in time. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyplace that has a squeaky-clean past.
Technically isn't Taxation Slavery? :think: were just very comfortable slaves
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.
it is a sticky situation and I don't think gov't should be involved in anyone's marriage. I shouldn't need a license to get married. and my choosing to be married shouldn't afford me privileges that others don't have...But if gov't is going to stay in the marriage business, everyone should be able to marry whatever they want. That little piece of paper does not bring more validity to my relationship with my wife...it is a stupid process.
Can someone find the gay gene to prove biological existence already so we don't have to have these silly arguments that ultimately cause many families, like one of our resident posters, pain...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Man+Man, Woman+Woman, is not the equivalent to Man+Woman.
I never understood the "equality" issue here. You can't force genders to be equal. They are biological.
Moreover, I have no idea why granting gays the right to "unite" instead of "marry", wouldn't solve the issue. Keep the word that meant one definition for 1000s of years (make one side happy), and give gays the rights they want so badly (other side happy). Because it is rights they want, right? Not the word "marriage"?
Hmmm...
Not so sure about that. If they want marriage - then I think the issue is more fishy because it seems to me they want a public form of approval on their form of relationship. And there is no way that will ever really happen. There will always be some who disapprove - and that's their right. Just take the civil union, realize your relationship is biologically different - so a different word is fine, and that solves that.
Regardless, government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If they are, there should be a good reason. I can see why a government that propped up ponzi schemes would need youth. So, one reasonable argument I never understood the anti-gay marriage crowd doesn't use is "future taxpayers". By definition, gay couples can't procreate and create new taxpayers. Some would respond, well some couples can't either. True. But, the government doesn't know that. They know heterocouples have the possibility to do such.
Even that argument though is bogus. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage - period, financial or not. If gov't was out. That would solve this issue entirely. And leave us to discuss real issues.
I come in here and read nonsense from both sides. You're all crazy.
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.
At first I read that as "get govt out of this icky situation"
But agreed; it should have no place in this whole clusterfuck.
So give me your definition of it so I can c :corn: omment.
I'm not engaging in another bout of circular reasoning with you. If you can't answer the question the first time, I'll accept that you don't have an answer. Thanks for playing :wave:
Less than 5% of the population has green eyes. Why don't we just deny them these rights and benefit your wallet that way? You're born with eye color just as you're born LGBT.
You're asking me a question to a word that has a very broad definition. It's liking asking me if I like the color red. There are 100's of shades of red. Define the word and I will answer appropriately.
And to address your second point concerning the green eyed analogy...there are a lot of people who feel you weren't born LGBT and that it's a choice. I feel no need to comment how I feel becasue it's irrelevant...I'm just pointing that out.
It's cool. I've accepted your non-answer.
And a lot of people believe horse meat is an important political issue.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
well, that would depend entirely on what that particular policy pays out as a death benefit. Now wouldnt it. No matter if was a single or a joint policy.
Besides its only another 4% of the population right? How many of those would actually get married. or want to? or find that someone. and not have them leave them for someone or something else?
Hmmm...it is only four percent of the population (at best estimate actually)...so I wonder why the Dems base so much of what they do concerning them? Makes one think. Perhaps they are just trying to evade real issues that impact 100% of the population.
And also as far as the 4% question...if it impacts my wallet at all and it doesn't benefit me...I don;t care about it to be quite frank. We all have a voice in this country and let evryone;s be heard...but the majority will and always has ruled.
your point is moot now anyway. I dont see Romney winning, soooooo 100% of Americans will now be in the pool for ins.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So if government gets out of marriage.. Who issues survivor benefits, green cards, regulates divorce proceedings, makes rules about testifying in court... Like it or not, marriage is entrenched with many government programs and laws.
And the whole "if I have to share the court with you, I'm taking my ball and going home" schtick is pretty juvenile.
Don't give me the shit that marriage is for procreation... If that was the case, seniors or infertile people wouldnt be able to get married. This is about treating my family equally to every one else's.
so filled with hate towards the conservatives, there is no question for you
Well when your family's rights and protections are voted away and your husband would be deported should the firm he works for go under, let's see how full of indecision you are.
