Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how. - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:48 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

I totaly agree.

We need to move to a flat tax system and do away with all tax exemptions. That way everyone pays their fiar share, including people who make money "under the table" and through the black market (drugs and what not).


To be clear here, when I say flat tax I mean a flat sales tax to cover everything. No more income tax, property tax, gift tax or any other bull@!#$ tax the government has dreamed up over the years. Any thing you buy has the same tax, tobacco, cars, food, anything. Even people who come to this country for vacation and illegally will be helping pay our taxes to an extent.


KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:06 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

I totaly agree.

We need to move to a flat tax system and do away with all tax exemptions. That way everyone pays their fiar share, including people who make money "under the table" and through the black market (drugs and what not).


To be clear here, when I say flat tax I mean a flat sales tax to cover everything. No more income tax, property tax, gift tax or any other bull@!#$ tax the government has dreamed up over the years. Any thing you buy has the same tax, tobacco, cars, food, anything. Even people who come to this country for vacation and illegally will be helping pay our taxes to an extent.
You'd have to tax internet purchases somehow...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:36 PM on j-body.org
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the rich pay most of the taxes in America. Just look at this:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/03/31/irs-collected-24-trillion-in-fy-2007.htm

24 trillion dollars collected in taxes divided by 365 million people equals: 65,753$ per person.

Who wants to pay first?
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:39 PM on j-body.org
Dammit... stupid typo braindead knoxfire...

It's 2.4 trillion, not 24 and so it should be 6,573$ per person.

Never mind me. Imma go work hard so I can buy an education or a calculator...
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:14 PM on j-body.org
Well, this has gone off topic a bit. But hey, do any of these types stay on point? Ever?

If the United States ever legalizes gay marriages, then other "disenfranchised" groups should be allowed to marry whomever they will as well.

The vast majority of folks slobbering in favor of homosexual marriages would have tirade parties against the Mormon polygamists demand for equal protection.

The vast majority of folks slobbering in favor of homosexual marriages would have tirade parties against other weirdo groups, like sisters wanting to get married, or twin brothers for example. Neither pair could produce children, so the only reason they would say no, is becaue it is gross....to them.

Now please, one of you scamper off and google some stats about how the Netherlands or some other doinky blonde country embraces homomarriage and everyone loves it.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:01 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.



IMO churches should not have tax exemption to begin with. Organized religion is a sham.



He shoots, he scores!

Gay marriage isn't going to hurt any of you. I'm for the flat tax.


-Markus
2002 Yellow Cavalier LS Sport
Check it out! --> Flickr

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 3:22 AM on j-body.org
If a church recognizes gay marriage, then I don't have a problem with it.

However, there is one point that doesn't get discussed very often, and that is the fact that part of the whole movement also includes mandating the teachings that gay marriage is OK. This includes Catholic schools. So, just as with the abortion Conscience Clause being wiped away could force a Christian hospital to perform abortions against their belief, so could this force them to teach against their belief.

The freedom of religion is being taken away. Whether you believe religion is a crock of sh!t or not, you have to still accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs. This is one of the founding principles of this country.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 5:49 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

If a church recognizes gay marriage, then I don't have a problem with it.

However, there is one point that doesn't get discussed very often, and that is the fact that part of the whole movement also includes mandating the teachings that gay marriage is OK. This includes Catholic schools. So, just as with the abortion Conscience Clause being wiped away could force a Christian hospital to perform abortions against their belief, so could this force them to teach against their belief.

The freedom of religion is being taken away. Whether you believe religion is a crock of sh!t or not, you have to still accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs. This is one of the founding principles of this country.



c'mon, you know the left doesn't condone in anyone having their own thoughts or beliefs.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 7:52 AM on j-body.org
I think it's Leviticus 20:13 ??????? How can a church condone a gay marriage? Thats like jenna jamason becoming a nun?
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 8:34 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

If a church recognizes gay marriage, then I don't have a problem with it.

