President May be in Trouble

Carinata said:

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, let's preserve that and call it something else.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Because there were recorded marriages between two men and between two women in ancient China and in the Roman empire.

'Traditional' marriage, in the European sense, was a contract between two men in the exchange of property. That is, the property being one man's daughter, in exchange for money or real estate or other wealth in the form of a dowry.

Nova_C said:

Go and read about the suicides in Anoka-Hennepin and you tell me that there isn't a horrific oppression going on, that we should allow this abuse to go on and on because 'one day, some day, it'll change.'

Click to expand...

Horrific opression? Not in the slightest.

Tragedy? Absolutely.

Horrific opression were the Jim Crow laws during the reconstruction. Kids have ALWAYS been bullied. Some handle it better than others. I don't like what happened, but suicide is a perrmanent solution to a temporary problem.

Nova, you said that you agreed that generations change, but governments need to lead that. Change in what direction? Should the US just practice Sharia law? It is the most widely accepted for of law in the world. Seems like you would be in favor of that, since, it is change that the majority wants.

What? I've been arguing that governments should protect people from the majority. Where do you get this leap to Sharia law from?

In Anoka-Hennepin, the church engaged in a campaign to demonize homosexuals and manipulated the school board into establishing a policy that prevented school faculty from doing anything about anti-gay bullying. When a child who was perceived as gay was assaulted or abused, the school board turned their backs on them, thereby tacitly encouraging the bullying to continue.

That's more than just a tragedy. It should be criminal. And it's oppression. If your only response is to tell those kids just to handle it better, well, that's pretty heartless. :/

Nova_C said:

What? I've been arguing that governments should protect people from the majority. Where do you get this leap to Sharia law from?

In Anoka-Hennepin, the church engaged in a campaign to demonize homosexuals and manipulated the school board into establishing a policy that prevented school faculty from doing anything about anti-gay bullying. When a child who was perceived as gay was assaulted or abused, the school board turned their backs on them, thereby tacitly encouraging the bullying to continue.

That's more than just a tragedy. It should be criminal. And it's oppression. If your only response is to tell those kids just to handle it better, well, that's pretty heartless. :/

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I jsut read enough to see that there were 8 suicided of school age kids.

My mistake about your argument. I was thinking you wanted to government to implement what would be best for the majority. Now that I look back on it, I see where I'm wrong.

Why should the majority cater to a minority? piss off a lot of people so a few people can be happy?

As for calling me heartless. Do you not agree that bullying has always happened? Kids weren't committing suicide in the 60s. Why is it happening so much now? No way you can tell me that kids these days are worse, because that's not true. Kids these days just aren't handling it as well as children in the past did.

Of course there were suicides in the 60s. According to this:

http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#death-rates

it's about double now, with it peaking in the 80s and 90s.

There's a lot of factors to suicide. Some things are better, some are worse. I don't think bullying has changed, but I also don't think the way kids handle it is any different. Kids are kids. When everyone abandons you, though? These kids, not all of whom were gay, though almost all were perceived as gay, were given no support at all. They were pretty told by everyone aside from their parents that they were worthless, that they were not worth protecting. The church in that community said these kids committed suicide because they were gay, that being gay is so against nature that gay people kill themselves. What they said was horrible. What they did was worse. If you can't understand how having so much hate and cruelty directed your way would make one commit suicide, then clearly you had a better childhood than many.

It's perhaps a good thing that it seems so simple to you. Because I sympathize with these kids since I was a hair's breadth from being another statistic when I was a kid. And I can tell you it wasn't a matter of me just handling it.

Exactly my point! Why is is doubled now? It's not the church, because America is much more progressive now than in the 60s.

I'm not saying what the church did was right by any stretch of the imagination. But you are making inferences as to how the children felt, when you don't know. You aren't there. I have heard of kids committing suicide because they were cut from a high school sports team. Should we ban sports now? It's not what the majority wants, but hey, it might keep one kid from killing themselves.

If bullying causes someone to end it all, I wonder how they would have fared in the real world, which is a lot more cold and heartless than high school.

vliberatore said:

Exactly my point! Why is is doubled now? It's not the church, because America is much more progressive now than in the 60s.

