Fallin blocks same-sex benefits

Sep 17, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Politico

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has ordered the National Guard to stop processing requests for military benefits for same-sex couples, her office confirmed Tuesday, despite a Pentagon directive to do so.

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 115 of115
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a very limited intelligence, obviously?
In the course of political debate or discussion, when one brings up an example ...to illustrate the point that he's trying to make, I would avoid any example that I find flawed....I wouldn't use the USSR Gov't, if we were talking about crime rates, renders my taking that assumption reasonable...
If you are talking on the scale mentioned, and your right on that scale it has happened often.
The difference is simple. No gov't entity is leaving the United States, as the confederacy had. Thus it is not a Federal issue.
Where treason may come in to play is when someone renounces citizenship.
To renounce your citizenship for personal gain is a good example of the wrong reason .
Your comment was so you're a confederate sympathizer. You didn't go into this detailed explanation of your reasoning as you just did. You made a snippy remark with little value and less intelligence. i was, as previously stated responding to your comment that the south succeeded because they believed states rights and local or state governments should be the vehicle for deciding what the people living in that state would do and not a government based in a part of the country that didn't reflect their interests. I merely pointed out that succession on a limited scale was attempted by groups in different states for the same reason. And, never did the people doing so believe they were renouncing their citizenship for personal gain. In fact, they didn't believe they were renouncing anything at all, but striking out to regain what they believed a disintegrating government had taken from them.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Newton wrote:
Fallin for President in 2016!!!
WOO HOO
Of NAMBLA! HOO HAH

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

American_Infidel wrote:
Fallin 2016!!!
Quit farting in a public forum!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I meant FALLIN in the WH 2016!!
You've FALLIN in love with a hemorrhoid. A perfect match.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comment was so you're a confederate sympathizer. You didn't go into this detailed explanation of your reasoning as you just did. You made a snippy remark with little value and less intelligence. i was, as previously stated responding to your comment that the south succeeded because they believed states rights and local or state governments should be the vehicle for deciding what the people living in that state would do and not a government based in a part of the country that didn't reflect their interests. I merely pointed out that succession on a limited scale was attempted by groups in different states for the same reason. And, never did the people doing so believe they were renouncing their citizenship for personal gain. In fact, they didn't believe they were renouncing anything at all, but striking out to regain what they believed a disintegrating government had taken from them.
If asking if you are a confederate sympathizer has hurt your feelings or made you defensive...i am sorry
I understand what you are saying in regards to the what the southerns thought. However as you know just because some one earnestly believes in something, it don't make that something correct. The Confederates where striking at their country at a time when their country needed them most. We know that the south had left the union for economic gain. The economics of the cotton and tobacco industries, which were supported by slavery. With their cause mortally compromised by profiting from slavery their reasoning becomes a false justification.
Much like the aristocracy of the old south pushing for succession to profit from the extension of slavery, those who renounce their citizenship because of taxes are doing so for personal gain.
Renouncing your citizenship for economic gain reeks of Judas and his 30 pieces of silver.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Thats Right wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO you queers and your man boy love club. Leave the little boys alone queer.
There's plenty left for you, Fido.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Sep 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
If asking if you are a confederate sympathizer has hurt your feelings or made you defensive...i am sorry
I understand what you are saying in regards to the what the southerns thought. However as you know just because some one earnestly believes in something, it don't make that something correct. The Confederates where striking at their country at a time when their country needed them most. We know that the south had left the union for economic gain. The economics of the cotton and tobacco industries, which were supported by slavery. With their cause mortally compromised by profiting from slavery their reasoning becomes a false justification.
Much like the aristocracy of the old south pushing for succession to profit from the extension of slavery, those who renounce their citizenship because of taxes are doing so for personal gain.
Renouncing your citizenship for economic gain reeks of Judas and his 30 pieces of silver.
I'm afraid that it was all a little more complex than all that. The southern states did not enjoy equal representation in either house from the very start of the Union. In part, because there were far fewer southern states than northern, and in part because of the 3/5's rule for assigning Representatives to the House.

The Revolutionary War left this country in an enormous economic hole, and many forms of taxes and tariffs were levied against all exports (they particularly enjoyed making England pay for our Revolution against them). Furthermore, many laws and regulations passed in our houses of government favored the North's burgeoning industrial revolution, but actually worked against the agricultural southern states.

