out of touch republicans
Options
Comments
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... ostpopularGeorgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart warned that straight people might enter into fraudulent gay marriages to obtain benefits, the Marietta Daily Journal reported Saturday.
"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” she told the Journal. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”
It's theoretically possible that such a scenario could happen, but there isn't any evidence of widespread fraud following the adoption of gay marriage in nine states and the District of Columbia. Though fictional, the premise of the 2007 Adam Sandler movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" was a pair of straight firefighters getting domestic partnership status.
Everhart does not note the possibility of marriage fraud among opposite-sex couples, though others have warned against marriage fraud committed in order to get immigration benefits. In reality, the number of proven cases of such fraud is extremely small.
Everhart also said she could not understand how two gay people could ever have sex. "If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship," she told the Journal.
Oh boy, love that last sentence what would she know about EQUIPMENT to have a sexual relationship???
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:
Yes, I think that before the central nervous system isn't not functional, it is not a viable life. If someone has a problem with killing a fetus before 14 weeks, then they better have a problem eating or killing anything living cells that exist on the planet. And you're ok with telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Whatever. :roll:OnTheEdge wrote:So you're ok with killing an unborn child as long as it's at the right time and for the right reason. Whatever. :roll:
Damn it! Now I have to quit eating meat. I was planning a nice BBQ tonight. That sure backfired :roll:
Spin it however you want. But your arguement is ridiculous. There's this little thing called a food chain. Even Jesus caught and ate fish. And just because i'm giving an opinion does not mean i am telling women what they can and can not do. I just think it's crazy that if you don't support abortion you're considered out of touch.0 -
:fp: None of that makes any sense. She acts as though fraud between a man and woman is impossible or something. As far as the equipment thing goes.... I don't know about her, but I know more than a few couples who have reached the point where their equipment really doesn't factor into their marriage.g under p wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/sue-everhart-gay-marriage_n_2991860.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularGeorgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart warned that straight people might enter into fraudulent gay marriages to obtain benefits, the Marietta Daily Journal reported Saturday.
"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” she told the Journal. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”
It's theoretically possible that such a scenario could happen, but there isn't any evidence of widespread fraud following the adoption of gay marriage in nine states and the District of Columbia. Though fictional, the premise of the 2007 Adam Sandler movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" was a pair of straight firefighters getting domestic partnership status.
Everhart does not note the possibility of marriage fraud among opposite-sex couples, though others have warned against marriage fraud committed in order to get immigration benefits. In reality, the number of proven cases of such fraud is extremely small.
Everhart also said she could not understand how two gay people could ever have sex. "If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship," she told the Journal.
Oh boy, love that last sentence what would she know about EQUIPMENT to have a sexual relationship???
Peace
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Who in the hell said that if you don't support abortion you're out of touch?? I have no clue if you're a Republican or not... Should I assume you are, since you're getting all touchy about being out of touch? I personally have NO problem with people who think abortion is wrong. I only have a problem with people telling other people what they can do with their own bodies. And if you support making abortion illegal, rather than simply choose not to have an abortion, you want for the government to tell women what to do with their bodies. As for your food chain argument.... take it to PETA and see what they have to say about that? You can spin it any way you want too. If you think that a non-functional organism without consciousness has more value than a fully functional animal with consciousness, then that's fine with me. I do not.OnTheEdge wrote:PJ_Soul wrote:
Yes, I think that before the central nervous system isn't not functional, it is not a viable life. If someone has a problem with killing a fetus before 14 weeks, then they better have a problem eating or killing anything living cells that exist on the planet. And you're ok with telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Whatever. :roll:OnTheEdge wrote:So you're ok with killing an unborn child as long as it's at the right time and for the right reason. Whatever. :roll:
Damn it! Now I have to quit eating meat. I was planning a nice BBQ tonight. That sure backfired :roll:
Spin it however you want. But your arguement is ridiculous. There's this little thing called a food chain. Even Jesus caught and ate fish. And just because i'm giving an opinion does not mean i am telling women what they can and can not do. I just think it's crazy that if you don't support abortion you're considered out of touch.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:
:fp: None of that makes any sense. She acts as though fraud between a man and woman is impossible or something. As far as the equipment thing goes.... I don't know about her, but I know more than a few couples who have reached the point where their equipment really doesn't factor into their marriage.g under p wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/sue-everhart-gay-marriage_n_2991860.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularGeorgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart warned that straight people might enter into fraudulent gay marriages to obtain benefits, the Marietta Daily Journal reported Saturday.