However, there is one point that doesn't get discussed very often, and that is the fact that part of the whole movement also includes mandating the teachings that gay marriage is OK. This includes Catholic schools. So, just as with the abortion Conscience Clause being wiped away could force a Christian hospital to perform abortions against their belief, so could this force them to teach against their belief.

The freedom of religion is being taken away. Whether you believe religion is a crock of sh!t or not, you have to still accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs. This is one of the founding principles of this country.


So in the four states that have recognized gay marriage, you can show me right where the law states that Catholic schools have to teach that gay marriage is OK?

In a country where their is freedom of religion, non-religious people should not have religion shoved down their throats. Why is it ok for the evangelical right to say gay marriage is bad, fight it tooth and nail and at the same time say their religions freedom is being taken away when it is allowed? What about the religious freedom of gay people, seems to me their religious freedom was taken away when gay marriage was not recognized by the government. So as long as we follow what you believe everything is ok? You said "you still have to accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs", as long as your not a gay who wants to marry your partner right? Because since they are gay they deserve to be discriminated against?

No law should ever be based on religious doctrine, because there is not a consensus of religious beliefs in this country. Not everyone believes the same things so keep you religious ideals to yourself , what is so hard about that.


KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 11:14 AM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

The vast majority of folks slobbering in favor of homosexual marriages would have tirade parties against the Mormon polygamists demand for equal protection.
The vast majority of folks slobbering in favor of homosexual marriages would have tirade parties against other weirdo groups, like sisters wanting to get married, or twin brothers for example. Neither pair could produce children, so the only reason they would say no, is becaue it is gross....to them..
I wouldn't have a problem with either of these...
And since I know it will be your next point, I also wouldn't have a problem with a man marrying his dog, or a woman marrying her favorite dildo, as long as they don't try to claim them as tax exemptions lol.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

In a country where their is freedom of religion, non-religious people should not have religion shoved down their throats. Why is it ok for the evangelical right to say gay marriage is bad, fight it tooth and nail and at the same time say their religions freedom is being taken away when it is allowed? What about the religious freedom of gay people, seems to me their religious freedom was taken away when gay marriage was not recognized by the government. So as long as we follow what you believe everything is ok? You said "you still have to accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs", as long as your not a gay who wants to marry your partner right? Because since they are gay they deserve to be discriminated against?
Well said.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

No law should ever be based on religious doctrine, because there is not a consensus of religious beliefs in this country. Not everyone believes the same things so keep you religious ideals to yourself , what is so hard about that.
Nobody believes in the same political ideas either, but it's still majority rule.
If someone believes murder is moral, should they be allowed to shoot their landlord?
This is a democracy, so when the majority supports gay marriage, the remainder will be forced to allow it as well.
I do support churches being able to choose whether or not to perform the ceramonies though. But, I do not believe they should receive tax-exempt status.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 11:39 AM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.


Gay Marriage will NOT bring about the end of tax exempt status for Religious groups. NO idea where you got that idea........


that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However mine differs. Only a matter of time IMO.


Your "opinion" is a statement that has NO possibility of happening. ABSOLUTELY 0 ! I have no idea how you can fathom such a ridiculous idea. IT makes me wonder if really, your just using such a horrible excuse due to you homophobia.



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 11:49 AM on j-body.org
Short Hand wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.


Gay Marriage will NOT bring about the end of tax exempt status for Religious groups. NO idea where you got that idea........


that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However mine differs. Only a matter of time IMO.


Your "opinion" is a statement that has NO possibility of happening. ABSOLUTELY 0 ! I have no idea how you can fathom such a ridiculous idea. IT makes me wonder if really, your just using such a horrible excuse due to you homophobia.


and your "opinion" is a statement that has no fact behind. I'd certainly love for you to PROVE your "opinion".

And homophobia? I'm a homophobe because I have an opinion that differs from yours? And better yet, an opinion that has to do with religion, which personally would not affect me at all?

Are you gay or something, or better yet gay and religious that you feel the need to be so offended by an opinion?

To say my opinion has no chance of ever happening is probably one of the more ridiculous things I've heard in a while....Once again, I would love for you to prove that, with fact. Oh wait, there's nothing out there with factual information pertaining to either of our opinions? Interesting.

