If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitchy)   North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban; tolerant liberals say: "go kill yourselves, you redneck f*cktards"   (twitchy.com) divider line 583
    More: Ironic, gay marriage ban, voters approved, blowjobs, North Carolina, liberals  
•       •       •

2189 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2012 at 9:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



583 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 12:06:24 PM

Scerpes: mrshowrules: I have no issue with people petitioning for equal rights (societal benefits) between single and married people. Go for it but trying to conflate these two issues is disingenuous.

It's one issue: whether we allow the government to encourage certain lifestyles by providing a financial benefit.


Maybe you should start a thread on this interesting topic also.
 
2012-05-09 12:07:54 PM

InmanRoshi: As Andrew Sullivan put it....

It reveals that the anti-marriage equality peeps are not simply anti-marriage. They are against any civil recognition of gay couples' commitment, responsibility and equality. The Amendment today would ban any relationship rights whatever to gay couples in the state. No domestic partnerships, no civil unions - nada. It renders spouses strangers at hospitals, it ensures no legal stability for shared homes or shared children. It is in many ways a simple declaration that gay relationships are anathema to the people of North Carolina. That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life.


The problem with this interpretation is that is presumes votes reflected a rational and informed choice.
In counter argument, I ask, how many NC voters do you think actually read and understood Amendment 1? 20%? How many voted based on a vague discomfort with gay marriage without realizing that they were also banning civil unions (even if they were already not recognizable in NC)?

From what I can gather, less than half of people who vote on such issues ever bother to understand them in any significant detail.
 
2012-05-09 12:08:22 PM

colon_pow: the impotent rage is astonishing.

and amusing.


Although I agree that the impotent rage of the bigots is astonishing, I do not find it amusing.
 
2012-05-09 12:12:29 PM

WombatControl: marriage is so critical to the perpetuaton of both the species and society in general.


Will people stop having children if there is no marriage? No. Did humans, as a species, have any problem with perpetuating itself before the concept of marriage emerged? Clearly not. Does any other species have any problem perpetuating itself without the concept of marriage? No. Society in general might be debatable, but "perpetuation of the species" is completely invalid as an argument.

What benefits does society in general gain from marriage? It streamlines certain property rights, that's for sure, but there is no inherent benefit of marriage qua marriage to society, unless you're arguing that children born out of wedlock are somehow inherently inferior to children born to a married couple. There's also no argument for perpetuation of society, unless you think that Western civilization would somehow collapse if marriage didn't exist.
 
2012-05-09 12:12:45 PM

GhostFish: The anger is justified.

Gay marriage already wasn't recognized in NC. All this did was make life a lot harder for a lot of people - most of them not gay.

That type of knee-jerk, "cut-off your nose to spite your face" legislation and it's supporters deserve to be derided and ridiculed mercilessly.


I could imagine a bigoted homophobe seeing two men/women holding hands and really being on the fence about where to vocalize his disapproval. I think this ban might just be the societal validation that bigot need to shout a epitaph out at them or at least feel more comfortable in doing so if that was his intention anyways. Congratulations NC!
 
2012-05-09 12:16:53 PM

derpdeederp: justtray
There are NO tax increases for healthcare bill. The purpose of the healthcare bill is to LOWER costs by forcing those who currently have NO coverage (aka poor people) to buy coverage, so that when they do go to the hospital, everyone else isn't footing the bill.

No tax increases for the majority of americans, true, no tax increases, come on even you dont believe that.

1)
Starting in 2013, a 0.9% Medicare surtax will apply to wages in excess of $200,000 for single taxpayers and over $250,000 for married couples. Also, for the first time ever, a Medicare tax will apply to investment income of high earners. The 3.8% levy will hit the lesser of (1) their unearned income or (2) the amount by which their adjusted gross income exceeds the $200,000 or $250,000 threshold amounts. The new law defines unearned income as interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents. Tax-exempt interest won't be included, nor will income from retirement accounts.

2)
A new 40% excise tax, beginning in 2018, on high-cost health plans, levied on the portion that exceeds $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The provision is aimed mostly at gold-plated plans offered by employers, although it can affect individual policies.

