Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Ironic, gay marriage ban, voters approved, blowjobs, North Carolina, liberals  
•       •       •

2193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2012 at 9:39 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2012-05-09 11:41:29 AM  

gilgigamesh: SkinnyHead: Generation_D: BTW the public should NEVER be allowed to vote on minority rights. the public will always or almost always vote wrong.

If the public don't get to decide, who does? Some dictator?

The founding fathers knew that whenever you put the rights of a minority to a popular vote, the majority will reliably vote the measure down. This is why we live in a republic. It is also why these measures get put forward: its an easy win for wily demagogues who want to make a point about the "will of the majority".

This is why our government is not a democracy. Stop pretending it is.


So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that elected representatives are the ones who should get to decide whether a right exists or not. You're okay with the idea that the right should be determined by the democratic process, through the vote of elected representatives, you just don't want people voting on it directly.
 
2012-05-09 11:41:37 AM  

justtray: when 40% of NC residents still voted against interracial marriage recently


citation?
 
2012-05-09 11:41:41 AM  

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: WombatControl: but the idea that they've suffered as much as African-Americans is part of the reason why blacks are so against gay marriage.

Got a citation for that one?


Do you really want to see a picture of his ass?
 
2012-05-09 11:41:42 AM  

coeyagi: And if you were a flaming gay guy who was denied an appendectomy at a Catholic hospital which could result in your death?


Fnck the catholic church. That is my stance now, and it would be my stance then. They are an evil, hateful organization whose primary reason for existence is to corrupt Christ's message.
 
2012-05-09 11:41:44 AM  

derpdeederp: justtray
derpdeederp: justtray
Hydra: Remember, Fark: tyranny of the majority is bad only when the other side does it.

Do go on. What tyranny of the majority has the left pulled.

We'll wait.

Tax the rich... At least they are trying.

Yes paying a tax % that is equal to what the 99% are paying is definitely "tyranny."

BEEEEEEEP. WRONG. Try again. Still waiting.

You asked the question, I was simply responding. But I assume regardless of the answer you would have had the same response.

I was actually thinking of the Health Care bill, where to provide benefits to many they are increasing taxes on a small group of people. Not wanting to argue, but you did pose a question of where the left has pushed for a tyranny of the majority situation.

The old, when 51% of the population figures out they can vote themselves benefits from the other 49%, it will be the decline of a nation. Paraphrased of course.


Yes, but your answer was stupid, and incorrect, which I pointed out. Much like your flailing attempt to back up into healthcare.

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.

Hardly tyranny. Try yet again.... Tell me when you've given up and admit you were being an idiot by making such a ridiculous supposition.
 
2012-05-09 11:41:55 AM  

skullkrusher: "Apparently the massive majority of people in North Carolina who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman are hateful bigots."

is this a joke?


Hateful is a strong word. Ignorant, backwards, selfish, theocratic bigots is probably more apropo.
 
2012-05-09 11:42:11 AM  
And...morality wins again!
 
2012-05-09 11:42:12 AM  

EWreckedSean: 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.


The government does not extend them the benefits and protections that it does heterosexual "married" couples. This is the point of contention.
 
2012-05-09 11:42:32 AM  

EWreckedSean: OneTimed: EWreckedSean: InmanRoshi: EWreckedSean: Because the institution of marriage is important to a lot of people, and they see gays wanting to call their relationships marriage as somebody trying to change a tradition that shouldn't be changed for their own agenda. I know plenty of people who are perfectly happy with civil unions, and providing gay couples all the rights afforded married couples, but don't see a man and a man's relationship as being a marriage and see no reason to change the laws because gays want it to be called that.

The North Carolina outcome lays waste to this strawman....

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.

Yeah, sorry, you are simply wrong.

Nice refutation

"Nuh-uh!!!"

What else would you like me to say? I laid out a case, he called it a straw man. Outside of using strawman wrong, he didn't do anything to invalidate my point.