Edit: and just for you my slow little friend, here's a link you may enjoy reading. You know, how a state attempted to takeover finacials of the Catholic church. But you're probably right, the government(state or federal) would never attempt to mess with anything religion related.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52A7EQ20090311





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, April 24, 2009 11:54 AM


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 11:58 AM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

Well, this has gone off topic a bit. But hey, do any of these types stay on point? Ever?

If the United States ever legalizes gay marriages, then other "disenfranchised" groups should be allowed to marry whomever they will as well.

The vast majority of folks slobbering in favor of homosexual marriages would have tirade parties against the Mormon polygamists demand for equal protection.

The vast majority of folks slobbering in favor of homosexual marriages would have tirade parties against other weirdo groups, like sisters wanting to get married, or twin brothers for example. Neither pair could produce children, so the only reason they would say no, is becaue it is gross....to them.

Now please, one of you scamper off and google some stats about how the Netherlands or some other doinky blonde country embraces homomarriage and everyone loves it.

.


1. The Morman issue is completely different altogether. The LEGAL ramifications of having multiple partners, and what must be done in case of a divorce is touchy. I can't sum up a proper solution, or what SHOULD be done on the issue... (BUT that is a horrible example of minority that is 1/2000th the size of how many homosexuals couples wish to marry.

2. AGAIN your point on sister on sister and such is so small.... HOW many sisters in your country want to marry each other ? Compared to the MILLIONS of gay Americans who WILL want to get married in the future or currently trying to ?

3. We are not having any "tirade parties" over anything.... Last time I checked.. you guys were having them ; )

4. Those "Doinky Blondes" are happier, and live a better quality of life over The Average American. THAT is a fact. They are living that American dream now.





My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 12:48 PM on j-body.org
Once again. I dont see how anyone marrying any inanimate object or animate object has any bearing on my life. If I see a guy dry humping his wife of a fire hydrant Im going to say hey thats weird but really what do I, or anyone, gain from making it illegal.

I just dont see how anyone sees gay marriage as the end of world. It just boggles my mind. I havent seen one good point thats not religious on this subject.

If youll notice the country is split 50/50 on the issue of religion as are the issues of gay marriage and abortion. Maybe its just me but I see a link there. Countries in Europe where church-goers are around 10% most things like thsi arent issues becaus ethe majority isnt religiously driven.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 1:14 PM on j-body.org
TheSundownFire wrote:

Once again. I dont see how anyone marrying any inanimate object or animate object has any bearing on my life. If I see a guy dry humping his wife of a fire hydrant Im going to say hey thats weird but really what do I, or anyone, gain from making it illegal.

I just dont see how anyone sees gay marriage as the end of world. It just boggles my mind. I havent seen one good point thats not religious on this subject.

If youll notice the country is split 50/50 on the issue of religion as are the issues of gay marriage and abortion. Maybe its just me but I see a link there. Countries in Europe where church-goers are around 10% most things like thsi arent issues becaus ethe majority isnt religiously driven.



I think your point about the correlation between issue of religion and issue of gay marriage being 50/50 is spot on. As far as any goods points that are not religious....I don't know if there is one.

I personally don't think there's any reason gay people should not be able to acquire the marriage benefits heterosexual people get. Especially when it comes to people who have been "partners" for umpteen years, and when one passes, they have no legal right to decide on burial, belongings, life insurance benefits etc.

As much as Short Peen would like to call me a homophobe, I have a cousin in this very situation. She has been with her partner for longer than I"ve been alive. I see no reason legally why they should not be allowed the benefits married couples get. Hell, they're more caring and loving than most hetero couples I know.

I do however feel it is not right to force, say, private Catholic schools to teach about it. I know this is not the issue, but someone mentioned it further back, and that I would disagree with.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 1:46 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

So in the four states that have recognized gay marriage, you can show me right where the law states that Catholic schools have to teach that gay marriage is OK?