3)
A new 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services on services provided after June 30, 2010

4)
A new tax on individuals who don't obtain adequate health coverage by 2014 -- this is often referred to as the individual mandate. The tax is to be phased in over three years, starting at the greater of $95, or 1% of income, in 2014, and rising to the greater of $695, or 2.5% of gross income, in 2016.

Both taxes 1 and 2 are targeted at the wealthy. Taxes 3 could be viewed as a tax against the wealthy but its a stretch. Tax 4 is the individual mandate against all who dont have insurance, and what I believe you were referring too in order to force everyone to have insurance.


I'm still not seeing any tryanny by the left of the minority.

1. 1% tax on those already paying only ~15% of their income. (most of the wealthiest earners are getting their income from stocks aka captial gains, which this clearly is meant to address)

2. I honestly have no idea what this is. Sounds like "making people pay their fair share" for those who pay little, but have super high costs.

3. We tax inelastic, health damaging goods all the time. See Smokers.

4. This one I already directly addressed. It lowers costs across the board by making it so that there are no longer free riders.
 
2012-05-09 12:17:22 PM

EWreckedSean: technicolor-misfit: EWreckedSean - How does what the legal piece of paper says deny freedom of speech exactly? If my birth certificate says my name is Sean, I can still tell people my name is Bob. Are anti-gay marriage laws stopping gay people from calling their significant others husband and wife? I'll answer that for you, I live in a neighborhood that is about 1/3 gay couples. Gay marriage isn't legal in Florida. They say they are married and call each other husband and wife all the time.


Why'd we bother with that stupid emancipation proclamation? If black people wanted to call themselves "free men," no one could stop them.

Oh right... actually legally being a free man (or married) confers legal rights and privileges that are not recognized simply because one adopts a chosen label.

Follow the thread please. We were talking about those who have only issue with the name, not the equal rights of a gay union.



Still stupid.

"Civil Union" is nothing more than a last ditch "not -REAL- marriage" branding attempt trotted out by conservatives when they think they may lose. In places where they're confident of victory they go scorched Earth and refuse even to recognize civil unions from other states.

There's no reason gays should accept the indignity of a second-class designation to their marriage to appease a bunch of bigots just because you say they should get over it.

EQUAL protection under the law. If it's marriage, it should be marriage for all. If it's civil unions, it should be civil unions for all. If the state is going to offer legal civil unions and churches are going to offer ritual/symbolic marriages, then the state should offer civil unions to all, and everyone should be able to then marry in a church if they choose... and EVERYONE should respect the rights of churches to do as they please as befits their beliefs.

Churches who don't support gay marriage shouldn't be compelled to perform them. And churches who support gay marriage shouldn't be restricted from performing them.
 
2012-05-09 12:20:38 PM
"Waahhh. I bulled someone and they hit back! Waahhhhhh."
 
2012-05-09 12:21:43 PM
As I stated in another thread. If you're running around screaming about the 'rednecks' or whatever that passes this amendment? Good job, the way you're acting is helping them. As a person who actually believes in equal rights, you're not welcome in this camp, so go over there and set up shop with the rest of the bigots.

Yes, I realize its a good excuse to trundle out the 'Anti-South' rhetoric, but I've said it once and I'll say it again: It is not possible for bills like this to pass without support from Democrat voters, including those who are otherwise 'big government liberals'. If you actually want to help the problem rather than contribute to it, admit to yourselves that you have a problem within the rank and file of your own when it comes to equal rights, and see what you can do to address it. That's what I've tried to do for years on this issue and on other issues when talking to other conservatives.
 
2012-05-09 12:21:52 PM

Wayne 985: "Waahhh. I bulled someone and they hit back! Waahhhhhh."


"Bullied," even. Anyway, you get the point. I don't see how a person can pick on other people, then act shocked and offended when their victim stands up for themselves.
 