The first threat of succession came in 1838 and President Andrew Jackson threw one of his infamous temper tantrums. But a case was fast tracked to the Supreme Court to address the fact that goods being imported to the Southern states by the Northern states were being charged with the same punitive taxes and tariffs as though they were being sent overseas as exports. They were being treated like a foreign country. The court found for the southern states, but it still took several years to faze all those taxes and charges out of the system.

By the 1850's, slavery did become the driving issue, but the hardships between the north and south had been brewing from the very start.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid that it was all a little more complex than all that. The southern states did not enjoy equal representation in either house from the very start of the Union. In part, because there were far fewer southern states than northern, and in part because of the 3/5's rule for assigning Representatives to the House.
The Revolutionary War left this country in an enormous economic hole, and many forms of taxes and tariffs were levied against all exports (they particularly enjoyed making England pay for our Revolution against them). Furthermore, many laws and regulations passed in our houses of government favored the North's burgeoning industrial revolution, but actually worked against the agricultural southern states.
The first threat of succession came in 1838 and President Andrew Jackson threw one of his infamous temper tantrums. But a case was fast tracked to the Supreme Court to address the fact that goods being imported to the Southern states by the Northern states were being charged with the same punitive taxes and tariffs as though they were being sent overseas as exports. They were being treated like a foreign country. The court found for the southern states, but it still took several years to faze all those taxes and charges out of the system.
By the 1850's, slavery did become the driving issue, but the hardships between the north and south had been brewing from the very start.
You are way off base on that first paragraph.
The fact that slaves were counted as 3\5 person was a device that enhanced the power of the slaveholders.
Those 3\5 persons counted in a census would thus increase that states representation in the house. However those 3\5 persons were not free to use their political power to free themselves. The fact is that additional weight was used by the slaveholders against the slaves and the nation.
The slaves were property, with no more political power than a plow horse. With the slaves being counted but not able to vote, clearly that arrangement enhanced the slave owners power.
So the south was given a bit of 'affirmative action' but the way of life and economics that they embraced were so unsound that they still could not win politically nor modernize them selves.

“Jesus is Lord”

Since: Aug 11

Greenwood, Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Lance Winslow wrote:
Durn that pesky ol' Constitution always gettin' in the way of a right wing agenda.
Our lawmaker's in the United States, will face God on judgment day for there part in passing sinful laws in this country FACT!(Leviticus 18:22;20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10....It will not be so funny when the end of time gets here because homosexuality and same-sex marriage will burn in hell FACT!!

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Sep 25, 2013
 
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
<quoted text>Our lawmaker's in the United States, will face God on judgment day for there part in passing sinful laws in this country FACT!(Leviticus 18:22;20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10....It will not be so funny when the end of time gets here because homosexuality and same-sex marriage will burn in hell FACT!!
The divorce rate among heteros is 55%.
You really aren't coming from a strong position regarding marriage and who should be allowed to enter into it.
Perhaps your mommy thumped you a little too hard with that Bible. Brain damage would explain your delusions about sky gods. Sorry for your confusion.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
If asking if you are a confederate sympathizer has hurt your feelings or made you defensive...i am sorry
I understand what you are saying in regards to the what the southerns thought. However as you know just because some one earnestly believes in something, it don't make that something correct. The Confederates where striking at their country at a time when their country needed them most. We know that the south had left the union for economic gain. The economics of the cotton and tobacco industries, which were supported by slavery. With their cause mortally compromised by profiting from slavery their reasoning becomes a false justification.
Much like the aristocracy of the old south pushing for succession to profit from the extension of slavery, those who renounce their citizenship because of taxes are doing so for personal gain.
Renouncing your citizenship for economic gain reeks of Judas and his 30 pieces of silver.
Actually, interviews taken from former confederate soldiers after the civil war showed most were poor whites and had never owned slaves and didn't support the institution of slavery. The most prominent reason given for their joining the confederate army was the government infringing on their rights. The south had evolved completely separate of the north and believed they were being forced to comply with desires of the north for their benefits and interests. They didn't think the desires of the south were being taken into account and rebelled against what they saw as a foreign government demanding and invading their country.