While I wish I could be one of those airy-fairy love everyone, treat people well and they won't fuck you over types... uh, actually that's a lie, I'm glad I'm not one of them.
Yes I can see you might never be "a love everyone treat people well" person,
as you put it, that is a struggle for us all
but you may wish you had tried more one day.
See this emoticon here: :fp: I need the mods to install one that shows this same little yellow dude ripping his face off and groaning like Chewbacca.
See this emoticon here: :fp: I need the mods to install one that shows this same little yellow dude ripping his face off and groaning like Chewbacca.
Thanks.
Actually, my avatar pretty much sums up my reaction to those "I can't fucking believe how fucking clueless you fucking are" moments.
It's like people who blame the child who got hit by the car because "we all need to learn how to share the road... I hope you apologize to that car for getting in it's way, young man."
Gawker publishes audits of Mitt Romney's offshore financial accounts
950 pages of documents contain internal audits and financial involving Bain Capital and Romney's personal fortune
Dominic Rushe in New York
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 August 2012
Mitt Romney's offshore financial holdings are coming under new scrutiny following the publication of internal audits and private letters related to his $250m fortune.
On Wednesday New York-based website Gawker published 950 pages of documents that paint a complex picture of the Republican presidential candidate's finances.
His wealth is held in a convoluted series of holding companies in tax havens including the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, as well as the US. Romney's investments include stakes in funds invested in high-risk derivatives like the credit default swaps that contributed to the credit crisis, and an investment vehicle that loaned money to the parent firm of the National Enquirer, a racy US tabloid.
Romney has been consistently attacked by Democrats for refusing to release more details of his finances, and his offshore accounts have become the subject of attack ads now running across the US. Romney has so far released two years of partial tax returns and furiously denounced Democratic claims that in some years, he paid no tax at all.
The documents published by Gawker, some of which have surfaced before, make clear that tax avoidance is a primary aim of some of his investments. Romney and his wife, Ann, are both investors in a Cayman Island-based fund called Bain Capital Fund VIII. There is no suggestion of any illegality.
The fund has assets of $3.7bn and according to the documents "intends to conduct it's operations so that it will not be engaged in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States sources".
A recent investigation by Vanity Fair magazine concluded that Romney had $30m invested in the Cayman Islands alone. Bain Capital, Romney's former employer, controls at least 138 funds in the Caymans.
The Romneys are also investors in Absolute Capital Return Partners, a Delaware-based partnership that uses a technique called equity swapping to avoid tax. Equity swaps allow investors to exchange gains and losses on investments without taking ownership of the asset. The Internal Revenue Service has expressed concerns that swaps may have allowed investors to avoid paying billions of dollars on dividends.
Mitt Romney's individual retirement account (IRA) held between $1m and $5m in Absolute Return in 2011 and earned between $100,000 and $1m. In 2006, the Ann Romney Trust held between $100,000 and $250,000, and reported earnings of zero, according to the documents.
So far Romney has not commented on the documents. But when he issued his tax returns, Romney's campaign team issued a statement defending his record as a "successful businessman" who complied with the tax code and "has not only added value to our economy through his investment and business activity, but he has paid millions in taxes every year to the US government."
In an interview to be published Sunday, Romney says one of the reasons he has restricted access to his financial records is that he does not want to disclose how much money he and his wife have donated to the Mormon church.
"Our church doesn't publish how much people have given," Romney told Parade magazine. "This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church."
Man+Man, Woman+Woman, is not the equivalent to Man+Woman.
I never understood the "equality" issue here. You can't force genders to be equal. They are biological.
Moreover, I have no idea why granting gays the right to "unite" instead of "marry", wouldn't solve the issue. Keep the word that meant one definition for 1000s of years (make one side happy), and give gays the rights they want so badly (other side happy). Because it is rights they want, right? Not the word "marriage"?
Hmmm...
Not so sure about that. If they want marriage - then I think the issue is more fishy because it seems to me they want a public form of approval on their form of relationship. And there is no way that will ever really happen. There will always be some who disapprove - and that's their right. Just take the civil union, realize your relationship is biologically different - so a different word is fine, and that solves that.