2012-05-09 12:24:01 PM

technicolor-misfit: EWreckedSean: technicolor-misfit: EWreckedSean - How does what the legal piece of paper says deny freedom of speech exactly? If my birth certificate says my name is Sean, I can still tell people my name is Bob. Are anti-gay marriage laws stopping gay people from calling their significant others husband and wife? I'll answer that for you, I live in a neighborhood that is about 1/3 gay couples. Gay marriage isn't legal in Florida. They say they are married and call each other husband and wife all the time.


Why'd we bother with that stupid emancipation proclamation? If black people wanted to call themselves "free men," no one could stop them.

Oh right... actually legally being a free man (or married) confers legal rights and privileges that are not recognized simply because one adopts a chosen label.

Follow the thread please. We were talking about those who have only issue with the name, not the equal rights of a gay union.


Still stupid.

"Civil Union" is nothing more than a last ditch "not -REAL- marriage" branding attempt trotted out by conservatives when they think they may lose. In places where they're confident of victory they go scorched Earth and refuse even to recognize civil unions from other states.

There's no reason gays should accept the indignity of a second-class designation to their marriage to appease a bunch of bigots just because you say they should get over it.

EQUAL protection under the law. If it's marriage, it should be marriage for all. If it's civil unions, it should be civil unions for all. If the state is going to offer legal civil unions and churches are going to offer ritual/symbolic marriages, then the state should offer civil unions to all, and everyone should be able to then marry in a church if they choose... and EVERYONE should respect the rights of churches to do as they please as befits their beliefs.

Churches who don't support gay marriage shouldn't be compelled to perform them. And churches who support gay marriage shouldn ...


Why should straights accept a redefining up their marriages to appease a bunch of gays just because you say they should get over it? Equal protection is just that, equal protection. It has nothing to do with semantics. I could care less personally what they call it, but why are we spending a drop of effort fighting for a god damned WORD, when most still are not allowed the right to be legally joined at all?
 
2012-05-09 12:25:54 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: How did they get liberals collectively to all say the same thing at once?


We liberals are infact an insect hivemind that came from the Andromeda Galaxy to conquer humanity.
 
2012-05-09 12:26:09 PM

randomjsa: As I stated in another thread. If you're running around screaming about the 'rednecks' or whatever that passes this amendment? Good job, the way you're acting is helping them. As a person who actually believes in equal rights, you're not welcome in this camp, so go over there and set up shop with the rest of the bigots.

Yes, I realize its a good excuse to trundle out the 'Anti-South' rhetoric, but I've said it once and I'll say it again: It is not possible for bills like this to pass without support from Democrat voters, including those who are otherwise 'big government liberals'. If you actually want to help the problem rather than contribute to it, admit to yourselves that you have a problem within the rank and file of your own when it comes to equal rights, and see what you can do to address it. That's what I've tried to do for years on this issue and on other issues when talking to other conservatives.


I knew you were stupid, but stupid enough to take twitchy's selections as indicative of the whole?

Now THAT'S stupid.
 
2012-05-09 12:28:37 PM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: marriage is so critical to the perpetuaton of both the species and society in general.

Will people stop having children if there is no marriage? No. Did humans, as a species, have any problem with perpetuating itself before the concept of marriage emerged? Clearly not. Does any other species have any problem perpetuating itself without the concept of marriage? No. Society in general might be debatable, but "perpetuation of the species" is completely invalid as an argument.

What benefits does society in general gain from marriage? It streamlines certain property rights, that's for sure, but there is no inherent benefit of marriage qua marriage to society, unless you're arguing that children born out of wedlock are somehow inherently inferior to children born to a married couple. There's also no argument for perpetuation of society, unless you think that Western civilization would somehow collapse if marriage didn't exist.


Actually, there's a very strong argument that marriage qua marriage benefits society. For one, there's the common sense explanation: if you have a two-parent home that's stable you have a better division of labor than a single-parent home. Children need a stable environment, and all you have to do is look at the effects of divorce to see what unstable homes do to childhood development.

If you look at poverty in America, children who grow up in single-parent homes are substantially more likely to be poor, to have learning problems, or to committ crimes. That's not because those kids or their parents are innately inferior, it's because raising a kid is much, much harder to do without the division of labor in marriage.