By the way, I don't know where you got the idea I was offended by anything you said. This is just an opinion page after all, not something to get emotionally involved with.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Sep 25, 2013
 
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, interviews taken from former confederate soldiers after the civil war showed most were poor whites and had never owned slaves and didn't support the institution of slavery. The most prominent reason given for their joining the confederate army was the government infringing on their rights. The south had evolved completely separate of the north and believed they were being forced to comply with desires of the north for their benefits and interests. They didn't think the desires of the south were being taken into account and rebelled against what they saw as a foreign government demanding and invading their country.
By the way, I don't know where you got the idea I was offended by anything you said. This is just an opinion page after all, not something to get emotionally involved with.
The insinuation that you had hurt feelings was drawn because you included.. "You have a very limited intelligence, obviously"..And a second insult in the next post. I assumed that you including that indicated a degree of anger.
The majority of the poor white CSA soldiers did not benefit in anyway from slavery. And it may have been a negative in that it held back industrial development. However the reasoning that propelled the southern states into the war was the reasoning of the elite who's primary motive was preserving the economics of slavery.
As I stated before the reasoning that a person has is irrelevant if the cause is corrupted.
The fact that most of the foot soldiers were innocent of the crimes associated with their cause in no way validates that cause.
An exaggeration as an example.
The fact that in 1939 most German soldiers had not participated in atrocities...and that they entered in the army earnestly buying Hitlers bull..Does not validate that bull.
Lamer

Piqua, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Sep 25, 2013
 
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid that it was all a little more complex than all that. The southern states did not enjoy equal representation in either house from the very start of the Union. In part, because there were far fewer southern states than northern, and in part because of the 3/5's rule for assigning Representatives to the House.
The Revolutionary War left this country in an enormous economic hole, and many forms of taxes and tariffs were levied against all exports (they particularly enjoyed making England pay for our Revolution against them). Furthermore, many laws and regulations passed in our houses of government favored the North's burgeoning industrial revolution, but actually worked against the agricultural southern states.
The first threat of succession came in 1838 and President Andrew Jackson threw one of his infamous temper tantrums. But a case was fast tracked to the Supreme Court to address the fact that goods being imported to the Southern states by the Northern states were being charged with the same punitive taxes and tariffs as though they were being sent overseas as exports. They were being treated like a foreign country. The court found for the southern states, but it still took several years to faze all those taxes and charges out of the system.
By the 1850's, slavery did become the driving issue, but the hardships between the north and south had been brewing from the very start.
and do you think we have equal representation now between states? Do you think it is worse or better now? If worse, should those states still be thinking about succeeding?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thats Right wrote:
<quoted text>
No queer, there's not. Even one little boy being molested is one too many. Get help queer, before one of the little boys fathers catches you in the act. Then you won't have to worry about anything anymore.
This crackpot fantasy you've concocted about me reveals more about you than me. Try the Marcus Bachmann "pray-away-the-gay" technique. In the meantime, get a greasy zucchini and have a little fun with yourself.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Sep 25, 2013
 
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
and do you think we have equal representation now between states? Do you think it is worse or better now? If worse, should those states still be thinking about succeeding?
In 1838 (when succession was first considered by the "southern" states), there were 8 southern states and 17 northern states. Southern states are also considerably larger than northern states, so there was a somewhat equal division of land mass, but the northern states had more than double the representation in the senate, and more than triple the representation in the House.

The southern states had very little industry of any kind. Agriculture was nearly the whole of their economy.

By 1861, there were 11 southern states, 5 border states and 20 northern states. But the north, much more urban, industrialized and populated, had nearly five times the populace as the southern states, hence five times the representation in the House.

So, the economic, tax, land use, import and export regs...all the things regulated by the fed always worked in the favor of the industrial states. This generally penalized the block of the southern states, which was the whole southern half of the country as it existed in 1861. This was half of the country being treated like a red headed step child.

Today, that scenario doesn't exist that I know of, and many state Constitutions explicitly prohibit succession. Do some states have less representation? Sure they do...they're called the flyover states, but todays more equal split of agriculture and industry more or less softens the impact.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 115 of115
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••