Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25468 Feb 14, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I was merely pointing out the lefts position on things.
How do you know why people voted down gay marriage? Don't you think some of those people prefer tradition, many may have objected because of religious reasons, others felt it would set a bad example for our children?
I'm all for getting government out of marriage. Government didn't belong there in the first place. But even if we did all that, many gays would still be crying about not being able to be married. Why? Because it's not about government goodies in most cases. It's about rejection.
Many gays have this belief that if they force their marriage down our throats, we can no longer resent their relationships. They fail to understand that forcing SSM down our throats will not change our opinion of their marriage or their gender choice. If anything, more people will despise them.
Look at what went on in California. They had Civil Unions for years, and when the subject about SSM comes up, where are those complaints usually launched from? That's right, from the gays in California.
It's really not about any special government right that upsets most gays that want to be married. Most all of their problems can be worked out with a good lawyer. You can will your belongings to whomever you desire. You can grant Power of Attorney to whom you desire. You can leave your home or vacation property to whom you desire after you pass away. Hospital visitation rights? Those are hospital policies and not government policies.
My cousin and her significant other have had a fine relationship for many years. All their papers are in order. At family doings, they don't hold hands, they don't kiss, they don't hug each other. If a stranger is at a party, she introduces her significant other as her friend and nothing more. They've lived together for over 15 years and it's no secret to anybody in our family as to why.
If you aren't gay then how can you speak of what gays want concerning marriage, you are expressing what you think they would want. Not all problems or marriage perks can be worked out with a lawyer, taxes and filing status is one of them. If you are married and are at a family gathering do you exhibit public displays of affection with your spouse?, do you introduce your spouse as your friend?. I suspect she does this in order to not get any grief from other family members not because its what she wants to do. Marriage has became a joke and I cant speak for other gay people but for myself my desire to get married would be based on the benefits and legalities of what marriage brings, I don't need a piece of paper to prove my commitment to my partner.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25469 Feb 14, 2014
kuda wrote:
Indeed I understand the separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of our government and from Wikipedia: "The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity."
I did not bring up President Bush's use of it, but you'll find a rundown of recent (and some not-so-recent) Presidents' use of it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privil... . Does it "bypass congress?" Certainly, which is a reasonable reason to exercise it in the face of a congress held hostage by tea partiers to obstruct every effort of the President.
I think claiming executive privilege and issuing an executive order are different things.

The republicans wanted to delay the ObamaCare mandate and make some changes to the law that would make it more palatable. Obama refused to work with them, and instead ruled like a king by issuing executive orders and making laws that weren't voted on by Congress. Why would he choose to act illegally, when he had the opportunity to act legally?

What do you think the purpose is of having a separation and balance of power? If the president can bypass the representatives of the people, then "we the people" are really just subjects.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25470 Feb 14, 2014
Canton wrote:
What does sex have to do with a political debate? Answer the question I asked earlier. When I was talking about the right wing Conservative Tea Party members, did you honestly think of gay sex as soon as you read the term "Tea Bagger"? If so, which it's not by the way, then you are the only one who thought so, and one has to wonder what it says about you. This conversation is old and tired and you have already dodged the question long enough.

Whenever you call someone a "teabagger", you interject sex into the political debate.

I've answered your question multiple times. Conservatives found out 5 years ago what "teabagger" meant. So yes, I thought you were making a homosexual reference. This conversation would have ended a long time ago, if you had paid attention.
Either way, have a good week end, my conservative friend.
You, too.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25471 Feb 14, 2014
Hey, Little Jeffy .... screwed any corpses lately?
animal control

Lafayette, OH

#25472 Feb 14, 2014
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#25473 Feb 14, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
My cousin and her significant other have had a fine relationship for many years. All their papers are in order. At family doings, they don't hold hands, they don't kiss, they don't hug each other. If a stranger is at a party, she introduces her significant other as her friend and nothing more. They've lived together for over 15 years and it's no secret to anybody in our family as to why.
This is so very sad. A committed couple, that's been together for 15 years, and they still have to walk on eggshells around your family? And you posted this on Valentine's Day?

