Remember when you said, “Hey FFA, no doubt Rodgers is either 1 or 2 on the quarterback rankings. He shows it with every game. I wonder why he hasn’t won a Superbowl yet. Puzzling to say the least.”, even though he (the packers) did win a Super Bowl in 2010?
Also, you falsely accused Rosenblatt of calling bob an “angry little man” even though it was BS who did and Rosenblatt was only holding BS accountable?
I won’t lie – getting an apology from Agent who mistakenly said I called bob an ‘angry little man’, that I wasn’t ‘toning down the rhetoric’, and that I ‘violated my own stance’ would be nice.
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like Agent asked me to do, Agent could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that he made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
I have taken responsibility when proven wrong. Agent NEVER has and he has been proven wrong plenty of times.
I know I would be a dream for your wife, assuming someone was dumb enough to marry you.
October 6, 2015 at 8:05 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
When someone tells me my post is wrong (like when you, bob, said agent didn’t swear so my ‘swearing and personal attack’ post was erroneous), yes, I take personal responsibility for the error.
Agent has NEVER ONCE admitted he misspoke, mistyped or was wrong about anything he’s ever said. He ripped into me for a post I did not make, so yes, Agent should now take responsibility and apologize for his error because I didn’t say what he claimed I did – someone else did.
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like Agent asked me to do, Agent could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that he made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
October 9, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, these Progressive Trolls keep thinking they can beat us down by repeating their same tired posts and their ideology does not permit Common Sense reasoning. We have proved them wrong on thousands of occasions and most of the time, they resort to name calling like “angry little man” or any number of other ugly names. That is the mantra of Progressive Socialists. Very immature and I can envision them rolling on a floor kicking their feet when they are proven wrong. You have done a good job on this subject, but what do you have to show for it?
October 6, 2015 at 12:58 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hey Ron, how about apologizing for voting for Obama twice after doing your extensive due diligence/research? Are you still defending his governance and policies? How about some personal responsibility on your part? How about failing to remember that 500,000 people have left NY state because of high taxation and poor governance of your political leaders? How about Buffalo getting beat on their home turf by the average NY Giants?
Hey Agent, how about you apologize to me for saying I insulted bob when it was really BS who did that? How about acknowledging that I did not call bob an ‘angry little man’, that I was ‘toning down the rhetoric’, and that I didn’t ‘violate my own stance’?
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like you asked me to do, you could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that you made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
Wow, Agent – what an unrelated rant you have going on here! Deflect conversations often? You are really something else.
October 6, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
I and Rosenblatt have proven you wrong.
If you can PROVE, without making any assumptions, that either Senator McCain or Mitt Romney would have been better, based on actual results, I will apologize for voting for President Obama. Your proof must be quantifiable with no room for opinion.
October 6, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt, how about you stop parsing words and copying everyones post before doing your own thing. That is a very bad habit and totally unnecessary.
How about a lesson: I hereby condemn the childish swearing and boorish behavior of any commenter on this forum including myself.
It took 13 times for you to condemn the moniker thieves by parsing words, trying to say you did it when you didn’t.
October 9, 2015 at 10:14 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron, how about you justifying why you voted for Obama twice and voting Democrat in every Presidential election? I could care less about your votes for Republicans in local and state races. Republicans in NY are at best RINO’s so it is about the same as the Democrats in that state.
October 9, 2015 at 10:58 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
agent – how about you learn some reading comprehension? ron already admitted in this comment section that he voted for George Bush in 2000 – he has not voted democrat in EVERY presidential election like you incorrectly claim.
October 9, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
Why do my votes matter to you? It is unAmerican to disrespect someone else’s vote. Have I ever questioned your vote for any particular candidate? No. Would I agree with all of your votes? Highly unlikely, but I respect your right to make your own decision for what ever reason you decide.
It’s nice to know that you care more about me voting for local Republicans more than something else in your life. How flattering.
As I said before, most counties in NY are actually Conservative. It is Liberal NYC that skews everything to the left.
October 9, 2015 at 12:20 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
‘Practically every state has laws protecting voter privacy and secrecy of ballots. The idea is over 1,000 years old and comes from times when threats and violence were how votes were gained. under the Voting Rights Act, it’s illegal for anyone to bully you or use force or threats of force to influence your vote’
considering how agent talks to people who have different beliefs than him, especially with liberal versus conservative beliefs, i see we have not come very far in the past 1,000 years
October 9, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
confused,
Most of us have come a long way. It is Agent who is stuck in the 1st Millennium.
October 9, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Agent is a TOOL! says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent, grow up and take care of your own business…why does Rosenblatt have to be your “moniker guard”?? And Agent is NOT uncommon on an insurance web-site. You are one of the worst up here when it comes to how you speak to others…but when the shoe is on the other foot everyone must stick up for you. You are a joke. Get over yourself and put your big boy pants on. If you for ONE day tried to be a little more kind on this site and stop saying rude, RACIST gibberish, you may find that a lot of people would come around to you and even start to try and understand your thoughts and opinions. Years back when I first started reading the Journal, you actually were one of the people I enjoyed reading the comments from…you have just consistently showed that you are mean, hypocritical and bash people just as bad as they give it back to you…and YOU usually are the aggravator from the get go….examples, the following are things you have said, I am copying and pasting:
1. Hey Gen Y, you are stupid not to bundle and you pay more as a result
2. He is one sick individual and needs help with his Anger Management issue.
3. I feel sorry for your employer as well. You will never achieve success with that attitude
4. UW, your post shows your ignorance
5. Rosenblatt, knock knock, anyone home?
6. I heard you say that you have lots of Muslim friends and they are great and fantastic people. Perhaps you will get some of those 85,000 Syrians that Kerry is bringing in. No doubt some of them will be ISIS and we will see how safe Iowa is then.