"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” she told the Journal. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”
It's theoretically possible that such a scenario could happen, but there isn't any evidence of widespread fraud following the adoption of gay marriage in nine states and the District of Columbia. Though fictional, the premise of the 2007 Adam Sandler movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" was a pair of straight firefighters getting domestic partnership status.
Everhart does not note the possibility of marriage fraud among opposite-sex couples, though others have warned against marriage fraud committed in order to get immigration benefits. In reality, the number of proven cases of such fraud is extremely small.
Everhart also said she could not understand how two gay people could ever have sex. "If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship," she told the Journal.
Oh boy, love that last sentence what would she know about EQUIPMENT to have a sexual relationship???
Peace
Well I hear ya and I agree....the laugh of the day. Some folks of the opposite sex just stay married together just to avoid divorce and have no thoughts of EVER using their equipment.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
obama is giving 5% of his salary back to the treasury....
...and nobody in right wing media says anything.
i guess if you can't trash the guy for something good, you say nothing at all...
at least he is putting his money where his mouth is...
Obama to give up 5% of salary in wake of 'sequester' cuts
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... -cuts?lite
President Obama will return 5 percent of his salary to the U.S. Treasury when other federal workers are being furloughed as part of the mandatory budget cuts that took effect earlier this year, NBC News has confirmed.
The New York Times, which broke this story, adds:
The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1 and apply through the rest of the calendar year, the official said. The White House came up with the 5 percent figure to approximate the level of automatic spending cuts to non-defense federal agencies that took effect that day.
“The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury,” [an administration] official said.
A White House aide tells NBC's Chuck Todd that the salary for the president, as with members of Congress, is set by law and cannot be changed. However, the president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury.
Guidance on how this will work: The president will contribute 5 percent of his full annual salary by writing a check to the Treasury every month. This will be effective March 1, but the president will cut the first check this month.
maybe the ultra wealhy will follow suit...
but i doubt it."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
I think there are many things within the GOP that are fucked up (as there are in the Democratic party), but please be fair.gimmesometruth27 wrote:obama is giving 5% of his salary back to the treasury....
...and nobody in right wing media says anything.
i guess if you can't trash the guy for something good, you say nothing at all...
but i doubt it.
For shits and giggles, I just did a quick search on Fox News' website and came upon this from yesterday (via the AP, but still):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... -treasury/
And yes, good on him for doing that. I hope the roughly 20K per year goes toward something worthy - then again, we're talking about the Treasury
0 -
The ultra wealthy are not responsible for being incompetant ... congress and our POTUS are. Everyone one of our leaders should be giving back 95% based on what they get accomplished. 16 months. They had 16 months to figure this out ...gimmesometruth27 wrote:maybe the ultra wealhy will follow suit...Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
are you saying that corporate tax breaks and the government looking out for corporate interests and wall street being bailed out have nothing to do with our deficits?Jason P wrote:
The ultra wealthy are not responsible for being incompetant ... congress and our POTUS are. Everyone one of our leaders should be giving back 95% based on what they get accomplished. 16 months. They had 16 months to figure this out ...gimmesometruth27 wrote:maybe the ultra wealhy will follow suit..."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Our leaders make the rules. They should be the focus.gimmesometruth27 wrote:
are you saying that corporate tax breaks and the government looking out for corporate interests and wall street being bailed out have nothing to do with our deficits?Jason P wrote:
The ultra wealthy are not responsible for being incompetant ... congress and our POTUS are. Everyone one of our leaders should be giving back 95% based on what they get accomplished. 16 months. They had 16 months to figure this out ...gimmesometruth27 wrote:maybe the ultra wealhy will follow suit...Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
I like this guy less every time he opens his mouth.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/rand_pa ... at_howard/
Give Rand Paul some credit for attempting to do what several decades of elections have shown is a tall order: Get African Americans to vote Republican. But in order to make his point today at Howard University, he asked the crowd to not only look past his own brief opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but to willfully ignore the fact that law fundamentally remade American political parties to the point that bear little resemblance to their 1950s versions.
