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.

(Politico)   Obamacare to give benefits to same sex couples' kids. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE   (politico.com) divider line 177
    More: Spiffy, obamacare, same-sex couples, domestic partners, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Office of Personnel Management, health law, personnel management, couples  
•       •       •

3208 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-20 09:46:16 PM
So... same as usual? Pretty sure dependents are dependents, regardless of their guardians' relationships.
 
2012-07-20 09:49:55 PM
This is Mitt's chance to get the base back!

img29.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-20 09:51:31 PM

jjorsett: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

Really, that's your number one priority? The US labor participation rate is only 65%, Europe is going into the toilet, Iran keeps acting like it wants to set world on fire, and gay equality is at the top of your list?

Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law. He bypassed Senate confirmation to make his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by declaring the Senate in "recess" when it was still in session. He bypassed Congress to declare that henceforth illegal alien college students will not only not be deported, they'll be given legal status and a visa. He threw existing bankruptcy law out the window in bailing out the auto companies and screwing over their shareholders, creditors, and dealers. He's given out waivers wholesale to his own healthcare law. The man is governing by fiat, and no doubt some are just thrilled with that, but keep in mind that if he gets away with it, a Republican will be in that office eventually and the fiats will look a whole lot different. You'll miss the rule of law when the lack of it starts going against you, but it'll be too late.


aaannd... that's where I stopped taking you seriously.
 
2012-07-20 10:16:06 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


I've noticed that you are always concerned.
 
2012-07-20 10:29:37 PM

jjorsett: Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law.


[citation needed]

And by "citation," I mean the actual laws he broke rather than talking points you copied and pasted from Fox News.
 
2012-07-20 10:34:26 PM

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?

Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?

It's up to them what they want to be called, and I know for a fact they like to be called same-sex couples. It's in my employee handbook, among other places.


This entire thing was beautiful...
 
2012-07-20 10:47:54 PM

Solid Muldoon: The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.


I can see Scalia writing a flimsy SCOTUS ruling that would make gay marriage illegal nationwide though :(
 
2012-07-21 12:15:23 AM

theknuckler_33: cchris_39: The article doesn't say what qualifies, so we'll all have to wait and see how easily abused it is. You don't know any more than I do.

For the record, I am for a Uniform Domestic Partner Act that would accomodate all of these issues.

What 'abuse' are you concerned about that would be impossible for a straight domestic couple would be unable to perpetuate? Unless you have an answer to that question, then I really have no idea what you could possibly have a problem.


Remember, these are the same types of people who would prefer to end the entire school lunch program because a few kids are getting extra meals; or terminate the entire SNAP program just in case someone is gaming the system. "They should have thought of that before they had kids!" etc.
 
2012-07-21 12:21:36 AM

themindiswatching: Solid Muldoon: The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.

I can see Scalia writing a flimsy SCOTUS ruling that would make gay marriage illegal nationwide though :(


The worse case scenario in any ruling against SSM is that its left up to the States to decide. Try reading up on the Supreme Court sometime.
 
2012-07-21 12:33:57 AM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now...,


Really? Number One? Did you just actually write that while sober? You can't think of any other things going on that might affect larger swaths of our population, including gays? Go kill yourself you single issue, worthless shiat.

And on a more civil note, the country should give health care to all kids in this country, not just those who have parents tangentially related to government business.
 
2012-07-21 01:13:46 AM

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?

Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?

It's up to them what they want to be called, and I know for a fact they like to be called same-sex couples. It's in my employee handbook, among other places.


/slowclap
 
2012-07-21 04:02:50 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now...,

Really? Number One? Did you just actually write that while sober? You can't think of any other things going on that might affect larger swaths of our population, including gays? Go kill yourself you single issue, worthless shiat.

And on a more civil note, the country should give health care to all kids in this country, not just those who have parents tangentially related to government business.


That would be pretty sweet. Medicare for every child until they reach 18. Then they can go on their parents plan until 27. As a parent of two grown kids, it would have been really nice to not have had to worry about the kids getting health care insurance when they were growing up.

This should definitely be done.
 
2012-07-21 04:52:35 AM
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to give health care to all Americans?
 
2012-07-21 05:10:56 AM

theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA


But it's not *really* about following god, because then they would follow the rest of the Levitical laws. It's only that one rule. There are 613 laws in the torrah, where this god hates gays nonsense comes from. But that is the only one that matters. So one sixth of one percent is deathly important to follow, the rest are just too inconvenient.
 