Regardless, government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If they are, there should be a good reason. I can see why a government that propped up ponzi schemes would need youth. So, one reasonable argument I never understood the anti-gay marriage crowd doesn't use is "future taxpayers". By definition, gay couples can't procreate and create new taxpayers. Some would respond, well some couples can't either. True. But, the government doesn't know that. They know heterocouples have the possibility to do such.
Even that argument though is bogus. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage - period, financial or not. If gov't was out. That would solve this issue entirely. And leave us to discuss real issues.
I come in here and read nonsense from both sides. You're all crazy.
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.
I also don't like the idea of the lgbt community having to settle for a different name. We don't give a different name to unions between people of different religions or to interracial marriages. At one time those unions weren't widely accepted either. Acceptance has grown by leaps and bounds; being legalized is a huge help. I also think language has a lot of power. Words are used to dehumanize, belittle, injure...and they can be used to support and build up.
Sometimes things aren't the same, but they are equal
8+3=11
6+5=11
Both made up of different parts, but the outcome is the same.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Well breeders cost you more money than gays ever will. Think no one should get a tax break...no one....married hetros or breeders.
I've heard many a gay person call heteros "breeders".... if you hate something.....
Eh heteros use term as well...such as I. Those that breed are breeders. Gets to the point just not so romantic.
Yep, a gay people call each other fags too. It's a derogatory term. Doesn't really offend me, but I do think less of people that use it, unless a joke or something of course.
I just think its time to rise above that bullshit.
And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.
I like being called a tough guy.
It's unreal how you have danced around this question. Because it was used doesn't mean that it is right or that it was a needed.
So it's okay?
It was used and has been used. We also didn't make it up and it's also still going on. My personal feelings mean nothing to this issue.
And a lot of people believe horse meat is an important political issue.
I'm still waiting for your definition of the word. :corn: Either you don't know the definition or you just don't want to disclose what you feel the word means. As soon as you give me that...I'll gladly give you an answer.
well, that would depend entirely on what that particular policy pays out as a death benefit. Now wouldnt it. No matter if was a single or a joint policy.
Besides its only another 4% of the population right? How many of those would actually get married. or want to? or find that someone. and not have them leave them for someone or something else?
Hmmm...it is only four percent of the population (at best estimate actually)...so I wonder why the Dems base so much of what they do concerning them? Makes one think. Perhaps they are just trying to evade real issues that impact 100% of the population.
And also as far as the 4% question...if it impacts my wallet at all and it doesn't benefit me...I don;t care about it to be quite frank. We all have a voice in this country and let evryone;s be heard...but the majority will and always has ruled.
your point is moot now anyway. I dont see Romney winning, soooooo 100% of Americans will now be in the pool for ins.
And thats fine. I would say the polls have each candidate within a point of each other. Just remember...no one in August of 2008 saw Obama winning either.
Comments
Somehow this is going to be turned into a USA dominates the world because it was able to trade people as property and avoid giving 'icky' folks the same rights. Dominate the world! Ban tiny umbrellas!
No great country or empire has been built without it.
Very nice! On the other hand, what the ladies do, I may not necessarily describe as icky.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
It could. I don't have any problems or issues with tiny umbrellas though.
Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?
But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.
Alright, I am just going to make the assumption that under the circumstances that have been described that you believe it is fine to own, trade and force human beings to work. That is correct, right? I thought you told it like it is, tough guy. Why can't you answer my question?
And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.
I like being called a tough guy.
It's unreal how you have danced around this question. Because it was used doesn't mean that it is right or that it was a needed.
So it's okay?
Your on PJ site so guessing you've heard WMA....listen again.
You may be in majority now...but not for long.
Technically isn't Taxation Slavery? :think: were just very comfortable slaves
Well breeders cost you more money than gays ever will. Think no one should get a tax break...no one....married hetros or breeders.
it is a sticky situation and I don't think gov't should be involved in anyone's marriage. I shouldn't need a license to get married. and my choosing to be married shouldn't afford me privileges that others don't have...But if gov't is going to stay in the marriage business, everyone should be able to marry whatever they want. That little piece of paper does not bring more validity to my relationship with my wife...it is a stupid process.
Can someone find the gay gene to prove biological existence already so we don't have to have these silly arguments that ultimately cause many families, like one of our resident posters, pain...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I've heard many a gay person call heteros "breeders".... if you hate something.....