Just a few…I could post at least 20 more. On the bright side, you are not quite as bad as Bob and your post make much more sense than his and most importantly are much shorter.
AND FINALLY, yes Rosenblatt, I know “swears and personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” :) I just get over seeing Agent’s post sometimes and cannot help myself. I respect you Rosenblatt.
bob – ron said Fiorina was a liar, not that you shouldn’t vote for her or that she was a worse option or less qualified than any democrats. try to stay on point – nobody here is telling others how to vote (well, except for Agent) – ron simply said Carly also lies, not that you shouldn’t vote for her if you want.
October 6, 2015 at 2:07 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Confused,
No. Just no. So what was the point in his comment? It is clearly to say I don’t know how to vote any better than a democrat who is voting for a liar. It is his same false equivalency statement. I would say it is patently on point to then discuss what the reason to vote actually is.
Also, he has to prove she’s a liar.
October 6, 2015 at 2:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also Confused:
I love how here I am with a huge host of questions as to why to vote democrat, and rather than have the conversation and direct my points on why not to, you would rather make it an intangible retort.
Oh you were finished? Good. Now allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like?
That’s about what your argument amounts to.
October 6, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
I am not trying to sell anything and never said Democrats are a better choice. I just like to point out facts. You are the one trying to convince that the facts are not as important as talking points, ideology and “methodology”.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know a few things about me that I have stated multiple times:
1. I never stated that I am a moderate. I am an Independent. I vote for people, not parties.
2. I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life
3. I plan on voting for the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016 unless some unknown Democrat throws their hat in the ring.
The reason I point out the hypocrisy of the Republican party is because of how disappointing it is to me. In addition, there is far more hypocrisy from the right than the left.
October 6, 2015 at 5:42 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“I am not trying to sell anything and never said Democrats are a better choice. I just like to point out facts. You are the one trying to convince that the facts are not as important as talking points, ideology and “methodology”.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know a few things about me that I have stated multiple times:
1. I never stated that I am a moderate. I am an Independent. I vote for people, not parties.
2. I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life
3. I plan on voting for the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016 unless some unknown Democrat throws their hat in the ring.
The reason I point out the hypocrisy of the Republican party is because of how disappointing it is to me. In addition, there is far more hypocrisy from the right than the left.”
Ah yes, you are just trying to prove that I’m more of a hypocrite than those on the left. That’s all. Got it.
In terms of methodology, really? I just used fact for all my points. I am not the one trying to convince someone anything is more important than methodology.
You making a statement doesn’t make it true. Go ahead and show me the measures. I just showed you several.
By which measure are they more hypocrites?
I eagerly await your reply.
Also: You voted for Obama twice. You are not over the age of 40. I know you didn’t vote Dole. I know you didn’t Vote Bush W. You did not vote for more republican candidates, you’re misleading people to appear independent. An independent does not call republicans the greater hypocrites while voting for them. I am intelligent enough to know you desire to be moderate, like many Catholics, because of an ego.
I know a lot about you, more than you do.
Look at my posts in this area regarding gay marriage.
Did you know even half of them? Had you pondered even half of them?
Yet you dislike republicans in this area. Do you know their position? Were you aware why they are against gay marriage, or did you believe it was zealotry?
Answer the damn questions!
You’re a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan!
October 7, 2015 at 8:30 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob, please remember to factor in non-presidential elections when counting how many democrats and republicans ron has voted for. i’m pretty sure those elections still count, so i don’t know why you only talked about his presidential voting record.
October 7, 2015 at 9:45 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
You said, “Ah yes, you are just trying to prove that I’m more of a hypocrite than those on the left. That’s all. Got it.” FALSE. I did not say you. I was referring to Republican politicians
You said, “By which measure are they more hypocrites?”
1. They are “fiscally conservative” yet every Republican President has overseen deficits, using increasing, and increased the debt.
2. They are for freedom, until someone else’s freedom offends them.
3. They are for less government, until they want the government to regulate marriage, women’s health, and privacy for the sake of protection.
4. They are against higher taxes, until they want to increase taxes on 43% of the country.
5. They believe in freedom of religion, unless it is not a religion they agree with
6. They say government does not create jobs, them criticize Democrats for failing to create jobs.
7. They have no problem wasted trillions on destroying and rebuilding other countries, but want to cut domestic spending.
8. They are against welfare, unless it is corporate welfare that goes to profitable companies who cut jobs and/or send jobs overseas.
You said, “You are not over the age of 40.” FALSE
You said, ” I know you didn’t Vote Bush W.” FALSE, the first time. I did not vote for him in 2004 due to his fiscal irresponsibility. You do not cut taxes in the middle of a war or military conflict, period.