In fact, I would argue that without marriage, Western civilization would collapse. Western civilization requires a system that inculcates children with the values needed to perpetuate democratic society. No other institution can do what the family does towards that end - which is why you see a whole host of social problems that follow the breakdown of the family in Western societies today.
 
2012-05-09 12:30:12 PM

randomjsa: As I stated in another thread. If you're running around screaming about the 'rednecks' or whatever that passes this amendment? Good job, the way you're acting is helping them. As a person who actually believes in equal rights, you're not welcome in this camp, so go over there and set up shop with the rest of the bigots.

Yes, I realize its a good excuse to trundle out the 'Anti-South' rhetoric, but I've said it once and I'll say it again: It is not possible for bills like this to pass without support from Democrat voters, including those who are otherwise 'big government liberals'. If you actually want to help the problem rather than contribute to it, admit to yourselves that you have a problem within the rank and file of your own when it comes to equal rights, and see what you can do to address it. That's what I've tried to do for years on this issue and on other issues when talking to other conservatives.


Your camp hates bigotry but doesn't feel comfortable calling people bigots who vote to pass bigoted laws. I don't want to be in your camp anyways. See ya.
 
2012-05-09 12:35:01 PM
Well, the world would unquestionably be better off if everybody who voted "yes" on this measure did kill themselves. Maybe not all at once, since that would leave a bit of a mess to be cleaned up. Over the course of a 5-10 year span is a nice compromise, I think.
 
2012-05-09 12:36:00 PM

ToxicMunkee: Since when has "tolerant liberal" meant we all have to be the f*cking Dalai Lama andkumbaya all day and sh*t? Tolerant liberals aren't passive milquetoast scardy cats, you know.


Sure they are.

Also, they're not allowed to be millionaires.
Or own guns.
Or oppose the Westboro Baptist Church (because the ACLU supports their 1st Amendment rights).
Or own businesses.
Or be Christian.
Or choose to have a child when abortion is available.
Or shop at Wal-Mart.
 
2012-05-09 12:39:06 PM

WombatControl: I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that "marriage" is, and really always has been, the union of one man and one woman with the ultimate purpose of raising children.


So you're sympathetic to an argument that's demonstrably false, so much so that it's essentially your premise? That explains a lot, I suppose.
 
2012-05-09 12:40:05 PM

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: marriage is so critical to the perpetuaton of both the species and society in general.

Will people stop having children if there is no marriage? No. Did humans, as a species, have any problem with perpetuating itself before the concept of marriage emerged? Clearly not. Does any other species have any problem perpetuating itself without the concept of marriage? No. Society in general might be debatable, but "perpetuation of the species" is completely invalid as an argument.

What benefits does society in general gain from marriage? It streamlines certain property rights, that's for sure, but there is no inherent benefit of marriage qua marriage to society, unless you're arguing that children born out of wedlock are somehow inherently inferior to children born to a married couple. There's also no argument for perpetuation of society, unless you think that Western civilization would somehow collapse if marriage didn't exist.

Actually, there's a very strong argument that marriage qua marriage benefits society. For one, there's the common sense explanation: if you have a two-parent home that's stable you have a better division of labor than a single-parent home. Children need a stable environment, and all you have to do is look at the effects of divorce to see what unstable homes do to childhood development.

If you look at poverty in America, children who grow up in single-parent homes are substantially more likely to be poor, to have learning problems, or to committ crimes. That's not because those kids or their parents are innately inferior, it's because raising a kid is much, much harder to do without the division of labor in marriage.

In fact, I would argue that without marriage, Western civilization would collapse. Western civilization requires a system that inculcates children with the values needed to perpetuate democratic society. No other institution can do what the family does towards that end - which is why you see a whole host of ...


None of that is contingent on the sexes of the parents.

A two-parent home is better in general than a single-parent home; fine. What additional benefit is gained from the government explicitly requiring that a two-parent home be comprised of a man and a woman?