2012-07-21 05:14:27 AM

Gyrfalcon: theknuckler_33: cchris_39: The article doesn't say what qualifies, so we'll all have to wait and see how easily abused it is. You don't know any more than I do.

For the record, I am for a Uniform Domestic Partner Act that would accomodate all of these issues.

What 'abuse' are you concerned about that would be impossible for a straight domestic couple would be unable to perpetuate? Unless you have an answer to that question, then I really have no idea what you could possibly have a problem.

Remember, these are the same types of people who would prefer to end the entire school lunch program because a few kids are getting extra meals; or terminate the entire SNAP program just in case someone is gaming the system. "They should have thought of that before they had kids!" etc.


Don't forget they want to prevent millions of people from voting because one or two may have voted more than once. Of course, stealing votes with diebold machines and robo-calling lies about what day the vote is, still A-ok. Because it's okay to cheat when it benefits their team.
 
2012-07-21 05:49:58 AM

Tickle Mittens: Why doesn't Obama just lash you to plow and whip you!


Go on...
 
2012-07-21 05:51:05 AM

gingerjet: themindiswatching: Solid Muldoon: The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.

I can see Scalia writing a flimsy SCOTUS ruling that would make gay marriage illegal nationwide though :(

The worse case scenario in any ruling against SSM is that its left up to the States to decide. Try reading up on the Supreme Court sometime.


However, it is pretty much guaranteed that whatever way the Supreme Court rules, Scalia WILL write an absolutely lulzy opinion. Obviously I want them to rule in favor of marriage equality for its own sake, but the inevitable Scalia rant would be the cherry on top. In fact, I think we should start taking bets now on how many times he uses the term "Gay Agenda" or "Homosexual Agenda" in with the first letter capitalized, how many paragraphs he spends ranting about the liberal, Homosexual Agenda-controlled law schools and academic elite, and how much time he devotes to proclaiming "told ya so" and quoting his own Lawrence dissent. Seriously, I'm looking forward to marriage equality just for the epic Scalia dissent, I only hope he lives long enough for it to happen.
 
2012-07-21 06:00:20 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now...,

Really? Number One? Did you just actually write that while sober? You can't think of any other things going on that might affect larger swaths of our population, including gays? Go kill yourself you single issue, worthless shiat.

And on a more civil note, the country should give health care to all kids in this country, not just those who have parents tangentially related to government business.


The fark is the matter with you?
 
2012-07-21 06:02:24 AM

Rueened: Tickle Mittens: Why doesn't Obama just lash you to plow and whip you!

Go on...


And Obama is going to outlaw all non-halal bacon!
 
2012-07-21 07:05:14 AM

SilentStrider: THe only outrage is that this wasn't done before.


Pretty much. Folks want to "strengthen families" but only the right kind of families.

Love makes a family, you dolts.
 
2012-07-21 08:54:17 AM

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now...,

Really? Number One? Did you just actually write that while sober? You can't think of any other things going on that might affect larger swaths of our population, including gays? Go kill yourself you single issue, worthless shiat.

And on a more civil note, the country should give health care to all kids in this country, not just those who have parents tangentially related to government business.

The fark is the matter with you?


Something's wrong for me for being able to see that there are many more serious concerns for the country as a whole than your pet issue? Your desires don't trump the nation's needs. We have unnecessary wars getting people killed, unfair trade practices being taken by other nations eroding our economy, 50 million uninsured americans, financial corporations raiding the treasury, rampant outsourcing of jobs, superpacs launching propagandistic attacks on the us population and buying elections, blatant bribery of congressional officials, indefinite detention without charge, the destruction of privacy rights, and a president who claims the authority to murder citizens without trial even when they pose no imminent threat.. but yeah, what's the matter with me for not putting your ability to slap a ring on your boyfriend at the top of the list.
 
2012-07-21 09:10:47 AM

Bluster007: 50 Million uninsured? wow you can really stretch it, like the 10 Million we killed in Iraq.

Sorry but your numbers don't even meet the sniff test buddy

Your Fail is huge, as usual.


Is the CDC not trustworthy enough for you? And I never said we killed 10 million in Iraq.

You might want to do a bit of research before you play that card, you farking idiot.
 
2012-07-21 09:24:36 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: We have unnecessary wars getting people killed, unfair trade practices being taken by other nations eroding our economy, 50 million uninsured americans, financial corporations raiding the treasury, rampant outsourcing of jobs, superpacs launching propagandistic attacks on the us population and buying elections, blatant bribery of congressional officials, indefinite detention without charge, the destruction of privacy rights, and a president who claims the authority to murder citizens without trial even when they pose no imminent threat.. but yeah, what's the matter with me for not putting your ability to slap a ring on your boyfriend at the top of the list.