You said, “Yet you dislike republicans in this area. Do you know their position? Were you aware why they are against gay marriage, or did you believe it was zealotry?” They do not like gays, period. You can spin it any way you want, but there is absolutely no legal basis to treat 2 consenting adults different than 2 other consenting adults, period. Try reading the Constitution and tell where it says you can.
Please stop making false assumption about me, my voting record and what I do and do not believe.
You are a bullying and I will treat you like piece of scum that you are.
October 6, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, there is one thing that is cast in concrete and that is the 16 Republicans are all far more qualified to be President than the thug liar Hilliary, the Communist Sanders and the dufus VP Biden who is just as far left as Obama and has been the dutiful foot soldier. Biden is also a pervert as we have seen.
I don’t care much for Jeb because he is a RINO and we need a strong leader with a spine and Jeb is a milquetoast.
Agent – I think swears and/or personal attacks, even when directed towards politicians instead of IJ posters, are immature and have no place on this site.
You’re an adult. Be the change you want to see, let it go, move on.
This has gone on way too long.
Your pride is far too hurt over it.
October 6, 2015 at 3:13 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob – my pride has nothing to do with this. Agent asked me to call out people by name and tell those who swear and make personal attacks that it has no place on this site. I’m doing this per Agent’s request.
October 6, 2015 at 4:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
This has been weeks Rosenblatt, weeks of you saying the same comment as well as Ron.
You’re going on a bullying campaign, literally, demanding Agent make an action or you won’t stop.
How about you knock it off? The two of you are acting like kids.
October 6, 2015 at 4:45 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
you know all about how to bully someone and act like a kid yourself, child
October 6, 2015 at 5:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Confused:
TELLING THESE TWO THAT DEMANDING AGENT TO MAKE A FORMAL APOLOGY IS BULLYING IS NOT AN ACT OF BULLYING.
AND CALLING SOMEONE AN IDIOT IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT IS NOT BULLYING.
GROW UP!
Let’s have a conversation where you aren’t trying to make pointless comments.
I’ll give you the opportunity right now
ADDRESS MY ARGUMENTS.
Don’t want to?
Then you have no point in being here!
My purpose here is to make sense.
October 6, 2015 at 5:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
In fact, being that I’m giving you the chance to make that choice, it means you have an option!
Ron and Rosenblatt are not giving an option. They have been at this for weeks!
They won’t debate anything else. They won’t move on, it’s a bunch of crap.
What I’m telling you, is different. I’m saying knock it off let’s have a conversation. If you’re an idiot in that conversation I’ll call you one.
We will argue on it. We will end it.
You don’t know what the !#%@ bullying is.
October 7, 2015 at 8:00 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob wrote “You don’t know what the !#%@ bullying is.” I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site.
October 7, 2015 at 9:47 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
Agent does have an option, he could just admit that he was wrong and apologize.
Then again, that would not be very Conservative, would it?
October 6, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
Care to define what a communist is and what a democratic socialist is? It doesn’t have to be by the end of the day if you want to do some actual research. I can extend the deadline until the end of the work week.
Twisting definition to try to say democrats are not advocating for movements toward communism is dishonest.
Next question, move on.
October 6, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Planet, I don’t have to do your bidding and do definitions for you. I got my education and know. If you want to know, Google it. Besides that, you wouldn’t get it anyway. Obama/Hilliary/Biden/Sanders=Socialist. That is all you need to know.
October 6, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent says “…you wouldn’t get it anyway”
I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site, Agent.
October 7, 2015 at 8:28 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob,
I haven’t read a comment of yours in probably 3 years, not going to start now. It’s called ignoring the bully.
Agent, I knew you didn’t know the difference.
October 7, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Pretty sure Bob and Agent are dating, they both spend enough time together and have similar views. Congrats, you girls make an excellent couple.
Hillary ’16!
October 6, 2015 at 12:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron,
You are beyond full of crap.
Grow up.
I don’t even have the time to explain to you why. Just learn more about politics.
I’m tired of educating you.
I’ll do one last educating aspect, and this easily one of the best reasons to not vote democrat:
I have mentioned the estate tax many times. So have you. You say we need the revenues somewhere.
However, again, an estate tax at 55% each time a family gets big enough to make their own large business ensure that no single person can build a big business unless they make their company go public. Public companies are under much more scrutiny with discrimination laws, if someone has a better resume (Ivy League school) and you don’t hire them, you could get into trouble. Watch me while I say the combo of discrimination laws, elite schools, and the estate tax ensure an elite class will always get an auto in to a publicly traded company.
The estate tax brings in according to the CBO 8 billion accounting for the capital, businesses, and jobs it destroys a year. This is not a debate, it does have the affect no matter how much we debate the degree of destroying a means to building capital or maintaining capital in a business transfer.
Do you know an easy way to get that? A slight change to income taxes. We do not need the 8 billion in estate taxes.
This is easily a huge reason to never support a democrat.
Also, I have seen the methods to the lies with democrats, it is NOT equal.