It has nothing to do with the states who have legalized gay marriage, but it is a new spin off of it being debated. Remember, there is now only one state which has actually passed legislation to legalize gay marriage. The other 3 have done so as a result of a judicial case. Now that the movement is gaining momentum, legislation is being expanded to include other facets of the argument.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

In a country where their is freedom of religion, non-religious people should not have religion shoved down their throats. Why is it ok for the evangelical right to say gay marriage is bad, fight it tooth and nail and at the same time say their religions freedom is being taken away when it is allowed? What about the religious freedom of gay people, seems to me their religious freedom was taken away when gay marriage was not recognized by the government. So as long as we follow what you believe everything is ok? You said "you still have to accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs", as long as your not a gay who wants to marry your partner right? Because since they are gay they deserve to be discriminated against?

Wow you are so off base here it's rediculous.

Are you aware that marriage is a religious institution? That was the whole point of my statement that if a religion recognizes it, then the government should as well. It's not about religious discrimination against gay people, it's about the gay people that want a religious institution that is heterosexual by design. The religious discrimination of the government comes into play when they want to force a religion to adopt things that go against their beliefs.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 6:31 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

As much as Short Peen would like to call me a homophobe, I have a cousin in this very situation. She has been with her partner for longer than I"ve been alive. I see no reason legally why they should not be allowed the benefits married couples get. Hell, they're more caring and loving than most hetero couples I know.


Ill use the two gay guys from my church for an example again. I just saw them tonight while I was working and talked to them for a little but. They have probably been together longer than I have been alive and it would really be a shame to see the assets of one of them be given to a family member who may not even like them as opposed to their partner whos been there for them for years. They arent ungodly immoral people. They probably have lived a more Christian life, charity and service wise, than i have or ever will. I see no reason why them being married would be bad.




Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 7:51 PM on j-body.org
Sundownfire said "They arent ungodly immoral people. They probably have lived a more Christian life..." I'm assuming that you likely go to some unitarian-type church with a "pastor" named Janet.

As far as them not being ungodly and being such mora folks....well....read Romans chapter 1 and get back to me.


Why do we believe it is wrong to lie? Why do we believe it is wrong to cheat on your wife? Why do we believe it is wrong to be disrespectful to one's parents? Why do we believe it is wrong to steal?

Is it in our nature as human beings to be generous to each other, or is it natural to be greedy and selfish?

Does a child have to be taught to lie....or must he be taught to be honest?

Why should a husband love his wife and be devoted to her needs?

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 10:45 PM on j-body.org
marriage is just a word
its definition is different for everyone
and i think fighting over the definition of said word is really the biggest deal breaker in this debate
most people that are against it really just do not want it called marriage
and personally, that is @!#$ stupid
i bet if you look up marriage on a bunch of sites right now, youll get the same amount of definitions as sites you visit



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Friday, April 24, 2009 11:36 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

In a country where their is freedom of religion, non-religious people should not have religion shoved down their throats. Why is it ok for the evangelical right to say gay marriage is bad, fight it tooth and nail and at the same time say their religions freedom is being taken away when it is allowed? What about the religious freedom of gay people, seems to me their religious freedom was taken away when gay marriage was not recognized by the government. So as long as we follow what you believe everything is ok? You said "you still have to accept the fact that people should be allowed to practice their own beliefs", as long as your not a gay who wants to marry your partner right? Because since they are gay they deserve to be discriminated against?

Wow you are so off base here it's ridiculous.

Are you aware that marriage is a religious institution? That was the whole point of my statement that if a religion recognizes it, then the government should as well. It's not about religious discrimination against gay people, it's about the gay people that want a religious institution that is heterosexual by design. The religious discrimination of the government comes into play when they want to force a religion to adopt things that go against their beliefs.
If marriage is exclusively a religious institutions, then why do Atheists get married? Why is there no outcry when they do? Why is there no outcry if I got married and divorced within HOURS of meeting a (opposite sex) hooker in Vegas?

Marriage is a matter of legal status always, and only sometimes a religious thing as well. If you want it religious only, then the government should remove all legal changes as opposed to people just dating - including tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc for all married people. THEN and only then is it a purely religious thing. No, marriage has existed in every culture since the dawn of mankind, despite the religion or lack thereof(USSR and China come to mind... they still marry). Get over that silly notion.