From that laundry list the candidates only really differ on the gay marriage issue. So for all of your whinging about him putting what you see as an 'unimportant issue' at the top of the list, at least it's something that you can make a difference with by voting.
 
2012-07-21 09:30:34 AM

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate same-sex couples, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require same sex couples to participate.


Regular people? fark you.
 
2012-07-21 09:34:45 AM
Tor_Eckman:

That would be pretty sweet. Medicare for every child until they reach 18. Then they can go on their parents plan until 27. As a parent of two grown kids, it would have been really nice to not have had to worry about the kids getting health care insurance when they were growing up.

This should definitely be done.

What makes kids special?
 
2012-07-21 09:37:12 AM

Shaggy_C: From that laundry list the candidates only really differ on the gay marriage issue.


I thought you were smarter than that.

Bluster007: which has been totally debunked, unless you want to count the self insured, and those who make a decision to not ensure.

Yea, funny about that but the real number is below 5 Million, a 10 x less number, , as you are the idiot, and for that you farked up the entire US health care system


Fantastic example of a bald assertion.
 
2012-07-21 09:38:43 AM

Can't_Think_Of_A_Name: What makes kids special?


You think a 12 year old should have to buy their own insurance?
 
2012-07-21 09:42:38 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I thought you were smarter than that.


You're right, I missed "uninsured Americans" in the list. Yes, they differ on that too. But as far as the outsourcing of jobs, financial firm malfeasance, and murder abroad? Yeah, no.
 
2012-07-21 09:48:43 AM

Shaggy_C: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I thought you were smarter than that.

You're right, I missed "uninsured Americans" in the list. Yes, they differ on that too. But as far as the outsourcing of jobs, financial firm malfeasance, and murder abroad? Yeah, no.


Actually, I thought you weren't a party loyalist.
 
2012-07-21 09:55:19 AM

Can't_Think_Of_A_Name: Tor_Eckman:

That would be pretty sweet. Medicare for every child until they reach 18. Then they can go on their parents plan until 27. As a parent of two grown kids, it would have been really nice to not have had to worry about the kids getting health care insurance when they were growing up.

This should definitely be done.

What makes kids special?


Eating glue, sniffing permanent markers, sticking forks in electrical sockets, running into the fridge?
 
2012-07-21 09:58:22 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Shaggy_C: From that laundry list the candidates only really differ on the gay marriage issue.

I thought you were smarter than that.


No, it's all Savage, Limbaugh and Beck could talk about yesterday. Republicans want to repeal the Bush tax cuts and use the money for social programs. Republicans also want universal single-payer healthcare, and plan to use the savings to fund charities abroad. But they're still insisting on state sanctioned bigotry. It's weird, but true.
 
2012-07-21 10:03:53 AM

Bluster007: and those who make a decision to not ensure.


Those people are uninsured too, dumbass. Doesn't matter if it's voluntary or involuntary, if you don't farking insurance, you're not farking insured!
 
2012-07-21 10:13:26 AM

propasaurus: jjorsett: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

Really, that's your number one priority? The US labor participation rate is only 65%, Europe is going into the toilet, Iran keeps acting like it wants to set world on fire, and gay equality is at the top of your list?

Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law. He bypassed Senate confirmation to make his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by declaring the Senate in "recess" when it was still in session. He bypassed Congress to declare that henceforth illegal alien college students will not only not be deported, they'll be given legal status and a visa. He threw existing bankruptcy law out the window in bailing out the auto companies and screwing over their shareholders, creditors, and dealers. He's given out waivers wholesale to his own healthcare law. The man is governing by fiat, and no doubt some are just thrilled with that, but keep in mind that if he gets away with it, a Republican will be in that office eventually and the fiats will look a whole lot different. You'll miss the rule of law when the lack of it starts going against you, but it'll be too late.

aaannd... that's where I stopped taking you seriously.


You could have stopped at the username.
 
2012-07-21 10:18:15 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Actually, I thought you weren't a party loyalist.


What are you on about now? I'm glad we have a presidential candidate that's finally standing up for gay rights. But we have to keep in mind that it's a single issue, not a party-wide platform.
 
2012-07-21 10:40:02 AM

Bluster007: My Gerbal wants coverage, outrage if he does not get it.

0/10 for Dems again, its like you cant try hard.


whats a Gerbal...you mean Goebbels?...is he your nazi lover?