I have an entire state of voters who say I'm right. You have a couple of anecdotal "friends" to support your argument.

The evidence as of last night says I'm right. Anti-gay marriage people are not simply anti-gay marriage. They don't want to recognize gay relationships in any form, as the voters of North Carolina voted for last night. They aren't driven by some legal circle-jerk semantic argument on what "marriage" means. They are driven by pure hatred and bigotry.
 
2012-05-09 11:42:32 AM  

EWreckedSean: If It was just about "ew yucky" and "But Jesus says", the numbers of people supporting gay marriage wouldn't have been growing steadily over the last few decades.


I started supporting gay marriage when I realized gay people wanted to marry. It roughly coincided with out-growing the homophobia instilled in me as a youth.

Ask a mature, highly educated and worldly person what they think of this issue and ask a child and you will get a similar answer. Ask a bigot and the answer is always the opposite.
 
2012-05-09 11:43:09 AM  

Cythraul: gilgigamesh: First of all, this ban doesn't add anything more than does a second condom.

Second, demographically speaking, these people are on the wrong side of history, and will be dead soon. What seems like a step backward in reality is just that last desperate gasp before drowning.

Give it five years. These idiots will be but a shameful memory.

If it's a matter of 'waiting for old people to die out for progress to being,' it'll take longer than five years. My generation (Generation 'X') isn't much better than the baby boomers. So it'll be left up to the millenials (spelling), which will take about 15 to 20 years for them to get 'congress aged.'


NC's House Speaker said he expects the ban he supports to repealed in 20 years. He consciously chooses to be on the wrong side of history. His constituency is people who don't plan to be around in 20 years. Link
 
2012-05-09 11:43:10 AM  

s2s2s2: coeyagi: And if you were a flaming gay guy who was denied an appendectomy at a Catholic hospital which could result in your death?

Fnck the catholic church. That is my stance now, and it would be my stance then. They are an evil, hateful organization whose primary reason for existence is to corrupt Christ's message.


So you'd want to kill them for threatening your life for bigoted reasons?
 
2012-05-09 11:43:34 AM  

mrshowrules: so revoke all current Government certifications of all marriages?

Not clear on your point. All Straight/Gay marriages up to today are legitimate but no Government recognized marriages going forward? You aren't making any sense. You seem to be advocating the entire destruction of Government recognized marriage contract as opposed to letting it be tainted by the gays. Do you think NC went to far in the discrimination?


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.
 
2012-05-09 11:43:47 AM  
Oh right. Calling North Carolina voters farktards is the exact moral equivalent of using the electoral system to deny people civil rights because of ignorant bigotry. How could I forget that liberal hate is even more harmful than American Talibanism?
 
2012-05-09 11:44:36 AM  

InmanRoshi: The evidence as of last night says I'm right. Anti-gay marriage people are not simply anti-gay marriage. They don't want to recognize gay relationships in any form, as the voters of North Carolina voted for last night. They aren't driven by some legal circle-jerk semantic argument on what "marriage" means. They are driven by pure hatred and bigotry.


If the argument is to protect proper marriages, it seems to me they would be justified in taking the discrimination much further and arresting gay couples pretending to be "married".
 
2012-05-09 11:44:43 AM  

InmanRoshi: EWreckedSean: OneTimed: EWreckedSean: InmanRoshi: EWreckedSean: Because the institution of marriage is important to a lot of people, and they see gays wanting to call their relationships marriage as somebody trying to change a tradition that shouldn't be changed for their own agenda. I know plenty of people who are perfectly happy with civil unions, and providing gay couples all the rights afforded married couples, but don't see a man and a man's relationship as being a marriage and see no reason to change the laws because gays want it to be called that.

The North Carolina outcome lays waste to this strawman....

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.

Yeah, sorry, you are simply wrong.

Nice refutation

"Nuh-uh!!!"

What else would you like me to say? I laid out a case, he called it a straw man. Outside of using strawman wrong, he didn't do anything to invalidate my point.