Western civilization requires a system that inculcates children with certain values; fine. The family does that best; agreed. Why do the sexes of the parents in a family matter?

Why is a mixed-sex family inherently better than a same-sex family? So much better, in fact, that the government must explicitly disallow same-sex families?
 
2012-05-09 12:40:17 PM

Biological Ali: Well, the world would unquestionably be better off if everybody who voted "yes" on this measure did kill themselves.


Or gays could kill themselves so the issue would go away. Less of a mess that way too.
 
2012-05-09 12:41:39 PM

MeinRS6: Biological Ali: Well, the world would unquestionably be better off if everybody who voted "yes" on this measure did kill themselves.

Or gays could kill themselves so the issue would go away. Less of a mess that way too.


Apparently you missed the part where I was talking about making the world better off.
 
2012-05-09 12:41:51 PM
Only true bigots call out bigots on their bigotry.
 
2012-05-09 12:42:48 PM

MeinRS6: Biological Ali: Well, the world would unquestionably be better off if everybody who voted "yes" on this measure did kill themselves.

Or gays could kill themselves so the issue would go away. Less of a mess that way too.


Nah...every gay person I've met has been pretty cool (with one exception), but every bigot I've met has been - by definition - a worthless asshole.

It may be more of a mess, but I'd rather the bigots offed themselves.
 
2012-05-09 12:43:21 PM

wademh: From what I can gather, less than half of people who vote on such issues ever bother to understand them in any significant detail.


According to this, only 36% of the voters knew what they were voting for.
 
2012-05-09 12:45:19 PM

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: marriage is so critical to the perpetuaton of both the species and society in general.

Will people stop having children if there is no marriage? No. Did humans, as a species, have any problem with perpetuating itself before the concept of marriage emerged? Clearly not. Does any other species have any problem perpetuating itself without the concept of marriage? No. Society in general might be debatable, but "perpetuation of the species" is completely invalid as an argument.

What benefits does society in general gain from marriage? It streamlines certain property rights, that's for sure, but there is no inherent benefit of marriage qua marriage to society, unless you're arguing that children born out of wedlock are somehow inherently inferior to children born to a married couple. There's also no argument for perpetuation of society, unless you think that Western civilization would somehow collapse if marriage didn't exist.

Actually, there's a very strong argument that marriage qua marriage benefits society. For one, there's the common sense explanation: if you have a two-parent home that's stable you have a better division of labor than a single-parent home. Children need a stable environment, and all you have to do is look at the effects of divorce to see what unstable homes do to childhood development.

If you look at poverty in America, children who grow up in single-parent homes are substantially more likely to be poor, to have learning problems, or to committ crimes. That's not because those kids or their parents are innately inferior, it's because raising a kid is much, much harder to do without the division of labor in marriage.

In fact, I would argue that without marriage, Western civilization would collapse. Western civilization requires a system that inculcates children with the values needed to perpetuate democratic society. No other institution can do what the family does towards that end - which is why you see a whole host of ...


Note: I'm not addressing this to you specifically as I know you've already stated you support marriage equality earlier in the thread.

Everything that you just stated has absolutely nothing to do with the genders of the parents involved in the marriage. All of the scientific inquiry backs that up. There is no difference in inculcating positive values in children between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. In fact, some of those inquiries say that same-sex couples are better at inculcating positive values in their children than opposite-sex couples. There are thousands, if not millions, of children growing up in orphanages and bouncing between foster homes because they can't find a permanent set of parents willing to take in the kid and treat them as their own flesh and blood. Denying these kids the opportunity to have a family because some people incorrectly think that such a family would make their lives even worse is downright bonkers.
 
2012-05-09 12:47:12 PM
qorkfiend:

Remember, I'm on the pro-gay marriage side. So my answers to your questions would all be "the sexes of the parents probably, but not certainly, doesn't matter."

But my position isn't set in stone. If we start getting credible data that says that there's something harmful about same-sex couples as parents, I'd yield to that. But so far, that evidence is lacking. I've seen some research that says that gay parenting is harmful, but nothing that's been strong enough to make me reevaluate my support for gay marriage. In the end, I just don't see the harm either.
 