For example this planned parenthood mess. They are trying to create a reason for their existence, because the republicans keep saying they don’t have one. They receive public funding, and charge to do abortions (not publicly funded). However, without public funding for the services they try to say only they can do (but they cannot name what they are) they would not have enough money to exist. So they are using public funding to have a brick and mortal company dishonestly, and are then saying we refer people to mammograms. Watch me while I inform you that during the debates in 2012 Obama said if planned parenthood was defunded women would lose access to mammograms (lie).
You see, they need planned parenthood to exist as a voting point. Divide and conquer.
They do this a lot.
Live. Learn Ron!
Women vs men. Church vs gays. This is not an opinion, but rather a fact, in WA state we passed discrimination laws that would essentially create a war among the church and gays, regarding celebratory fees. The republicans had the SAME law, and supported it (oh my Ron, could it be democrats are lying that republicans don’t support these laws, and are INTENTIONALLY trying to create a war and need for themselves by inserting something controversial into the bill?).
This same thing happened with marriages. Republicans acknowledge that gay marriage is not the same is straight. Straight people generally have babies, so a scenario generally exists with a primary and secondary earner. It makes sense to thus have a survivorship clause for social security. For gay people, it does not. There are real reasons to not support gay marriage as having the same needs as gay ones. The majority of republicans support civil unions. But hey, the democrats needed an enemy to the gays.
The same thing happened with the birth control. That didn’t matter at all, considering the cost, and they made a battle of it.
During the election in 2012, I received emails saying that children and elderly would go without a hot meal due to republican cuts. They gave exact numbers as if it was a fact. It was not.
Republicans now against the children and the elderly. Republicans vs blacks (Biden saying they will put you back in chains) republicans vs businesses based on a lie (estate tax) republicans vs hell, the world! Based one a lie (republicans support some degree of changes but are mainly trying to stop democrats from taking over reaching control over businesses in the name of a supposed ideal which they often do) republicans vs Hispanic folks (immigration, because hey, no economy has ever failed under the stresses of letting to many people into it who require assistance)
Then we have the QE and stimulus. Big reasons to not vote democrat. But hey, you believe the last time we debated that those still may have passed with republicans in office!
You aren’t a moderate Ron. Or you would see this.
You wouldn’t see republicans efforts to defund planned parenthood as bad, you would wonder what planned parenthood exists for.
We have abortion clinics. We have clinics. Now the woman goes to two appointments, whereas republicans such as Santorum said they would pass all the funding to women to clinics. This is why planned parenthood is on trial. They are trying to say they have services different than a clinic and are thus needed. They can’t say what those are. They increase costs. And now it’s bad that republicans want to streamline healthcare for women, right?
Meanwhile, the owner of planned parenthood makes half a million a year and is lying about what services planned parenthood provides.
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Grow up!
Should I now insert the more reasons other than why I don’t vote democrat, and estate tax for why I vote republican? I would say estate tax is a huge one.
“Straight people generally have babies, so a scenario generally exists with a primary and secondary earner. It makes sense to thus have a survivorship clause for social security. For gay people, it does not.”
I’m honestly asking for clarification here, bob. Don’t rip into me for things I didn’t ask or what you think I’m trying to say.
Are you saying even though gay people can adopt children and raise them, it still does not make sense to give gay people a similar survivorship clause in social security as straight couples get because ‘the gay couple doesn’t have the same needs as a straight couple’?
If a gay couple legally adopts a child and raises it for 18+ years, the gay couple should not have access to the same survivorship benefits straight couples with children have? Is that what you’re saying?
Being gay and having a child is not something that science will pretty much cause to happen.
Marriage was created for the purpose of care of the children that would come from marriage. Most benefits have this in mind.
Note that this is why gay people are pushing for adoption. To combat what I just said. So they can say “we can have kids too”. However, the overwhelming majority don’t want them.
If you want to make a clause which will give them benefits if they either act as a stay at home parent, or they just choose to let a primary earner earn the money and they stay at home, that is fine.
You said, Marriage was created for the purpose of care of the children that would come from marriage.” No, that would be intercourse.
If that were true, God would only bless married couples with children.
You said, “Note that this is why gay people are pushing for adoption. To combat what I just said. So they can say “we can have kids too”. However, the overwhelming majority don’t want them.” Please cite your source for this garbage.
Do the majority of Gay couples and married couples have children? Are you telling me 51% of gay people have children? Are you telling me the number will ever compete with the amount of children that people will have in a marriage by accident?
The average is 3! Tell me gay couples will have needs comparable to 3 children!
Regarding your Marriage comment:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION. Society structured marriage based on women and children.
This is why there are laws in countries predominantly Islamic in which the brother or any living relative of the dead husband takes care of the wife when a woman is widowed. It is actually a law, and the same law goes for the kids.
Marriage in the courts, in government, was to take care of kids and bind the responsibility of couples who have kids to their wife and husband and children raising. Don’t talk to me about garbage. You just tried to force me into a religious zealot by making the topic about religion.
If a conservative came in here and said marriage was about God you would go straight for their jugular and you know it! And here you are making that religious argument I suppose as a Catholic, as long as it makes me a hypocrite Ron!
Bad ethical debating tactics, REVEALED.
October 6, 2015 at 4:38 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
In other words:
Gay people have to choose to have 3 kids, how many will make that choice over how many people will accidentally have 3 or more?
Birth control is not 100% effective. My first child was born on that, for example. My first technical child who was aborted by my ex was born like that as well, and another from a woman in my history.