I have an entire state of voters who say I'm right. You have a couple of anecdotal "friends" to support your argument.

The evidence as of last night says I'm right. Anti-gay marriage people are not simply anti-gay marriage. They don't want to recognize gay relationships in any form, as the voters of North Carolina voted for last night. They aren't driven by some legal circle-jerk semantic argument on what "marriage" means. They are driven by pure Jesus McJesusness which results in hatred and bigotry.


FTFY
 
2012-05-09 11:44:56 AM  

dr_blasto: LOL:
fark the bigoted motherfarkers voting for Amendment 1. I hope you all get your dicks locked between two Legos.-
Dennis (dmerser91) (@dmerser91) May 08, 2012


My favourite tweet from last night went something like "Hey everyone, let's get as farked up as Amendment 1"
 
2012-05-09 11:44:59 AM  

Scerpes: mrshowrules: so revoke all current Government certifications of all marriages?

Not clear on your point. All Straight/Gay marriages up to today are legitimate but no Government recognized marriages going forward? You aren't making any sense. You seem to be advocating the entire destruction of Government recognized marriage contract as opposed to letting it be tainted by the gays. Do you think NC went to far in the discrimination?

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.


Equal rights is a special interest? Fascinating. I thought it was a founding principle of the United States: "All men are created equal", etc.
 
2012-05-09 11:46:10 AM  

EWreckedSean: Serious Black: EWreckedSean: Because the institution of marriage is important to a lot of people, and they see gays wanting to call their relationships marriage as somebody trying to change a tradition that shouldn't be changed for their own agenda. I know plenty of people who are perfectly happy with civil unions, and providing gay couples all the rights afforded married couples, but don't see a man and a man's relationship as being a marriage and see no reason to change the laws because gays want it to be called that.

In other words, while they're okay with giving same-sex couples legal recognition of their relationship, they're just fine with denying a same-sex couple the freedom of speech to call their relationship a marriage?

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.


If you're asked for what your legal status is when you're, say, applying for insurance benefits, you can't check the box for "married." All you can do is check the box for "in a civil union" or "in a domestic partnership" or whatever they want to call it other than marriage.
 
2012-05-09 11:46:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: Is this the part where liberals say it isn't intolerance calling the whole state a bunch of rednecks because a majority of them voted for a gay marriage ban?


No, this is the part where idiots take twitchy seriously.
 
2012-05-09 11:46:44 AM  

qorkfiend: Scerpes: mrshowrules: so revoke all current Government certifications of all marriages?

Not clear on your point. All Straight/Gay marriages up to today are legitimate but no Government recognized marriages going forward? You aren't making any sense. You seem to be advocating the entire destruction of Government recognized marriage contract as opposed to letting it be tainted by the gays. Do you think NC went to far in the discrimination?

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.

Equal rights is a special interest? Fascinating. I thought it was a founding principle of the United States: "All men are created equal", etc.


It's not equal as long as all married individuals enjoy a special benefit. Adding homosexual marriages to that group doesn't make it equal. It only further discriminates against those who aren't married.
 
2012-05-09 11:46:50 AM  

Fart_Machine: Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: WombatControl: but the idea that they've suffered as much as African-Americans is part of the reason why blacks are so against gay marriage.

Got a citation for that one?

Do you really want to see a picture of his ass?


I'd like him to surprise me and it not be a picture of his ass, but you have a sound point.
 
2012-05-09 11:46:56 AM  

Scerpes: mrshowrules: so revoke all current Government certifications of all marriages?

Not clear on your point. All Straight/Gay marriages up to today are legitimate but no Government recognized marriages going forward? You aren't making any sense. You seem to be advocating the entire destruction of Government recognized marriage contract as opposed to letting it be tainted by the gays. Do you think NC went to far in the discrimination?

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.


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.
 
2012-05-09 11:47:16 AM  

gilgigamesh: First of all, this ban doesn't add anything more than does a second condom..