Since: Jan 13

Nicholasville, KY

#25474 Feb 14, 2014
Kinda like the elephant in the room, if you don't acknowledge it its not there. Why do you think gays are all in your face about this. Its because its not acknowledged or addressed we aren't trying to force our sexuality on anybody we would just like equality and the way things are going we will get it so guess what homophobes we aren't going to go away.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25475 Feb 15, 2014
Rather than being the elephant in the room, it's more like the emperor who has no clothes.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25480 Feb 15, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should make watching Fox or listening to Limbaugh a regular habit of yours. This guy changed the law dozens of times and you on the left still can't figure out how destructive it is. If it was such a good thing for Americans, why change it at all? Why did he need to wait three years to get it going? He should have implemented the law immediately.
We all know the answers to these questions but you are so partisan that you will never confront reality, so I'll give you reality right now. The law is a complete failure, and to move on it immediately the way it was written would have destroyed what's left of the crummy economy we have. It's actually destroying it now, it's just that it's doing so in pieces. Five million lose their healthcare here, a couple million losing their full-time position or their job entirely there, a few million who's premium went up so much they couldn't afford it here......
Now just imagine what would have happened to this country if all these tragedies were to hit us at once. It would have sent us in a depression that nobody alive today has ever seen before.
That's sad, only stupid, idiot fools listen and believe what has been proven time and time and time again to be proven liars.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25481 Feb 15, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I was merely pointing out the lefts position on things.
How do you know why people voted down gay marriage? Don't you think some of those people prefer tradition, many may have objected because of religious reasons, others felt it would set a bad example for our children?
I'm all for getting government out of marriage. Government didn't belong there in the first place. But even if we did all that, many gays would still be crying about not being able to be married. Why? Because it's not about government goodies in most cases. It's about rejection.
Many gays have this belief that if they force their marriage down our throats, we can no longer resent their relationships. They fail to understand that forcing SSM down our throats will not change our opinion of their marriage or their gender choice. If anything, more people will despise them.
Look at what went on in California. They had Civil Unions for years, and when the subject about SSM comes up, where are those complaints usually launched from? That's right, from the gays in California.
It's really not about any special government right that upsets most gays that want to be married. Most all of their problems can be worked out with a good lawyer. You can will your belongings to whomever you desire. You can grant Power of Attorney to whom you desire. You can leave your home or vacation property to whom you desire after you pass away. Hospital visitation rights? Those are hospital policies and not government policies.
My cousin and her significant other have had a fine relationship for many years. All their papers are in order. At family doings, they don't hold hands, they don't kiss, they don't hug each other. If a stranger is at a party, she introduces her significant other as her friend and nothing more. They've lived together for over 15 years and it's no secret to anybody in our family as to why.
Nice copy and editing from some anti-gay site. That's too far above your head for you to come up with.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25482 Feb 15, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is a joke these days, why do you want in it so badly? Better question: if we took all government benefits away from married couples, would you still want to be married?
Most heterosexual couples don't express their intimacy in public. That's the point. It's just that there are some gays that have an "I'll show you" attitude by behaving in a juvenile way. They know they are making others uncomfortable and that's why they act the way they do.
This is exactly what happened to a friend of my sisters. She switched to a woman and got married. My sister felt obligated to accept her wedding invitation, so she attended. Afterwards, she told us how horrible it was. She had to do everything to stop herself from laughing. She was very uncomfortable.
They used to hang around in a little group and go out to lunch, dinner and things like that. She would talk about what her and her "other" would do all the time as if they were your normal couple. It made others feel uncomfortable and they finally broke ties with her. Everybody could accept the way she went but that doesn't mean everybody wants to know about it.
I don't want it right now as I am happy being single but if I wanted to I would like for it to be an option. I understand your cousins respect for her older family members but if was to hazard a guess I think she if she could without any backlash from family introduce her friend as her partner. Why was the wedding horrible?, because she wasn't truly accepting of her friends lifestyle choice?. As far as talking about things her and her partner do and did unless it was concerning sex and I wouldn't want to hear about another friends sex life gay or straight.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25483 Feb 15, 2014
Oh and no I wouldn't want to be married without all the government benefits.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25484 Feb 15, 2014
mutt wrote:
Rather than being the elephant in the room, it's more like the emperor who has no clothes.
No its an elephant
Canton

Canton, OH

#25485 Feb 15, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain this to you: why do you think the left created the term TeaBaggers for Tea Party people? Because it was an insult. Because it was a sexual reference. Because it was a despicable homosexual act.'The problem is that everybody was in on the joke except you. You would call people Teabaggers without even knowing why. You just did what everybody else on your side was doing at the time.
Actually the REAL joke is that I am fully aware of what the term means, but have to wonder why you rightwingers can only picture 2 men doing it. Maybe it has something to do with driving a truck. Either way, you guys are a bunch of Tea Baggers, and if that means a gay sex act to you personally, then have at it.. Gargle them nuts.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25487 Feb 15, 2014
Oopsie....somebody lied about what comes up first when you search Tea Bagger on Bing...No mention of gay in the first 10 sites I see.

http://www.bing.com/search...