I'd like to know where we get into this "forcing churches to marry gay people" arguments in the first place? I think a church(much like a business) has full right to refuse any wedding for any reason at any time. They can tell Steve and Charles to go to the courthouse down the street and let the secular judge marry them. The problem with this is...what?! Seriously, you'd think someone was putting a gun to the pastor's head. Get real.

Steven Colbert wrote:

Remember everyone, when gay people gain rights... you lose them!


YO3Y - I think Government needs to stay the hell out of religion and religion needs to stay the hell out of Government. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God all that is God's. Its that simple but they both JUST HAVE TO attempt to meddle and exert influence over the other.




Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:31 AM on j-body.org
I also notice that sham called "fair tax" was brought up somehow. I felt the need to make this post separate. Its "fair" as is the "Patriot Act" patriotic. What it REALLY IS - it's a way to shift much off the tax burden off the high income tax payers and unto the lower and mid income tax payers. How could that be? They call this "FAIR tax!!" Its simple. Right now high income people pay most of the taxes paid total - which mostly corresponds with the fact that they also make most of the money too(except that last time I personally ran the numbers, they pay a lower percentage compared to their incomes than do lower, mid, or even the lower part of high class). The fact is that the actual tax rate means nothing once you can afford full time tax attorneys. And yet these same people cry about their taxes... well cry me a river you poor oppressed people.

I'm not gonna advocate taking away all exemptions either - bad idea. How do you think most charities get funded? Exactly.

Now think about this a minute -
1. No matter HOW taxes are collected, this has no bearing on how MUCH taxes must be collected. Just how much must be collected is another debate entirely.
2. Taxing people when they spend doesn't exactly encourage spending as much as saving - saving is smart on a personal level, but spending is what moves the economy. This isn't my main point, but its worth considering.
3. As I've pointed out in numerous threads, lower class citizens spend a greater percentage of their income(pretty much 100 compared to middle class citizens. But upper class and especially the uber-upper class spends a much lower percentage of their income compared to both the middle and lower class. (this is the same reason that stimulating the lower and middle class is the most effective method)

What this means in plain English, is that under a system that tax is collected exclusively when we spend, a much greater percentage of the tax being paid is gonna be paid by those who spend the greatest percentages of their income - in other words the lower and middle class. So its ironic indeed, that this "fair tax" is most popular with the same people now staging "tea parties" in protest against taxes that haven't even been waged yet. Anyone advocating "fair tax" is really advocating much higher taxes for lower and middle class families... and most don't even know it.

Of course upper class people love the idea... and I would too if I was one of them. Has anyone thought to ask why these people would be so eager to ditch a system that offers them so many tax loopholes and deductions for one that is completely devoid of them?" Of course that doesn't make sense until you realize how much they actually would benefit(at everyone else's expense) from the new system.

What I wrote here wasn't anything I found in any article of any website - much to my amazement. What I did here is called "reading between the lines." Everyone needs to try it sometime.

What I'd advocate instead - is the abolishment of sales and property taxes - to be replaced with a tax system 100% funded through income tax. Yes, the income tax system DOES need overhauled(or re-drawn up from scratch) in a big way. But if can be done. Once it is accomplished, my idea becomes much more practical. The only other stepping block, is allocating tax dollars to local governments. Probably the way to do this is that your local government - rather than raise sales tax locally - could also levy taxes against your income(states already do this). If you are worried about them over taxing you, then make sure you elect the right people to local positions. Fail that - just move to a low tax town. This is no different than if they waged high sales taxes really.

Once you have all the taxes out of the way by the time you cash your check - there is less incentive not to buy. The price on the shelf is exactly what you're gonna have to shovel out at the register. This notion promotes spending, and therefore promotes the economy.

BTW - I'm from a high sales tax state, and I assure you its not all that great an idea.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:03 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

If marriage is exclusively a religious institutions, then why do Atheists get married? Why is there no outcry when they do? Why is there no outcry if I got married and divorced within HOURS of meeting a (opposite sex) hooker in Vegas?