From the very act of being married, you will have children. From the very act of being gay and married you won’t.
These benefits were created for the kids and to make their lives livable. It was not about love. It was not about status. The assistance with college for example. EIC credits for mothers, which encourages them to get back into work. There was a need, it gets filled.
Extending all to gays is absurd!
And saying gays encounter risk of pregnancy at all times is absurd! There will NEVER be as much child adoption by gays as there is child birth. NEVER.
And if a gay person decides to live outside their means by adopting to get assistance, that is WRONG.
The point here is NEED. You idiotic child!
October 6, 2015 at 4:55 pm
who taught you the birds and bees? says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob wrote from the very act of being married, you will have children.
my hetero fiance and i don’t want to have kids. 2 hetero married couples we know don’t want kids either. the very act of marriage does not result in children you simpleton
October 6, 2015 at 5:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
And more importantly:
Where will all these adoption babies come from for gay couples?
You think that more gay couples receiving adopted babies, will have children than people who have kids as a whole?
I have to separate these since if I post more than one link I risk it being removed.
Each year 51,000 children are put up for adoption. There are a total of 1.5 million adopted children living currently.
Estimates of the amount of people who are gay vary from 4 to 10% or even higher. Let’s use 4%. There are 12.8 million gay couples at that point.
Even if they adopted ALL the children put up for adoption and currently living, only about one in 11 could have a child.
So the overwhelming majority whether they want to or not, will not have a child. End of story!
This is disregarding that only about 65,000 are living with a gay parent. We would have to assume that these 12.8 million gay people don’t really want kids at that point.
October 6, 2015 at 5:19 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Marriage was originally created as a transaction between two men to purchase a daughter from her father. In fact if the man was wealthy enough, he could purchase several brides. Up until a couple hundred years ago, women had no say in who they ended up with in the vast majority of marriages. Then times changed, and so did our cultural norms regarding marriage.
Nowadays people get married for many reasons, many of whom never want children or are incapable of even having them. Infertile and elderly couples get married all the time, and yet you never heard a peep from conservatives complaining about them getting social security survivorship benefits. Gay couples have just as much of a right to those benefits as elderly and infertile couples.
Bottom line is, consenting adults do not have to justify their reason to marry to you or any other moralist on their high horse.
If you want traditional Biblical marriage, move to Saudi Arabia where you can still buy women from their fathers. Otherwise make peace with the fact that cultures evolve over time and traditions change.
So next time you tell me my common sense is garbage, go @#%@#% yourself.
I’m in insurance. As an underwriter I would call the exposure A (Children) a minor one for gay marriage and the exposure B (Children) for a heterosexual couple not even remotely comparable, and the statement Gay couples do not pose a risk or substantial concern for raising children, would be accurate.
Each year we adopt 50,000 kids, whereas about 3.9 million are born.
Of the 1.5 million kids who will need help, 50,000 go to gays.
Also, there are literal credits when it comes to adopting. Meaning, gay people already get support here.
They don’t need the marital laws in this area.
October 6, 2015 at 5:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
David,
The culture you’re talking about, as you said yourself, was hundreds of years ago.
Besides which, LIE. I won’t go into the debate how wrong you are because my first comment makes there no need.
Current marriage in the U.S. of A was established for parenting of the children.
Where there is need, we give a benefit. I am not putting my moral high horse anywhere, nor have I made a moral argument.
I have made one of need.
Passing on benefits to those who are not child bearers, is insane.
Social security survivor benefits were created for why I said they are.
Marriage and EIC credits exist to get mothers back to work after having kids.
College credits that go to married couples (For example I can get a return of nearly the entire amount to send my wife to college) exists for the same purpose. To get the family out of poverty.
This is about using the government for need.
You tell me why the standard definition should apply exactly the same for gay couples based on need?
Are their needs equal?
Give me a reason.
If you don’t have one, we are affording benefits beyond their need without reason. That is a waste of our money as a nation.
October 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also David –
When someone is an ideologue, they always try to discredit someone based on ideology.
Example: You are trying to say I need to get off my high horse and are focused on morality. It’s cute, but it makes you an ideologue.
October 6, 2015 at 5:49 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
If you truly cared about the government handing out benefits to non-childbearing married couples, then you would have been lobbying to prevent women who have gone through menopause from getting married because they’re no longer fertile. You would force couples who want to get married to undergo a fertility test and sign a vow to have children before the government sanctions their union and provides those marriage benefits.
But you didn’t. No Republicans ever proposed such things. They only tried to frame marriage as being 100% about children because a group they don’t like wanted the same marriage benefits afforded to everyone else.
You’re just desperately searching for a secular reason to keep gay people from getting married, because being in a homosexual relationship is against your religion and you’re clever enough to realize that the government can’t impose your religion on everyone else.
I can rest easy though, knowing that your outdated views have already lost. Gay marriage is the law of the land now. You’re on the wrong side of history and your moaning and complaining about gay people getting married are going to be seen in the same light as the racists who tried to prevent interracial couples from marrying. It makes my heart feel good to see bigotry wither away and die.
October 6, 2015 at 7:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
David – You’re just wrong here. You are trying to make absurd comments.
We don’t need to pass laws regarding sterile couples. The are not the norm.