So XXX and Mutt are the only two people who immediately think of gay oral sex acts whenever anyone says Tea Bagger. Thanks for clearing that up.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25488 Feb 15, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I think claiming executive privilege and issuing an executive order are different things.
The republicans wanted to delay the ObamaCare mandate and make some changes to the law that would make it more palatable. Obama refused to work with them, and instead ruled like a king by issuing executive orders and making laws that weren't voted on by Congress. Why would he choose to act illegally, when he had the opportunity to act legally?
What do you think the purpose is of having a separation and balance of power? If the president can bypass the representatives of the people, then "we the people" are really just subjects.
Oh yes, those poor crybabies shut down the country because they only wanted to "delay" it after voting more than 40 times to repeal it.
Gee, they just wanted to make some changes to the law. They only filed 721 amendments to the law. 161 of them were passed. Then they voted against the law and cried and claimed that they had nothing to do with it.
For somebody that claims to be so religious, you sure do hate facts that go against that eeny-teeny bandwidth of that what you call a brain operates on.
You fools need to stop crying and confusing religious prosecution for not getting what you want, when you want it. And trying to shove it down everyone else's throats.
Colonel Edward M House

Logan, OH

#25489 Feb 15, 2014
Colonel Edward Mandel House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President 1913 – 1921),
“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that’s you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation ( USA ) to foment this plot against America .”
-Colonel Edward Mandel House
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#25490 Feb 15, 2014
Colonel Edward M House wrote:
Colonel Edward Mandel House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President 1913 – 1921),
“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that’s you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation ( USA ) to foment this plot against America .”
-Colonel Edward Mandel House
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/
If you want to go back that far let's have a look at the military:

www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
Canton

Canton, OH

#25494 Feb 15, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should make watching Fox or listening to Limbaugh a regular habit of yours. This guy changed the law dozens of times and you on the left still can't figure out how destructive it is. If it was such a good thing for Americans, why change it at all? Why did he need to wait three years to get it going? He should have implemented the law immediately.
We all know the answers to these questions but you are so partisan that you will never confront reality, so I'll give you reality right now. The law is a complete failure, and to move on it immediately the way it was written would have destroyed what's left of the crummy economy we have. It's actually destroying it now, it's just that it's doing so in pieces. Five million lose their healthcare here, a couple million losing their full-time position or their job entirely there, a few million who's premium went up so much they couldn't afford it here......
Now just imagine what would have happened to this country if all these tragedies were to hit us at once. It would have sent us in a depression that nobody alive today has ever seen before.
Why do you care so much about poor people having health insurance? It's like gay marriage. Who cares? It doesn't effect my life and who am I to stand directly in the path of someone's right to their pursuit of happiness in this country based on those freedoms? Abortion? Same thing. Although I don't think it is a solution to birth control, who am I to tell a stranger that at 18, she has to hang up her dreams of college or has to raise a child that she may or may not be fit to raise? The church is to blame in a lot of ways. Abstinence is a failed joke, since young people have been having sex since the dawn of humanity. Also, how many abortions are due to a young, single, unwed mothers , living in a small church based community that would treat her like an outcast if she decided to go it on her own and keep an unwanted child? On a strange note, under this "Liberal godless communist regime" of Obama's presidency, abortions are at a low that hasn't been seen in a very long time. Why that is, I have no idea.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#25496 Feb 15, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I think claiming executive privilege and issuing an executive order are different things.
The republicans wanted to delay the ObamaCare mandate and make some changes to the law that would make it more palatable. Obama refused to work with them, and instead ruled like a king by issuing executive orders and making laws that weren't voted on by Congress. Why would he choose to act illegally, when he had the opportunity to act legally?
What do you think the purpose is of having a separation and balance of power? If the president can bypass the representatives of the people, then "we the people" are really just subjects.
How do you think claiming executive privilege and issuing an executive order are different things?

You're distorting everything, as you probably know but others may not. ObamaCare is a law, not a mandate, and the republicans wanted to repeal, not delay, its implementation. President Obama plead with them to design something better, but they came up with nothing, focusing instead on almost fifty efforts to repeal the law. The majority of Americans —“we the people,” so to speak — don’t actually want it repealed, so palatability is not really an issue with more than 50% approval. Of course, a universal single payer healthcare program would certainly be much better by cutting out the for-profit insurance industry middlemen.

Tea partier scripts, like the “imperial president” script that you keep repeating here, are totally disingenuous spins that distort reality in an effort to win arguments with nothing substantial whatsoever to support them. I will not keep responding to the same script, as I quickly lose interest in performing repetitive tasks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What do FEMINISTS think about Brucine Jenner? 1 hr Linda 7
Poll Should President Obama go to Baltimore to fix t... 2 hr Linda 7
Freddie Gray riots in Baltimore 2 hr Duke for Mayor 198
News Food pantry leaving gentrified Short North 2 hr Linda 6
Hooters Columbus locations closing due to defla... 2 hr Linda 201
Interesting that Baltimore happened on Obama's ... 3 hr REAL American 4
Watching the KENTUCKY DERBY 10 hr Seriouslady 7
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]