Marriage is a matter of legal status always, and only sometimes a religious thing as well. If you want it religious only, then the government should remove all legal changes as opposed to people just dating - including tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc for all married people. THEN and only then is it a purely religious thing. No, marriage has existed in every culture since the dawn of mankind, despite the religion or lack thereof(USSR and China come to mind... they still marry). Get over that silly notion.

It was started as a religious institution. Just because it was adopted as a legal status by the government doesn't make it a legal institution.
bk3k wrote:

I'd like to know where we get into this "forcing churches to marry gay people" arguments in the first place? I think a church(much like a business) has full right to refuse any wedding for any reason at any time. They can tell Steve and Charles to go to the courthouse down the street and let the secular judge marry them. The problem with this is...what?! Seriously, you'd think someone was putting a gun to the pastor's head. Get real.

My point was that they are currently debating a ruling that will require all schools to teach same sex marriage as normal, including religious schools who do not agree with it. In other words, forcing their view on everyone.

As for your second post of idiocy, I will only quote one statement, because it needed correction.

bk3k wrote:

What I did here is called "missing the point." Everyone needs to try it sometime.

No thanks, I'll pay attention and actually use my brain.

Your argument that the lower incomes spend more money than the upper incomes because they spend a higher percentage of their income is ludicrous, and a simple math lesson for you will spell it out:

Someone who is poor, and only has a household income of $30,000 a year, but spends all of it, spends $30,000 per year.

Someone who is "rich", and has a household income of $250,000, but only spends 20% of it, spends $50,000 per year.

This excludes the fact that the house they live in counts as spending money. The more expensive car they drive counts as spending money. The list is endless, but the basic example spells it out pretty clear. Your notion that a flat tax rate is unfair is so far off base it's laughable. The fact that so many people see an equal percentage as unfair is a tribute to the job of creating class envy and warfare from the left. You can't argue that when someone who makes $250,000 a year pays 20% of that, or $50,000, that they didn't pay enough, because the person who earned $30,000 had to pay $6,000. I'm tired of hearing that the people who make that much money still get to keep more in actual dollars, so it's unfair. That is the most socialist view ever. People should be allowed to keep most of the money that they earn. That is what drives people to make more money, which drives the economy.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:24 AM on j-body.org
themarin8r wrote:

marriage is just a word
its definition is different for everyone
and i think fighting over the definition of said word is really the biggest deal breaker in this debate
most people that are against it really just do not want it called marriage
and personally, that is @!#$ stupid
i bet if you look up marriage on a bunch of sites right now, youll get the same amount of definitions as sites you visit

What's really "@!#$ stupid" is gays demanding that the word marriage be used to describe a civil union amongst gays. You are correct when you say "marriage is just a word" but alot of us prefer that word to remain a description of a civil union between persons of the opposite sex. Gays deserve the same rights, just choose another word to describe their union. Demanding to win the word battle is going to cost them their rights war. Before anyone calls me a homophobe, I have several gay and lesbian friends and family members. Hell, my last wife was bi and she had a 'gay of honor' at our wedding. I have had this discussion with most of them and, believe it or not, the majority agree with me. Giving in on the word in order to get the rights is the smart thing to do.






“Please do not be cynical. I hate cynicism. Nobody gets in life exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard, and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.” Conan O'Brien

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:41 AM on j-body.org
Its not so much that homosexuals want to get married, but here's the biggest deal for them: They want society, churches, and Johnny next door to be FORCED by law to recognize their deviant-sinful behaviour as legitimate, normal behaviour. Not just tolerate them, but be forced to embrace it and celebrate it as cute.

Progressive-thinking mommys and daddys might find themselves the parent of a little emo-homosexual, but have to put on a desparate housewives smile mask, and celebrate the reality that their little son-daughter can't grasp the most basic two-piece puzzle ever. After all, what would the other progressive-thinkers on Wysteria lane think if they ostracized their little homosexual offspring?

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search