/derp!
 
2012-07-21 10:48:33 AM

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate same-sex couples, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require same sex couples to participate.


On it's face, i think this is hilarious. However, if i found out you were serious, i'd probably cry.
 
2012-07-21 10:50:04 AM

Bluster007: Your Fail is huge, as usual.



Account created: 2012-07-20
 
2012-07-21 10:51:38 AM

Bluster007: My Gerbal wants coverage, outrage if he does not get it.

0/10 for Dems again, its like you cant try hard.


wtfdidijustread.gif

Remember, kids, bath salts are BAD.
 
2012-07-21 10:53:42 AM

Shaggy_C: I'm glad we have a presidential candidate that's finally standing up for gay rights.


Ok, that's one issue that comes at the expense of the dozens of constitutional and ethical offenses carried out by this administration. Does that balance the scales for you? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like everyone is worse off.
 
2012-07-21 11:05:25 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something's wrong for me for being able to see that there are many more serious concerns for the country as a whole than your pet issue?


Equal protection under the law and ending official discrimination is a "pet issue"? Hahaha, oh wow. I bet you'd have been telling those worthless shiats supporting the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties to kill themselves too, right?
 
2012-07-21 11:15:12 AM

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something's wrong for me for being able to see that there are many more serious concerns for the country as a whole than your pet issue?

Equal protection under the law and ending official discrimination is a "pet issue"? Hahaha, oh wow. I bet you'd have been telling those worthless shiats supporting the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties to kill themselves too, right?


You have to lower yourself to attacking my wording rather than debating substance. It's because you're stupid, and your position is also stupid. The country's predicament is not remotely the same as it was 50 years ago, so your comparison is stupid as well. There's bigger fish to fry, there are bigger threats to our entire society (that includes you too, farkwit) than your ability to marry your boyfriend.
 
2012-07-21 11:15:36 AM

fireside68: propasaurus: jjorsett: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

Really, that's your number one priority? The US labor participation rate is only 65%, Europe is going into the toilet, Iran keeps acting like it wants to set world on fire, and gay equality is at the top of your list?

Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law. He bypassed Senate confirmation to make his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by declaring the Senate in "recess" when it was still in session. He bypassed Congress to declare that henceforth illegal alien college students will not only not be deported, they'll be given legal status and a visa. He threw existing bankruptcy law out the window in bailing out the auto companies and screwing over their shareholders, creditors, and dealers. He's given out waivers wholesale to his own healthcare law. The man is governing by fiat, and no doubt some are just thrilled with that, but keep in mind that if he gets away with it, a Republican will be in that office eventually and the fiats will look a whole lot different. You'll miss the rule of law when the lack of it starts going against you, but it'll be too late.

aaannd... that's where I stopped taking you seriously.

You could have stopped at the username.


True.

Speaking of which, let's welcome our newest troll, with his brand new account.
 
2012-07-21 11:22:12 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something's wrong for me for being able to see that there are many more serious concerns for the country as a whole than your pet issue?

Equal protection under the law and ending official discrimination is a "pet issue"? Hahaha, oh wow. I bet you'd have been telling those worthless shiats supporting the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties to kill themselves too, right?

You have to lower yourself to attacking my wording rather than debating substance. It's because you're stupid, and your position is also stupid.


No, it's because you use stupid wording. Say what you mean and don't use a loaded term like "pet issue" if you aren't going to like someone responding to it. Try to make your point without being an asshole maybe.
 
2012-07-21 11:43:22 AM

Bluster007: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: While anything that furthers ................

Sorry but your numbers don't even meet the sniff test buddy

Your Fail is huge, as usual.

Account created: 2012-07-20 08:36:30


As usual? Talk about Alt Fail! You suck at trolling.
 
2012-07-21 11:48:04 AM

DrBenway: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something's wrong for me for being able to see that there are many more serious concerns for the country as a whole than your pet issue?

Equal protection under the law and ending official discrimination is a "pet issue"? Hahaha, oh wow. I bet you'd have been telling those worthless shiats supporting the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties to kill themselves too, right?

You have to lower yourself to attacking my wording rather than debating substance. It's because you're stupid, and your position is also stupid.

No, it's because you use stupid wording. Say what you mean and don't use a loaded term like "pet issue" if you aren't going to like someone responding to it. Try to make your point without being an asshole maybe.


Him calling it a "pet issue" is the least of his problems - I was more responding to the fact that he called somebody a "worthless shiat" and told him to "kill yourself" for wanting it to be a top priority.