I'm not saying what the church did was right by any stretch of the imagination. But you are making inferences as to how the children felt, when you don't know. You aren't there. I have heard of kids committing suicide because they were cut from a high school sports team. Should we ban sports now? It's not what the majority wants, but hey, it might keep one kid from killing themselves.

If bullying causes someone to end it all, I wonder how they would have fared in the real world, which is a lot more cold and heartless than high school.

Click to expand...

So, in your mind, mercilessly bullying and abusing someone is equivalent to getting cut from a sports team. That what these kids went through was no worse.

One town's war on Gay Teens.

I suggest you read that.

vliberatore said:

Exactly my point! Why is is doubled now? It's not the church, because America is much more progressive now than in the 60s.

Click to expand...

Well, I am by no means going to blame the church (as a whole) for the targeting of children for their sexual identity, but to deny it's involvement is just not based in any sort of reality. And while society is more progressive in some ways, that doesn't mean that the church has become much more progressive. And in ways, it's that social change happening around the church that's causing some religious leaders and politicians to be even more outspoken in their message of homophobia.

vliberatore said:

I'm not saying what the church did was right by any stretch of the imagination. But you are making inferences as to how the children felt, when you don't know. You aren't there. I have heard of kids committing suicide because they were cut from a high school sports team. Should we ban sports now? It's not what the majority wants, but hey, it might keep one kid from killing themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, and some people need intervention for other situations. That doesn't in any way undo the need for intervention on what is a glaring American problem (bullying, child suicide, etc..).

vliberatore said:

If bullying causes someone to end it all, I wonder how they would have fared in the real world, which is a lot more cold and heartless than high school.

Click to expand...

This almost sounds like you're implying that suicide is an inevitability for these children (and I do mean CHILDREN). And on top of that, you are applying an adult scenario onto children that have no understanding of life after schooling. And for them (as young growing minds) school is much more difficult than the obstacles faced with an adult perspective, and it is our job to protect their young minds from that type of suffering.

In fact, I think this is outrageously wrong to believe that nurturing these children through school would not have made the difference, or that it was a softness in them that was incapable of handling life's ups and downs. It's dismissing a problem that involves the psyche of children, and that is so dangerous to do. Children can't navigate through the maze by themselves, especially in today's society where there is almost no escape from being preyed on and bullied (whether through social media, texting, etc..), and people need to start waking up to these realities. This is not political (as I'm sure plenty of conservatives also feel the same about the treatment of their children), this is something much more grass roots. And every parent needs to take part in protecting their children, and raising their children in a way that doesn't give them the feeling of power to prey on other children.

I can also tell you, Vliberatore, in my case, the world has been way more loving and accepting than school ever was. I spent the first 15 years of my life friendless and isolated. My life got better, way better, once I left school behind me forever.

The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we have already redefined marriage.

So here is a proposed Cornsnakes.com Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5; Matthew 25:1)
Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

THE TOP 14 BIBLICAL WAYS TO ACQUIRE A WIFE
Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours. (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
Find a prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)
Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. (Moses -- Exodus 2:16-21)
Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. (Boaz -- Ruth 4:5-10)
Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. (Benjaminites -- Judges 21:19-25)
Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you. (Adam -- Genesis 2:19-24)
Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman's hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That's right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife. (Jacob -- Genesis 29:15-30)
Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife. (David -- 1 Samuel 18:27)
Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone. (It's all relative, of course.) (Cain -- Genesis 4:16-17)
Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. (Xerxes or Ahasuerus -- Esther 2:3-4)
When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, "I have seen a ... woman; now get her for me." If your parents question your decision, simply say, "Get her for me. She's the one for me." (Samson -- Judges 14:1-3)
Kill any husband and take HIS wife (Prepare to lose four sons, though). (David -- 2 Samuel 11)
Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It's not just a good idea; it's the law.) (Onana and Boaz -- Deuteronomy or Leviticus, example in Ruth)
Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. (Solomon -- 1 Kings 11:1-3)

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

It's also fun to Google:
How your brain creates God

"Now, I know among the politically correct, you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable." ~Newt Gingrich

I'm completely non-religious......

