Justices may decide if vendors can sn...

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

There are 2815 comments on the Daily Press & Argus story from Mar 20, 2014, titled Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings. In it, Daily Press & Argus reports that:

When Vanessa Willock wanted an Albuquerque photographer to shoot her same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, she contacted Elane Photography.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Press & Argus.

BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2807 May 6, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with social security is that it was never actuarially sound. The pay-go made sense at the time it was implemented because we had so many more workers than retirees. Initial recipients received a very good deal as their pay outs far exceed what they paid in.
As FICA taxes rose and, therefore, the surplus, it was loaned to Treasury which, of course, made money available to Congress to spend. While the "trust fund" made the system appear sound, it had two deleterious ramifications: 1) Returns on the social security surplus were far lower than if the retirement funds had been invested in the private sector and 2) spending from the general fund was higher and tax collections were lower than they would have been without that giant pot of money.
As a result, baby-boomers have already spent the social security surplus before they retired. And that's the problem we have today: Those social security payments will have to be funded by general revenues as the Treasury borrowings are paid back. So we have to accept higher taxes in order to fulfill those obligations.
Of course, we have some less painful alternatives: Fix military spending at current levels (with no adjustment for inflation) until it comes in-line with our allies and enemies, as a percent of GDP. End the failed war on drugs, which costs billions. Tax marijuana like cigarettes and booze, generating more than enough money for treatment programs that will replace jail for drug abusers.
There are many sensible solutions. Unfortunately, those of us who would benefit from exercising them have highly diluted interests [and little individual power] compared to the people who hold the purse strings of the political system.
You make sense. I agree with just about everything except fixing military spending at current levels with no adjustment for inflation. Very, very bad idea which will, without a doubt in the world, come back to bite us.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#2808 May 6, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> So as usual, you have nothing. Surprise.
The truth hurts huh?
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2809 May 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the liar, your 'name' says it.
I note that you're a liar because I pointed out your lie. You claim I'm a liar because you don't approve of my alias? Really? That's the best you have? And you expect to be taken seriously with that pre-adolescent nonsense?
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2810 May 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth hurts huh?
What would you know about the truth. And I assure you (since it doesn't seem that you would have any idea on the matter), quite the opposite. Is has been said that the truth will set you free. It may be scary for you, but try it sometime.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#2811 May 6, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You make sense. I agree with just about everything except fixing military spending at current levels with no adjustment for inflation. Very, very bad idea which will, without a doubt in the world, come back to bite us.
Meanwhile we have tens of thousands soldiers pretty much doing nothing. Far better to put them to work fixing our countries bridges and other decaying infrastructure. It's an investment in our future.
E Coli

Amherst, MA

#2812 May 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile we have tens of thousands soldiers pretty much doing nothing. Far better to put them to work fixing our countries bridges and other decaying infrastructure. It's an investment in our future.


Oh Thomas? If you're not careful you're gonna get really, really sick from playing in me.....
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2813 May 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile we have tens of thousands soldiers pretty much doing nothing.
I'm going out on a limb here and guess that you've never been in the military and therefore have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

What a shock.

By the way, there are legal restrictions as to what the military may do within the CONUS.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2814 May 6, 2014
Clarifying (because you're not too bright), there are legal restrictions as to what the ACTIVE military may do within the CONUS. (That means Continental United States.)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2815 May 6, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I checked out your site. A "progressive" hit piece so I'm not sure how reliable it is. Would you believe a Glenn Beck piece claiming to be fact?
There are, of course, plenty of facts that can be emphasized, deemphasized, or elided in their entirety. One of the facts, though, is that the "small government" Reagan presided over a great expansion of the federal government. If government employment were growing now as it did in the eighties instead of shrinking, we'd be experiencing quite respectable growth in employment. Heck, if we just stopped laying off government employees, the employment numbers would be tepid instead of disheartening.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#2816 May 6, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I'm going out on a limb here and guess that you've never been in the military and therefore have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
What a shock.
By the way, there are legal restrictions as to what the military may do within the CONUS.
First of all one of the largest military bases in the country is 20 minuets from my home. Secondly, my now deceased partner was a Sargent Major (we moved here for him to attend the Sgt Maj ACademy) and I very fully understand how the military operates. As to regulations they can change.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2817 May 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all one of the largest military bases in the country is 20 minuets from my home. Secondly, my now deceased partner was a Sargent Major (we moved here for him to attend the Sgt Maj ACademy) and I very fully understand how the military operates. As to regulations they can change.
Sorry for the loss of your partner. To get to be a Sgt Major is a no small accomplishment. And no, you do not "fully understand how the military operates." Not even close unless you have actually been in the military. It's like me claiming to "fully understand how gays [think, feel and] operate" just because I have gay friends.

I could be in error, but I believe it is a matter of federal law, not Army Regulations. From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_...

"The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§ 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws."

Since it is not law enforcement, I'll correct myself. It may not fall under this act. Consult somebody more versed in the law. I suggest Snyper. You might better believe him.