And, of course, he somehow manages to carve out an exception for the Civil Rights Movement because "the country's predicament is not remotely the same as it was 50 years ago" even though there were still a whole host of problems back then (indeed, many of the problems would be right out of the same very list he helpfully posted while trying to tell people about all the things that should take priority over struggles for equality).

I'm getting the sense that his screed isn't motivated by his concern for his country at all, but rather, his own subjective notion that discrimination against gay people isn't really that bad (and, of course, his apparent desire to have everybody else care as little about it as he does).
 
2012-07-21 11:51:19 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Shaggy_C: From that laundry list the candidates only really differ on the gay marriage issue.

I thought you were smarter than that.

Bluster007: which has been totally debunked, unless you want to count the self insured, and those who make a decision to not ensure.

Yea, funny about that but the real number is below 5 Million, a 10 x less number, , as you are the idiot, and for that you farked up the entire US health care system

Fantastic example of a bald assertion.


C'mon BNCW! Fess up, it was entirely you like the troll alt said wasn't it?

It was you all along wasn't it?

YOU have been the over zealous staffer sabotaging health care for Americans for the past forty years haven't you?

HAVEN'T YOU?!
 
2012-07-21 12:04:07 PM

Biological Ali: Him calling it a "pet issue" is the least of his problems - I was more responding to the fact that he called somebody a "worthless shiat" and told him to "kill yourself" for wanting it to be a top priority.


Haha, yeah, it does seem like it's worse that it actually is when you remove the context. Biological Ali, you're a sad sad little man.

Biological Ali: And, of course, he somehow manages to carve out an exception for the Civil Rights Movement because "the country's predicament is not remotely the same as it was 50 years ago" even though there were still a whole host of problems back then (indeed, many of the problems would be right out of the same very list he helpfully posted while trying to tell people about all the things that should take priority over struggles for equality).


I didn't say the country didn't have ANY problems, but if you think the problems back then threatened the nation as seriously as ours do now, then you're really not even being reasonable.

Biological Ali: I'm getting the sense that his screed isn't motivated by his concern for his country at all, but rather, his own subjective notion that discrimination against gay people isn't really that bad


You're absolutely right, it's not that bad, as compared to the other problems which, last time I checked are hurting gay people as well, so yes, the problem affecting the larger group should be the top priority. How in the hell are you not getting this? Are you honestly this dumb?

nyseattitude: YOU have been the over zealous staffer sabotaging health care for Americans for the past forty years haven't you?

HAVEN'T YOU?!


Drat, I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids, and that pesky dog.
 
2012-07-21 12:14:04 PM

DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?

Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?

It's up to them what they want to be called, and I know for a fact they like to be called same-sex couples. It's in my employee handbook, among other places.

There's nothing quite like a blanket generalization to make you sound reasonable and intelligent. My gay lover and I both think so.


Poe or not, this was some fantastic trolling. 10/10, gay lover as a slur was magnificent.
 
2012-07-21 12:18:09 PM

asquian: Poe or not, this was some fantastic trolling. 10/10, gay lover as a slur was magnificent.


I'm thinking gays are just looking for new ways to be offended. Way to live up to those stereotypes!
 
2012-07-21 12:19:46 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something's wrong for me for being able to see that there are many more serious concerns for the country as a whole than your pet issue?

Equal protection under the law and ending official discrimination is a "pet issue"? Hahaha, oh wow. I bet you'd have been telling those worthless shiats supporting the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties to kill themselves too, right?

You have to lower yourself to attacking my wording rather than debating substance. It's because you're stupid, and your position is also stupid. The country's predicament is not remotely the same as it was 50 years ago, so your comparison is stupid as well. There's bigger fish to fry, there are bigger threats to our entire society (that includes you too, farkwit) than your ability to marry your boyfriend.


You are correct, but calling it a pet issue is pretty douchetastic, and you are an idiot if you don't think the words you use matter. Civil rights is not a pet issue.

Not to mention the only reason we can't move forward on these pet issues while still having honest debate on bigger issues is because we have an obstructionist party who blocks everything and has been holding onto their power by dog-whistling the ignorant masses for a generation. We have a party whose idea of a balanced budget involves cutting NPR and Planned Parenthood. Do you think if the democrats gave in on those two items then we'd move right on to all these bigger fish that need frying? Or do you think its more likely that they'd just find another dog whistle to blow while still being obstructionist.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think the problems back then threatened the nation as seriously as ours do now, then you're really not even being reasonable.


What a silly card to play. this time the apocalypse is really here guys, I swear!
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report