Except for that whole "marriage between one man and one woman is the ONLY legal domestic union..."

A man and a woman now can't enter into a civil union or domestic partnership in the state of North Carolina.
 
2012-05-09 11:48:21 AM  
Is it really that hard to understand that we're tolerant of love and intolerant of hate?
 
2012-05-09 11:48:49 AM  

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.
 
2012-05-09 11:49:37 AM  

The Name: justtray: when 40% of NC residents still voted against interracial marriage recently

citation?


Can't find it. I admit I just repeated this line from earlier in the thread. Could have been BS.

Looks like it was 1971, so I back away from my "recent" point.
 
2012-05-09 11:49:42 AM  
I love how the right-winger definition of "tolerance" is that THEY get to openly, aggressively, vocally, and legislatively hate and attack others... but no one is allowed to criticize them for it.
 
2012-05-09 11:50:23 AM  

Scerpes: qorkfiend: Scerpes: mrshowrules: so revoke all current Government certifications of all marriages?

Not clear on your point. All Straight/Gay marriages up to today are legitimate but no Government recognized marriages going forward? You aren't making any sense. You seem to be advocating the entire destruction of Government recognized marriage contract as opposed to letting it be tainted by the gays. Do you think NC went to far in the discrimination?

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.

Equal rights is a special interest? Fascinating. I thought it was a founding principle of the United States: "All men are created equal", etc.

It's not equal as long as all married individuals enjoy a special benefit. Adding homosexual marriages to that group doesn't make it equal. It only further discriminates against those who aren't married.


There are all sorts of special benefits extended by the government to particular associations; a corporation leaps to mind. Do corporate tax laws discriminate against those individuals who aren't incorporated?
 
2012-05-09 11:50:44 AM  
Just 36 percent of voters answered correctly that it bans both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. An additional 26 percent thought it banned same-sex marriage alone. Meanwhile, 10 percent of voters thought a "yes" vote on the amendment would legalize rather than ban same-sex marriage, and 27 percent weren't sure what it did.

Link
 
2012-05-09 11:51:21 AM  

s2s2s2: EWreckedSean: I'm all for gay men, it helps the rest of us with our ratio :)

Factor in gay women and you are back at square (al)one.


Is it 50/50. I know some lesbians, but it probably on a 10 to 1 ratio I know of compared to gay male couples.
 
2012-05-09 11:52:11 AM  

dumbobruni: Just 36 percent of voters answered correctly that it bans both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. An additional 26 percent thought it banned same-sex marriage alone. Meanwhile, 10 percent of voters thought a "yes" vote on the amendment would legalize rather than ban same-sex marriage, and 27 percent weren't sure what it did.

Link


Buncha ignorant farktards....
 
2012-05-09 11:52:16 AM  
the impotent rage is astonishing.

and amusing.
 
2012-05-09 11:52:20 AM  

alowishus: SkinnyHead: Generation_D: BTW the public should NEVER be allowed to vote on minority rights. the public will always or almost always vote wrong.

If the public don't get to decide, who does? Some dictator?

[i48.photobucket.com image 640x475]

[i48.photobucket.com image 638x223]


nelsonmuntz.jpg
 
2012-05-09 11:53:10 AM  

InmanRoshi: EWreckedSean: OneTimed: EWreckedSean: InmanRoshi: EWreckedSean: Because the institution of marriage is important to a lot of people, and they see gays wanting to call their relationships marriage as somebody trying to change a tradition that shouldn't be changed for their own agenda. I know plenty of people who are perfectly happy with civil unions, and providing gay couples all the rights afforded married couples, but don't see a man and a man's relationship as being a marriage and see no reason to change the laws because gays want it to be called that.

The North Carolina outcome lays waste to this strawman....

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.

Yeah, sorry, you are simply wrong.

Nice refutation

"Nuh-uh!!!"