2012-05-09 12:47:31 PM

Pincy: Only true bigots call out bigots on their bigotry.


It is true bigotry to call a whole group bigots because of the bigotry of some of the group.
 
2012-05-09 12:50:45 PM

Cythraul: Generation_D: You punk kids are forgetting something. People grow more conservative with age. So unless you start killing people off by the time they're 50, we will never be rid of this problem. I say this as a 50 year old. Conservatism is like a creeping slow disease eating away at your brain as you age.

I guess that's true. Anecdotically, it certainly seems true. But if it is, how have gay rights gotten as far as it has?

Simple:
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."

--Robert Anton Wilson
 
2012-05-09 12:51:07 PM

Biological Ali: Well, the world would unquestionably be better off if everybody who voted "yes" on this measure did kill themselves. Maybe not all at once, since that would leave a bit of a mess to be cleaned up. Over the course of a 5-10 year span is a nice compromise, I think.


It would be nice if they lived long enough to see the ban reversed.
 
2012-05-09 12:51:19 PM

randomjsa: As I stated in another thread. If you're running around screaming about the 'rednecks' or whatever that passes this amendment? Good job, the way you're acting is helping them. As a person who actually believes in equal rights, you're not welcome in this camp, so go over there and set up shop with the rest of the bigots.

Yes, I realize its a good excuse to trundle out the 'Anti-South' rhetoric, but I've said it once and I'll say it again: It is not possible for bills like this to pass without support from Democrat voters, including those who are otherwise 'big government liberals'. If you actually want to help the problem rather than contribute to it, admit to yourselves that you have a problem within the rank and file of your own when it comes to equal rights, and see what you can do to address it. That's what I've tried to do for years on this issue and on other issues when talking to other conservatives.


Yes as everybody knows, California Democrats line up perfectly with Georgia Democrats when it comes to gay rights. Take polls in both states, the percentages will be identical. Same thing if you compare Alabama and Wisconsin, MIssissippi and Oregon, Louisiana and Connecticut.

Yep.
 
2012-05-09 12:54:06 PM

WombatControl: qorkfiend:

Remember, I'm on the pro-gay marriage side. So my answers to your questions would all be "the sexes of the parents probably, but not certainly, doesn't matter."

But my position isn't set in stone. If we start getting credible data that says that there's something harmful about same-sex couples as parents, I'd yield to that. But so far, that evidence is lacking. I've seen some research that says that gay parenting is harmful, but nothing that's been strong enough to make me reevaluate my support for gay marriage. In the end, I just don't see the harm either.


Right. With all other things being equal and there being no overriding government interest in restricting marriage, it now reduces to an equal rights issue: "Should the law treat homosexual marriages differently than heterosexual marriages?" If the answer is still "yes", despite the lack of difference to society, the only possible reason is that the person answering the question is against equal rights for homosexuals simply because they're homosexuals.
 
2012-05-09 12:59:15 PM

mrshowrules: Biological Ali: Well, the world would unquestionably be better off if everybody who voted "yes" on this measure did kill themselves. Maybe not all at once, since that would leave a bit of a mess to be cleaned up. Over the course of a 5-10 year span is a nice compromise, I think.

It would be nice if they lived long enough to see the ban reversed.


The knowledge that they're suffering in that manner would certainly provide me with a great deal of utility - however, due to its ephemeral nature, I'm not sure whether it could rightly be considered a way to make the world better off. That, and the fact that them being alive and able to vote is itself an impediment to these bans being overturned.
 
2012-05-09 01:00:21 PM
justtray
derpdeederp: justtray
There are NO tax increases for healthcare bill. The purpose of the healthcare bill is to LOWER costs by forcing those who currently have NO coverage (aka poor people) to buy coverage, so that when they do go to the hospital, everyone else isn't footing the bill.

No tax increases for the majority of americans, true, no tax increases, come on even you dont believe that.