But agreed; it should have no place in this whole clusterfuck.
And a lot of people believe horse meat is an important political issue.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And the whole "if I have to share the court with you, I'm taking my ball and going home" schtick is pretty juvenile.
Don't give me the shit that marriage is for procreation... If that was the case, seniors or infertile people wouldnt be able to get married. This is about treating my family equally to every one else's.
See this emoticon here: :fp: I need the mods to install one that shows this same little yellow dude ripping his face off and groaning like Chewbacca.
Thanks.
Actually, my avatar pretty much sums up my reaction to those "I can't fucking believe how fucking clueless you fucking are" moments.
It's like people who blame the child who got hit by the car because "we all need to learn how to share the road... I hope you apologize to that car for getting in it's way, young man."
Gawker publishes audits of Mitt Romney's offshore financial accounts
950 pages of documents contain internal audits and financial involving Bain Capital and Romney's personal fortune
Dominic Rushe in New York
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 August 2012
Mitt Romney's offshore financial holdings are coming under new scrutiny following the publication of internal audits and private letters related to his $250m fortune.
On Wednesday New York-based website Gawker published 950 pages of documents that paint a complex picture of the Republican presidential candidate's finances.
His wealth is held in a convoluted series of holding companies in tax havens including the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, as well as the US. Romney's investments include stakes in funds invested in high-risk derivatives like the credit default swaps that contributed to the credit crisis, and an investment vehicle that loaned money to the parent firm of the National Enquirer, a racy US tabloid.
Romney has been consistently attacked by Democrats for refusing to release more details of his finances, and his offshore accounts have become the subject of attack ads now running across the US. Romney has so far released two years of partial tax returns and furiously denounced Democratic claims that in some years, he paid no tax at all.
The documents published by Gawker, some of which have surfaced before, make clear that tax avoidance is a primary aim of some of his investments. Romney and his wife, Ann, are both investors in a Cayman Island-based fund called Bain Capital Fund VIII. There is no suggestion of any illegality.
The fund has assets of $3.7bn and according to the documents "intends to conduct it's operations so that it will not be engaged in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States sources".
A recent investigation by Vanity Fair magazine concluded that Romney had $30m invested in the Cayman Islands alone. Bain Capital, Romney's former employer, controls at least 138 funds in the Caymans.
The Romneys are also investors in Absolute Capital Return Partners, a Delaware-based partnership that uses a technique called equity swapping to avoid tax. Equity swaps allow investors to exchange gains and losses on investments without taking ownership of the asset. The Internal Revenue Service has expressed concerns that swaps may have allowed investors to avoid paying billions of dollars on dividends.
Mitt Romney's individual retirement account (IRA) held between $1m and $5m in Absolute Return in 2011 and earned between $100,000 and $1m. In 2006, the Ann Romney Trust held between $100,000 and $250,000, and reported earnings of zero, according to the documents.
So far Romney has not commented on the documents. But when he issued his tax returns, Romney's campaign team issued a statement defending his record as a "successful businessman" who complied with the tax code and "has not only added value to our economy through his investment and business activity, but he has paid millions in taxes every year to the US government."
In an interview to be published Sunday, Romney says one of the reasons he has restricted access to his financial records is that he does not want to disclose how much money he and his wife have donated to the Mormon church.
"Our church doesn't publish how much people have given," Romney told Parade magazine. "This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church."
Sometimes things aren't the same, but they are equal
8+3=11
6+5=11
Both made up of different parts, but the outcome is the same.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Yep, a gay people call each other fags too. It's a derogatory term. Doesn't really offend me, but I do think less of people that use it, unless a joke or something of course.
I just think its time to rise above that bullshit.
It was used and has been used. We also didn't make it up and it's also still going on. My personal feelings mean nothing to this issue.
My school did just fine"learning me"...then again I don't need to quote a song to express my feelings or position. :?
:?
I'm still waiting for your definition of the word. :corn: Either you don't know the definition or you just don't want to disclose what you feel the word means. As soon as you give me that...I'll gladly give you an answer.
And thats fine. I would say the polls have each candidate within a point of each other. Just remember...no one in August of 2008 saw Obama winning either.