What else would you like me to say? I laid out a case, he called it a straw man. Outside of using strawman wrong, he didn't do anything to invalidate my point.

I have an entire state of voters who say I'm right. You have a couple of anecdotal "friends" to support your argument.

The evidence as of last night says I'm right. Anti-gay marriage people are not simply anti-gay marriage. They don't want to recognize gay relationships in any form, as the voters of North Carolina voted for last night. They aren't driven by some legal circle-jerk semantic argument on what "marriage" means. They are driven by pure hatred and bigot ...


No you don't. You have a state where 60% voted a certain way. You have no clue of why that voted that way, and why the minority didn't. Top of with the fact that North Carolina is hardly a cross section of Americans. For you to decide that everybody who is against marriage has to be so for the reasons you've decided is nothing but straight up bigotry.
 
2012-05-09 11:53:55 AM  

colon_pow: the impotent rage is astonishing.

and amusing.


Yes denying people the equal protection of the laws is a real source of humor.
 
2012-05-09 11:54:05 AM  

coeyagi: So you'd want to kill them for threatening your life for bigoted reasons?


Can't you read? I'd want to fnck them. Grudge fnck, to be sure, but fnck none the less.
www.ingbase.com
PROBLEM?
 
2012-05-09 11:54:18 AM  

qorkfiend: There are all sorts of special benefits extended by the government to particular associations; a corporation leaps to mind. Do corporate tax laws discriminate against those individuals who aren't incorporated?


Those opposed to Citizens United would say that they do.
 
2012-05-09 11:57:55 AM  

Serious Black: EWreckedSean: Serious Black: EWreckedSean: Because the institution of marriage is important to a lot of people, and they see gays wanting to call their relationships marriage as somebody trying to change a tradition that shouldn't be changed for their own agenda. I know plenty of people who are perfectly happy with civil unions, and providing gay couples all the rights afforded married couples, but don't see a man and a man's relationship as being a marriage and see no reason to change the laws because gays want it to be called that.

In other words, while they're okay with giving same-sex couples legal recognition of their relationship, they're just fine with denying a same-sex couple the freedom of speech to call their relationship a marriage?

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.

If you're asked for what your legal status is when you're, say, applying for insurance benefits, you can't check the box for "married." All you can do is check the box for "in a civil union" or "in a domestic partnership" or whatever they want to call it other than marriage.


The option on this form isn't the one I want it called so my free speech has been violated? Come on. I don't like that I have to check Class E license when I fill out a form that asks for license type. I call myself a street racer. Therefore my free speech has been violated?
 
2012-05-09 11:58:01 AM  

qorkfiend: justtray: qorkfiend: WombatControl: The more I consider the anti-gay marriage arguments, the more validity I find in them

Which arguments, and what specifically do you find valid about them?

Forget it man, it's been asked. There are no answers, therefore you will get none.

Wombat can usually come up with a decent response. I figured it would be the best chance.


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.

Marriage isn't about property, because you see marriage in societies that either don't recognize property rights or have communal property. Marriage is tied to property rights in a lot of ways, but all of them are incidental.

Marriage, at least civil marriage, isn't about love. When I got married, I didn't have to fill out a form saying that I love my wife. And in many societies through history, love and marriage weren't as tightly integrated as today - many societies still have arranged marriages.

The only definition that really fits with marriage throughout history is the one man/one woman definition, and the only reason society recognizes marriage above other contractual or social relationships is because marriage is so critical to the perpetuaton of both the species and society in general. I agree that marriage is a bedrock institution in society, and if you fark up marriage, you will have a farked up society.

Now, here's where I part company with the anti-gay marriage side. I think that the traditional definition of marriage can be expanded without harm to the institution. Can two gay couples be as good or good enough at parenting to fulfill the important societal role that marriage plays? I think that they can, and I think the evidence agrees with that.

And I think that since homosexuality is biologically driven, and we'll always have a certain percentage of the population that's gay, opening marriage to them will help regularize and strengthen the institution. It will let people contribute to the perpetuation of society in ways that they could not before, which is a net benefit to society.