Marriage laws were created due to how society works, survivor benefits were for survivors who needed benefits. Go look into why they were created. Social security is not that old the debate is still up for review.
There is no “ALL” argument in any scenario.
You’re trying to say because not “ALL” married people have kids it has nothing to do with marriage.
Ok, then what is the purpose of marriage in regards to the government? It has to have one, otherwise what Ron suggested would be the case. It would just be a status in religions.
Provide the purpose. Is it love? I don’t think so. I’m more of a secular person than a religious one. This is what you don’t get. My “kind” are out dated?
The secular agnostic turned Catholic using logical reasoning? No.
This is what we call taking an extreme and using it to derail an argument Dave. That’s what you did.
I put norms. I put the purpose of marriage. That is what it’s for. To provide for the family, including children.
You actually get less tax write offs for being married than if you were both single. Are you aware of this? Do you know why? They figure while alive you need less benefits with two people.
However, if you have kids, you need more, especially if one of the two providers dies.
Government need is the issue. Also, you said:
“f you truly cared about the government handing out benefits to non-childbearing married couples, then you would have been lobbying to prevent women who have gone through menopause from getting married because they’re no longer fertile”
No. I wouldn’t. My issue isn’t non child bearing married couples receiving benefits. My issue is non child bearing couples having access to child bearing couple benefits.
Non bearing couples are the extreme in one case, while the norm for the other.
Rather than passing laws to police child birthing, instead we decided to make it apply to all married couples. It’s really that simple.
Do YOU propose we police child birthing couples instead?
You’re projecting a bit.
October 6, 2015 at 7:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also Dave, I have to say this:
You are an arrogant dumb #@%@#%. Sorry for the insult, but you just labeled all people who are against gay marriage as bigoted while I just gave the true argument.
It is not bigoted, and you don’t get to throw that term out there, while thinking how amazingly advanced you are.
My parents thought they were the future back in the 50’s and 60’s. They thought they were love. This is an issue with youth. They label others as bigots in black and white fights.
I’m talking purple to black to white here. The thing is you have such a polarized world view, you don’t get that.
October 6, 2015 at 7:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Dave,
I realized my one comment doesn’t make sense there and you’re probably too stupid to get it.
My issue is with non child bearing couples by nature (100%) having access as a whole to child bearing benefits.
The most gay couples per year that can have a child is 50,000, as that is how many children are put up for adoption.
When it comes to married heterosexual couples, 3.9 million are born each year. The average family has 3 kids. The need exists.
I also already said to Rosenblatt, that if he wants to extend children benefits to gays who adopt, that is fine. I even said benefits actually exist for that purpose. But to approach that through marital law is absurd.
What you’re essentially saying is gay people deserve equal rights even when they don’t have equal needs, and that marriage laws don’t fill the purpose I said even though they do, and really it’s just a piece of paper (ideological belief) which was created due to people wanting to own their wives hundreds of years ago (ideological lie) and is now dated (as if the purpose it was used for to help kids no longer exists).
*smacks forehead*
October 6, 2015 at 7:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Put even better for you Dave –
How is marital law more fair than civil unions for gay couples?
I am going to love this. I know your answer already. Then they have the “title” of marriage eh? (Ideological Argument).
My question for you is this: Considering gay couples don’t have need for survivor benefits and don’t bear children, would you be ok with a civil union which provided them every benefit they wanted (visitation rights which they already basically have unless a family denies them the ability, but I digress, estate handling which they already have if they write a will, and is best addressed through estate laws and not marital laws, but I digress etc).
Or does it have to be gay marriage? If it does can you explain to me the reason? What difference specifically causes you to believe this way?
Prove to me you’re not an ideologue, and if your reply even once includes the words: Bigotry, oppression, moral high horse, religion, or stories about your believe regarding the origins of marriage to discredit current law and purpose, etc I’m going to probably insult you and just toss your argument down the drain.
October 6, 2015 at 8:06 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Wow Bob, you’re going off on quite the tear in your multiple ranting posts. I must have really gotten under your skin.
Let’s just nip this argument about children and families right in the bud. I don’t give a rat’s ass if a couple wants kids or not. I don’t care if one spouse stays home or they both work. Consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of whether they plan to have kids or not. There are plenty of marriage benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with children, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, not having to testify against your spouse, etc.
Quit pretending to be a moral crusader looking out for women and children. You’re just a bigot who has latched on to a thin justification to deny people you don’t like the same rights everyone else has. End of story. And thank Jesus your way of thought is dying a swift death.
October 7, 2015 at 8:06 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
bob wrote “You are an arrogant dumb #@%@#%” I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site.
October 7, 2015 at 9:56 am
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Reading through your rants again, it appears that you want to carve out some of the benefits of marriage and place them into a separate but equal institution and call it a civil union.
No dice. There are over 1100 federal benefits to marriage, many of which have nothing to do with child rearing whatsoever. It’s stupid to waste time and money creating an entirely new arrangement of rights and responsibilities for gay couples when we already have a system that works perfectly fine: marriage.
You have claimed to be a small government conservative in the past. Why are you willing to waste our tax dollars to create new laws and increase the size and complexity of our government? Why do you want government bureaucrats to pick and choose which marriage benefits to grant to committed gay couples?