1)
Starting in 2013, a 0.9% Medicare surtax will apply to wages in excess of $200,000 for single taxpayers and over $250,000 for married couples. Also, for the first time ever, a Medicare tax will apply to investment income of high earners. The 3.8% levy will hit the lesser of (1) their unearned income or (2) the amount by which their adjusted gross income exceeds the $200,000 or $250,000 threshold amounts. The new law defines unearned income as interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents. Tax-exempt interest won't be included, nor will income from retirement accounts.

2)
A new 40% excise tax, beginning in 2018, on high-cost health plans, levied on the portion that exceeds $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The provision is aimed mostly at gold-plated plans offered by employers, although it can affect individual policies.

3)
A new 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services on services provided after June 30, 2010

4)
A new tax on individuals who don't obtain adequate health coverage by 2014 -- this is often referred to as the individual mandate. The tax is to be phased in over three years, starting at the greater of $95, or 1% of income, in 2014, and rising to the greater of $695, or 2.5% of gross income, in 2016.

Both taxes 1 and 2 are targeted at the wealthy. Taxes 3 could be viewed as a tax against the wealthy but its a stretch. Tax 4 is the individual mandate against all who dont have insurance, and what I believe you were referring too in order to force everyone to have insurance.

I'm still not seeing any tryanny by the left of the minority.


The term Tyranny of the Majority is a philosophical term used to express the fear that in a democracy the majority will be able to impose their philosophical views, culture, religion, etc on the minority groups. you might be taking the term literally instead of in its philosophical context.
1. 1% tax on those already paying only ~15% of their income. (most of the wealthiest earners are getting their income from stocks aka captial gains, which this clearly is meant to address)

The 1% is against wages, the 3.8% is against capital gains/dividends.

2. I honestly have no idea what this is. Sounds like "making people pay their fair share" for those who pay little, but have super high costs.

This is a tax on company benefits that exceed a certain value. Currently, company paid health insurance costs are considered expenses for a companies bottom line and therefore a tax write off. This will consider benefits over a certain amount to be considered income and taxed at the 40% rate.

3. We tax inelastic, health damaging goods all the time. See Smokers.

4. This one I already directly addressed. It lowers costs across the board by making it so that there are no longer free riders.
 
2012-05-09 01:00:28 PM

WombatControl: I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that "marriage" is, and really always has been, the union of one man and one woman with the ultimate purpose of raising children. If you look back at history, that's a position that's fairly well founded.


Except it isn't and wasn't but other that your 100% correct.

Historically, a marriage is a property transfer between two men. A contract between two men as God intended. The idea of men raising children in history when it is the woman's and/or servants job is laughable. What historical period are you referring to. After the 1800's when marriage was romanticized or when interracial marriage became acceptable?
 
2012-05-09 01:01:50 PM

Scerpes: Providing special benefits for married couples is discrimination on its face. The left is just pissed that their particular special interest has been precluded from benefiting from that discrimination.


You argument does not stand up to muster.
It indicates that you really feel that certain people in society that do not fit your mold of approval are not worthy of equality under the law. You label that equality as "special rights" in order to reconcile your obvious moral disapproval of homosexuals.

You can't legislate your own brand of morality. That is what is going on. So if anyone is getting special rights, it's the people who are getting their way by denying others equality in marriage.

Enjoy your special rights.
 
2012-05-09 01:02:03 PM

bootman: The last time NC added something to their state constitution about marriage:
[i.imgur.com image 500x302]

/Be ashamed of yourselves you bigoted farks.


Nice try, but they're proud of their bigotry. Do you really think that that asswipes that voted for Amendment One because "it says in the bible..."? No, they use that as an excuse because bigoted asswipes need a group of people they can have treated like second class citizens. And since they can't do it to the blacks anymore...
 
2012-05-09 01:04:17 PM

EWreckedSean: Why should straights accept a redefining up their marriages to appease a bunch of gays just because you say they should get over it?


They don't have to accept a redefining of -THEIR- marriages. Their marriages can be whatever they wish them to be. They need only get the fark up out of other people's would-be marriages.