In a jammed-packed auditorium at the historically black college in Washington, D.C. Paul gave the hard sell, arguing that the Republican message of smaller government, school choice, and individual freedom should appeal to minorities who have been victims of state-sponsored oppression, crumbling schools, and general subjugation.
But most of his speech was a history lesson, as he spent the first 20 minutes insisting that Democrats, and not Republicans, are responsible for every ill that has befallen blacks in the United States, from the preservation of slavery to Jim Crow. “The story of emancipation, voting rights and citizenship, from Fredrick Douglass until the modern civil rights era, is in fact the history of the Republican Party,” Paul said. “The horrible Jim Crow in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s was all Democrats.”
But the crowd, which was respectful throughout (save for two protesters who were immediately booted) probably already knew off this. When Paul blanked on the name of Edward Brooke, a black senator from Massachusetts elected in 1919, the audience shouted out his name in near-unison. When Paul asked the students if were aware that most of the founders of the NAACP were Republicans, everyone shouted, “yes” or “duh.”
And they also probably know about the massive political realignment that occurred with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, in which pro-segregation Southern Democrats fled the party to join the GOP, which makes it meaningless to extrapolate about today’s Republican or Democratic Party based on what they did before the Civil Rights era. And they probably know that Democratic leaders of the 60s realized they risked losing control of Washington for generations by pushing on Civil Rights, but that they did it anyway.
But Paul made no mention of this massive shift, presumably hoping he could convince the students that the Democratic Party of today is still as racist as its most racist elements once were 70 years ago.
In fact, a student asked Paul about this during the Q&A section, wondering which GOP Paul identifies with — the pre- or post-1968 party? “The argument that I’m trying to make is that we haven’t changed — there are some of us that haven’t changed,” Paul said. “We don’t see an abrupt difference” between the party of Lincoln and the party of Richard Nixon.”
As receptive as they were, the students did not seem convinced.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
"
The budget would also nearly double the federal tax on cigarettes to $1.95 per pack. That money would fund a new pre-school program for 4-year-olds."
new pre-school program ? and if you believe that I have a bridge for sale
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... z2Q5QloRnp0 -
Godfather. wrote:"
The budget would also nearly double the federal tax on cigarettes to $1.95 per pack. That money would fund a new pre-school program for 4-year-olds."
Fuck that.0 -
That's nothing. It's $4.26 in Canada. Count yourself lucky!.... Of course, that extra tax goes to the free healthcare smokers might need later, so I guess it all evens out. Never mind. :Ppeacefrompaul wrote:Godfather. wrote:"
The budget would also nearly double the federal tax on cigarettes to $1.95 per pack. That money would fund a new pre-school program for 4-year-olds."
Fuck that.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:
That's nothing. It's $4.26 in Canada. Count yourself lucky!.... Of course, that extra tax goes to the free healthcare smokers might need later, so I guess it all evens out. Never mind. :Ppeacefrompaul wrote:Godfather. wrote:"
The budget would also nearly double the federal tax on cigarettes to $1.95 per pack. That money would fund a new pre-school program for 4-year-olds."
Fuck that.
Holy fuck on my shitty balls0 -
Ew, that's nasty!peacefrompaul wrote:PJ_Soul wrote:
That's nothing. It's $4.26 in Canada. Count yourself lucky!.... Of course, that extra tax goes to the free healthcare smokers might need later, so I guess it all evens out. Never mind. :Ppeacefrompaul wrote:
Fuck that.
Holy fuck on my shitty balls With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help