Our current Congress can barely agree to keep the government’s lights on and you expect them to get together and craft a massive new institution built entirely for gay people? You’re either being naïve or disingenuous and don’t actually want gay people to have any rights whatsoever. I vote the latter given your fanatical Catholic beliefs.
I know it hurts your poor little feelings that those evil sodomites want to partake in what you consider a holy sacrament but tough titty. Gay marriage is now the law of the land, and hearing religious bigots whine and complain about losing this battle always brings a smile to my face.
October 7, 2015 at 12:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Dave,
I notice rather than address my points you address that I got ticked off at your stupidity, something I’m sure has happened with you regarding conservative ideals.
“There are plenty of marriage benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with children, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, not having to testify against your spouse”
Each of these can be handled through laws not involving marriage.
The primary issue here is if we extend all benefits, we have social security survivor ones.
See my comment to BS. Most families spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this. It ruins their retirement. Do gays have an equal need by nature to this benefit?
We should not extend all even if there were 1000 benefits in common, if we gave benefits putting gays hundreds of thousands of dollars of an advantage just for being married.
“You have claimed to be a small government conservative in the past. Why are you willing to waste our tax dollars to create new laws and increase the size and complexity of our government? Why do you want government bureaucrats to pick and choose which marriage benefits to grant to committed gay couples? ”
Not related to the argument at hand. Also, making separate laws for gay marriage will not increase the size and complexity of government in this scenario any more than passing what you said was the expansion of 1000 laws. Stay on point. This was an attempt of discrediting me by not dealing with the topic at hand.
“I don’t give a rat’s ass if a couple wants kids or not. I don’t care if one spouse stays home or they both work. Consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of whether they plan to have kids or not”
BINGO! I already knew this would be your argument.
You have created this in your head as an ideological injustice.
Any couple should be allowed to be together, unified by the state then? Is that why they should be able to marry whomever they want? Is it a status, to say “I’m married?”.
Here’s something I will tell you, I’m even ok with THAT. I’m ok with them saying they are “married”. However the problem here is in the GOVERNMENT definition of marriage and what it affords.
Hell, I would allow any civil union couple to say they are married.
They still do not have the same needs as pro creating unions. I’ll even call them that instead of married couples if it makes you feel better, because clearly, I butt hurt you due to your ideology more than you did I.
These are not equal need scenarios, and you just said even if they had separate needs, and would end up ahead of procreating laws (unfair) you would support it because reasons! Good job!
October 7, 2015 at 12:37 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron and Rosenblatt:
Grow up. People argue. One is right. One is wrong.
People say insults.
Get on with your lives, we are not in highschool. We are not in some world of equilibrium. Watch the movie. You’ll see what I mean.
That’s what you wand to occur. I’ll inform you to take your equilibrium the next time you’re angry, but I for one embrace being human.
That includes getting pissed off at injustice. That’s not something I’ll let go, because it motivates me to invoke and start change!
So piss off!
October 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Your whole premise that marriage exists solely as an arrangement to provide benefits to couples raising children just isn’t true. If it was, there wouldn’t be hundreds of federal marital benefits that have nothing to do with raising children. It’s just bullshit that you made up in a desperate attempt to find a secular reason to deny gay people from getting married.
There are millions of straight married couples that never want or will have children. In fact, there are now more married couples without children than married couples with them. The number of married couples with children have been declining for decades.
Also, what’s this drivel about gay people getting an advantage? So what? Childless straight couples (which we have now established to be more numerous than couples with children) get the exact same advantage in regards to survivorship benefits. Gay people are entitled to them too.
October 7, 2015 at 1:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ok I have finally learned something from Agent that will change my entire point making process.
Dave, I will admit I argued entirely wrong with you, and made it too long.
Let’s shorten this to two questions and post a link:
Considering the costs of raising a child and children, do you believe that there exists a greater need for procreating families? That is $250,000 dollars a non procreating couple could invest. Even at 5% this would be bout a half a million dollars (the link I provided had two numbers, and only provided an investment return on the higher of the two, rather than the lower. I would prefer to focus on the middle middle class not the higher)
Do you believe it is fair, for someone who will have $500,000 more at retirement, to give them equal social security benefits?
October 7, 2015 at 1:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Also, what’s this drivel about gay people getting an advantage? So what? Childless straight couples (which we have now established to be more numerous than couples with children) get the exact same advantage in regards to survivorship benefits. Gay people are entitled to them too.”
Norm – vs extreme.
Also: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Did you just argue the majority of married couples will NEVER have kids? Your link does not study the same married couples over time. All it shows is more married couples may be waiting to have kids. To say the majority will not have kids is insane!
The process of being married poses the risks of kids.
Now I’m going to do what you did to me: So then, it costs more to separate it out on a case by case basis doesn’t it Dave? So applying for benefits when you have kids doesn’t make sense, as opposed to I don’t know, GIVING THE BENEFITS TO ALL PEOPLE WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KIDS AS A RESULT OF THE EXPOSURE OF SEX.
Norm – Extreme. You actually just tried to argue that marriage does not impact procreation. Are you an idiot?
October 7, 2015 at 1:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also Dave:
Some vs ALL
ALL gay people would get this benefit. We should extend an injustice not based on need, because SOME heterosexual couples have this need?