I can't imagine any law sillier than one that would make suicide illegal..... :crazy01: Well, maybe attempted suicide. Yeah, someone is despondent enough to TRY to commit suicide and you want to slap something else on them to give them incentive to try harder to be successful at it next time.....

Oh the hypocrisy ...

Watch starting at about the 5:00 mark where BHO shares the pain of how badly returning Vietnam veterans were treated.

Yes that is what one would expect from a sitting commander in chief.

Fast forward a few days and he parties at a fund raiser co-hosted by one of the folks that led the protests back then, Marilyn Katz. Whom incidentally was an instrumental supporter of another protester of the times and also friend/contributor to Obama, Bill Ayers. Veterans always appreciate hypocrisy laced tokenism Mr President.

tsst said:

Oh the hypocrisy ...

Watch starting at about the 5:00 mark where BHO shares the pain of how badly returning Vietnam veterans were treated.

Yes that is what one would expect from a sitting commander in chief.

Fast forward a few days and he parties at a fund raiser co-hosted by one of the folks that led the protests back then, Marilyn Katz. Whom incidentally was an instrumental supporter of another protester of the times and also friend/contributor to Obama, Bill Ayers. Veterans always appreciate hypocrisy laced tokenism Mr President.

Click to expand...

I know that none of this surprises you, TSST... What really chaps my hide is the folks that listen to this hogwash and still "fawn" on him, swallowing all his "honeyed words" hook, line and sinker. Blech.

I am so tired of hearing the "fair share" lie from the POTUS. Mr POTUS say what you mean - 'I expect the top 50% to pay even more so I can give even more to those that don't pay any income tax, thus buying myself more votes.'. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:



Mr Obama meet Mr Webster.

fair

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.


:realhot: :angry01: :headbang:

According to Forbes, the top 400 earners in the US pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...rich-are-different-they-pay-a-lower-tax-rate/

I don't think it's as nearly cut and dry as you make it seem.

This is ignoring the slight you made against the poor, but it's become very clear that you really, really don't like poor people.

Nova_C said:

According to Forbes, the top 400 earners in the US pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...rich-are-different-they-pay-a-lower-tax-rate/

I don't think it's as nearly cut and dry as you make it seem.

This is ignoring the slight you made against the poor, but it's become very clear that you really, really don't like poor people.

Click to expand...

Nice try Obama! Care to tell me how I don't like minorities now too because I thnk we should have secure borders.

According to the IRS the effective income tax rate for the bottom 50% is 0%. The actual number is negative as they not only do not pay in but withdrawl cash out. Call it what it is, socialism. Perpetuated by one of the worst POTUS in US history that realizes he cannot run on his record so he resorts to his only out, class/social/race warfare.

My point is absolutely cut and dry. Don't say "fair share" when what you really mean is you want only a portion to pay for EVERYTHING! A fair share would be everyone paying the exact same and receiving the exact same.

Nova_C said:

According to Forbes, the top 400 earners in the US pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...rich-are-different-they-pay-a-lower-tax-rate/

I don't think it's as nearly cut and dry as you make it seem.

This is ignoring the slight you made against the poor, but it's become very clear that you really, really don't like poor people.

Click to expand...

Seems like you're jealous that the top earners in the US use the tax code to benefit themselves. Why should they pay more if they don't have to?

I think you should send me $50 because I need it more than you and you make more money than me. Not going to? You must hate poor people then for wanting to keep the money that you worked for.

Give me a break.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/09/jec_releases_to.html

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'fair'.

The bottom 50% make $30k a year or less and pay 3.3% of taxes. At $30k a year I would be living on the street in Yellowknife. In Calgary, I might, might be able to afford a really bad illegal suite in a slum (Or as close as Calgary has to slums). The fact that 50% of Americans make less than this and you expect them to pay more taxes boggles my mind. How are they supposed to feed their families if you demand they have less?

At 30% tax rate (About what I calculate it would take for every to pay the same rate), 50% of Americans would be living on $20,000 a year or less.

That's ridiculous.