Equal protection is just that, equal protection. It has nothing to do with semantics. I could care less personally what they call it, but why are we spending a drop of effort fighting for a god damned WORD, when most still are not allowed the right to be legally joined at all?

If a word didn't matter, we wouldn't be discussing civil unions at all. A separate and distinct term is subject to separate and distinct laws, policies, and treatment.

See also - "separate but equal" and "don't ask don't tell."

Would I take it over nothing at all? Sure... and I'd keep fighting for true equality.
 
2012-05-09 01:07:16 PM

Cythraul: Could you cite that (sorry to ask you to do the work for me)? I'm wondering just how much better than the Baby Boomers Gen-X really is.


General Social Survey? Berekely SDA has a web interface. Look for the variables MARHOMO and COHORT; check years 2004-2010.

a.imageshack.us


Generation_D: You punk kids are forgetting something. People grow more conservative with age.


First: not as fast as younger generations are getting more liberal.
Second: on this issue... actually, individual generation cohorts are gradually growing more liberal as time passes and they get older.
 
2012-05-09 01:08:05 PM

Lionel Mandrake: So how much is Michelle Malkin paying to keep flooding FARK with twitchy shiat?


^
THAT
 
2012-05-09 01:09:29 PM
Unfortunately, reasoning with them doesn't work. Having an civil, intellectual debate doesn't work. Providing scientific evidence doesn't work. So the best way to communicate with them is to be as vile and spiteful as they are.
 
2012-05-09 01:14:43 PM

EWreckedSean: Why should straights accept a redefining up their marriages to appease a bunch of gays just because you say they should get over it?


Jesus farking Christ you are so consistently a stupid asshole that it should hurt.
 
2012-05-09 01:17:41 PM
Black people embarrass the shiat out of me, but not because of the incorrect conservative assumption that we're all Welfare kings and queens, but the correct liberal assumption that, as it does with almost everyone else, conservative Baptist thought has made many of us into farking idiots.
 
2012-05-09 01:17:51 PM

abb3w: Cythraul: Could you cite that (sorry to ask you to do the work for me)? I'm wondering just how much better than the Baby Boomers Gen-X really is.

General Social Survey? Berekely SDA has a web interface. Look for the variables MARHOMO and COHORT; check years 2004-2010.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]

Generation_D: You punk kids are forgetting something. People grow more conservative with age.

First: not as fast as younger generations are getting more liberal.
Second: on this issue... actually, individual generation cohorts are gradually growing more liberal as time passes and they get older.


Every time you post that graph, I laugh that the cohort of people who were born before or during WWI is more strongly supportive of marriage equality than any cohort between then and after we landed on the moon.
 
2012-05-09 01:19:13 PM

Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.


Gay isn't a race, it's behavior.
 
2012-05-09 01:21:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay isn't a race, it's behavior.



Civil rights being denied is objectionable no matter the categorization used. In the case of amendment 1, gender.
 
2012-05-09 01:22:08 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay isn't a race, it's behavior.


Oh look another genius who thinks civil rights is exclusively a race thing
 
2012-05-09 01:22:32 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay isn't a race, it's behavior.


Gay is genetic. Race (skin-color, actually, there's no such thing as race) is genetic.

What are we going to do next, keep those hazel-eyed freaks from takin' our jorbs?
 
2012-05-09 01:22:47 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay isn't a race, it's behavior.


No, it's not a race. But it's not behavior either. The act doesn't define your sexuality, gay, straight or otherwise.
 
2012-05-09 01:23:52 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: They are following 0bama's lead. He is against gay marriage.

So that means that Mitt "Do the opposite of Obama" Romney think gay marriage should be legal and that straight marriages should not be recognized.


Romney isn't the President.
0bama is.
 
2012-05-09 01:24:11 PM

Diogenes: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay isn't a race, it's behavior.

No, it's not a race. But it's not behavior either. The act doesn't define your sexuality, gay, straight or otherwise.



It wouldn't matter if it was behavior. Certain behaviors are protected under equal protection.
 
Displayed 50 of 583 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report