Then again, there is the cost of retraining an infantry soldier or cook to construction work, plus the backlash any administration would not unreasonably get from construction unions.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#2818 May 6, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry for the loss of your partner. To get to be a Sgt Major is a no small accomplishment. And no, you do not "fully understand how the military operates." Not even close unless you have actually been in the military. It's like me claiming to "fully understand how gays [think, feel and] operate" just because I have gay friends.
I could be in error, but I believe it is a matter of federal law, not Army Regulations. From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_...
"The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§ 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws."
Since it is not law enforcement, I'll correct myself. It may not fall under this act. Consult somebody more versed in the law. I suggest Snyper. You might better believe him.
Then again, there is the cost of retraining an infantry soldier or cook to construction work, plus the backlash any administration would not unreasonably get from construction unions.
Posse Comitatus Act? Really?

Who are you to assume what I know of military operations? Typical BS posting.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2819 May 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Posse Comitatus Act? Really?
Who are you to assume what I know of military operations? Typical BS posting.
Typical Tommy-poo BS response.

How dare you dishonor your partner and his service with your BS claim! I'm not convinced he would appreciate that. Any claim by you to the contrary will ignored and viewed as just more of your self=serving bullsh!t.

And who am I to expose your continued BS? 1. I served in the military. 2. You're stupid. and 3. You're dishonest.

I am proud to be in complete, unbridled contempt of you now, and forever.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2820 May 7, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
During the Reagan administration, taxes were lowered producing an energized economy which resulted in increased revenue to the federal treasury.
Energized economy? Unemployment went from 6.5% under Carter to 7.5% under Reagan.
Taxes? Mine went up more than ever before under Reagan.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#2821 May 7, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Typical Tommy-poo BS response.
How dare you dishonor your partner and his service with your BS claim! I'm not convinced he would appreciate that. Any claim by you to the contrary will ignored and viewed as just more of your self=serving bullsh!t.
And who am I to expose your continued BS? 1. I served in the military. 2. You're stupid. and 3. You're dishonest.
I am proud to be in complete, unbridled contempt of you now, and forever.
Nice rant, you're really losin it man.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2822 May 7, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I checked out your site. A "progressive" hit piece so I'm not sure how reliable it is. Would you believe a Glenn Beck piece claiming to be fact?


Reagan's tax and spend presidency seems to be a secret to bat-shit crazy conservatives. Were you even alive during his presidency? Check the figures for yourself.... they aren't classified.

Would you believe Rand Paul? http://inthesetimes.com/article/16620/rand_pa...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2823 May 7, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Not really changing the subject. I brought up Holder to illustrate your side's (pseudo and BS progressive) frenzy about Palin which is generally bullsh!t and your avoidance of any criticism of things/people Democrat/liberal/progressive. And there being no reason to eat crow, I'm not doing so. As stated, I am willing to be corrected if I am in error. Not sure her ethics violation is "major" except by those possessed of the aforementioned frenzy. Not sure because your side is known for lying just as much as the Becks and Limbaughs.
How is Eric Holder relevant when we are discussing Sarah Palin's record, about which I might remind you, you were INCORRECT? So who is lying..... it's YOU.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2824 May 7, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Reagan's tax and spend presidency seems to be a secret to bat-shit crazy conservatives. Were you even alive during his presidency? Check the figures for yourself.... they aren't classified.
Would you believe Rand Paul? http://inthesetimes.com/article/16620/rand_pa...
The article doesn't even mention Reagan's increases to social security taxes, which fully offset the tiny middle class tax cut that was part of his giant give-away to the 1%. As I mentioned recently, the social security increase helped make the gigantic deficit appear to be smaller than it actually was. And now the Republican plan is to make up for that by cutting the benefits on social security recipients.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2825 May 7, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice rant, you're really losin it man.
Given how much and how badly you lie, I'm not convinced your "partner" ever existed. And if he ever did exist, he would not be proud of your dishonoring his accomplishments and his memory. Real military people have this honor thing going on. No real Sgt. Major would ever be caught dead with somebody like you. So I'm thinking you just made up this butch partner.

Wouldn't it be a shame if some good ol' boy decided teach you a lesson. Then again, my guess is that you would never have the cojones to spout off in real life. My guess is that you're just some spineless little twerp who keeps himself on the down low and tries to feel like a man with your bluster in here.

Ever notice that when you are presented with facts and cites, you steadfastly ignore the evidence and deflect attention from your dishonesty? So I'm thinking your self proclaimed expertise with miloitary operations is, like so much else about you, is just another BS story you made up in the desperate hope that somebody, anybody, will think you ever had a partner, and that somebody, anybody, will think you had a pair.

Final thought, Tommy poo. Shut up!
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2826 May 7, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
How is Eric Holder relevant when we are discussing Sarah Palin's record, about which I might remind you, you were INCORRECT? So who is lying..... it's YOU.
I said I would admit to being in error if that were shown to be the case. So far, you have made wild claims, but not a single cite for substantiation. Lying? No. But you are.

What a shock.

And of course you'd like to avoid the Eric Holder issue. People like you have to do that.

Knock off the tantrums. They make you look foolish.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 3 min June VanDerMark 10,297
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min Big C 11,797
News Some question gay police as grand marshals of P... 6 min Sneaky Pete 10
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 13 min Rose_NoHo 909
News Barack Obamaa s Bathroom Overreach | By Dr. Mar... 18 min Rainbow Kid 4
News New research says sex education ignores gay and... (Nov '15) 32 min Rose_NoHo 1,423
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 1 hr Caciques a liar 1,998
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr lides 36,162
More from around the web