But, I acknowledge I could be wrong. Maybe allowing gay marriage will erode the institution of marriage and harm society. I don't think that it will, but I have to acknowledge the possibility. And once we recognize gay marriage, it will be near to impossible to de-recognize it in the future. That's why being cautious is so important. If we get this wrong, unlikely as that may be, we may hurt society in ways that will be very difficult to undo.
 
2012-05-09 11:58:18 AM  
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.
 
2012-05-09 11:58:26 AM  
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.
 
2012-05-09 12:00:10 PM  

EWreckedSean: No you don't. You have a state where 60% voted a certain way. You have no clue of why that voted that way, and why the minority didn't. Top of with the fact that North Carolina is hardly a cross section of Americans. For you to decide that everybody who is against marriage has to be so for the reasons you've decided is nothing but straight up bigotry.


True point. That said, the people who are leading the charge against any legal recognition of relationships for same-sex couples are guilty of intentionally wording things in a confusing manner so that people don't know what they're voting for. See this discussion that dumbobruni helpfully linked to earlier.
 
2012-05-09 12:00:56 PM  

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.
 
2012-05-09 12:02:36 PM  

Serious Black: EWreckedSean: No you don't. You have a state where 60% voted a certain way. You have no clue of why that voted that way, and why the minority didn't. Top of with the fact that North Carolina is hardly a cross section of Americans. For you to decide that everybody who is against marriage has to be so for the reasons you've decided is nothing but straight up bigotry.

True point. That said, the people who are leading the charge against any legal recognition of relationships for same-sex couples are guilty of intentionally wording things in a confusing manner so that people don't know what they're voting for. See this discussion that dumbobruni helpfully linked to earlier.


I don't disagree. And I think the most vocal idiots usually are the bible thumping idiots.
 
2012-05-09 12:02:51 PM  

Scerpes: qorkfiend: There are all sorts of special benefits extended by the government to particular associations; a corporation leaps to mind. Do corporate tax laws discriminate against those individuals who aren't incorporated?

Those opposed to Citizens United would say that they do.


"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

The question in Citizens United v. FEC wasn't whether corporations have free speech rights. The question was whether there was a compelling state interest in preventing corruption by restricting the free speech rights of corporations. IMO, they botched that one big-time.
 
2012-05-09 12:03:02 PM  

WombatControl: Maybe allowing slaves to go free will erode the concept of freedom and harm society. I don't think that it will, but I have to acknowledge the possibility. And once we recognize allow them to go free, it will be near to impossible to re-enslave them in the future. That's why being cautious is so important. If we get this wrong, unlikely as that may be, we may hurt society in ways that will be very difficult to undo.


Horseshiat.

You do the right thing and weather any storms.
 
2012-05-09 12:06:00 PM  

s2s2s2: coeyagi: So you'd want to kill them for threatening your life for bigoted reasons?

Can't you read? I'd want to fnck them. Grudge fnck, to be sure, but fnck none the less.
[www.ingbase.com image 500x381]
PROBLEM?


I can read. You said "fnck the Catholic Church". Not "I would fnck the Catholic Church." This begs the question "can't you write?"
 
2012-05-09 12:06:15 PM  

Serious Black: Scerpes: qorkfiend: There are all sorts of special benefits extended by the government to particular associations; a corporation leaps to mind. Do corporate tax laws discriminate against those individuals who aren't incorporated?

Those opposed to Citizens United would say that they do.

"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

The question in Citizens United v. FEC wasn't whether corporations have free speech rights. The question was whether there was a compelling state interest in preventing corruption by restricting the free speech rights of corporations. IMO, they botched that one big-time.


Isn't really the fundamental argument against Citizens United though that people are so stupid that if corporations can run all the ads they want they'll be fooled into doing what the corporations want, so we must protect them from themselves?
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 582 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report