We should harm our budget, because SOME heterosexual couples have no kids?
I am all for efficiency. In no scenario should ALL gays get these benefits. They don’t need it. That’s a fact. Argue against the need.
I gave an exposure in no scenario would any gay person need this money. NONE.
October 7, 2015 at 2:47 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Are you seriously making an argument about economic fairness Bob? Coming from a person who despises the estate tax? If some people choose not to have children and are able save up an extra $500,000 by retirement age then why would you care? Talk about class warfare.
A person who makes $118,500 per year gets the exact same Social Security benefit as a person who makes $20,000,000 per year. This isn’t fair either, but I have never seen you call for removing the cap on taxable income for Social Security.
There are 2 million children being raised by gay parents right now Bob. Gay people are perfectly capable of having children through surrogacy, artificial insemination or through adoption.
If you don’t want couples who don’t intend on having kids to get married and take advantage of social security benefits then that’s fine. But at least be consistent. Demand that every marriage license come with a fertility test and a pledge to have children. As it stands, gay couples are currently raising hundreds of thousands of children. Your entire argument about providing benefits for raising a family applies to them too.
The norm as of now may be that gay married couples disproportionately have fewer kids than straight ones, but who’s to say that that trend will stay the same forever? Until this year, the majority of gay people were locked out of marriage, a key requirement that most adoption agencies have when deciding where to place children. The times are changing Bob.
October 7, 2015 at 3:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Oy ve Dave…You are so absurd.
I’ll start here since this is your biggest fallacy:
“There are 2 million children being raised by gay parents right now Bob. Gay people are perfectly capable of having children through surrogacy, artificial insemination or through adoption.”
There aren’t even 2 million children adopted period. According to PBS, a fairly liberal organization, it is 65,000 by gay couples.
Even if it were 2 million from gay couples, 3.9 million are born each year, 94% of married couples will eventually have kids.
If ten percent of the U.S. is gay, this is 30 million people, and 15 million couples. Even if all of the 15 million went to adopt kids only 50,000 kids are put up for adoption each year. The exposure is not there. Furthermore, by the very nature of being married you are exposed to kids by default in a procreating union. 94% will have a kid. You cannot derail the argument based on 6%.
“If you don’t want couples who don’t intend on having kids to get married and take advantage of social security benefits then that’s fine. But at least be consistent. Demand that every marriage license come with a fertility test and a pledge to have children. As it stands, gay couples are currently raising hundreds of thousands of children. Your entire argument about providing benefits for raising a family applies to them too. ”
I already said to BS this would be fine with me. I don’t think they deserve it either. But if you’re going to tell me gay people have as much need as a family, they don’t. Normally the social security benefit cannot be transferred. It is only transferable for the surviving family. This is an exception made, not the rule about passing on benefits.
“The norm as of now may be that gay married couples disproportionately have fewer kids than straight ones, but who’s to say that that trend will stay the same forever? Until this year, the majority of gay people were locked out of marriage, a key requirement that most adoption agencies have when deciding where to place children. The times are changing Bob”
Science says it. If only 50,000 kids are available they will never have access to as many kids. Considering 10% of the population at most is gay, and 94% of couples have kids, those 94% will always have more exposure and more kids. But moreover, they will only have so many kids, and in order for adoption to be available, there has to be enough procreating adults to create the kids. It’s math. Try it sometime.
“A person who makes $118,500 per year gets the exact same Social Security benefit as a person who makes $20,000,000 per year. This isn’t fair either, but I have never seen you call for removing the cap on taxable income for Social Security. ”
I know what you want me to say. That if someone pays in they deserve the money. Then you will say the same applies to gay folks. And they do get it. Unless they die. What you want is to pass their benefit to someone else. Which we only do due to need. However, disregarding that, you’re assuming what my response is. Would I support doing away for social security for the upper class? Yes. In fact I told this to Libby in the past. Have Ron help you look it up. He’s found my quotes before I am sure he can help you with this. So…So much for that derailing argument, but it isn’t relevant as it is, as to making this law fair. We can focus on laws on a case by case basis, instead of for ideological concepts and avoiding hypocrisy.
“Are you seriously making an argument about economic fairness Bob? Coming from a person who despises the estate tax? If some people choose not to have children and are able save up an extra $500,000 by retirement age then why would you care? Talk about class warfare. ”
WHY DID I SAY I DON’T LIKE THE ESTATE TAX? Read it! What did I say? I said I would even support getting the measly $8 billion from income taxes from the wealthy. My issue is it harms the ability for a middle class fellow to make a business that competes with corporations. I also mentioned that a person who makes a public company can then put his child through an ivy league school, and have an auto reason to hire him based on his resume. It stops small banks from rising up, whether family owned or not. Business transference and growth is hindered by a huge degree. If we want to tax the individual, tax the individual. I have made this argument before regarding for example the corporate tax. My logic for that is the same. The corporation shares it’s pie with all people in the corp. If you want to get the corporation owner’s, go for the income tax. This is absurd.
You’re trying everything you can to prove me a hypocrite instead of using common sense as to what the needs are of the public.
October 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt – And this same thing should be extended beyond that to other areas which keep in mind the role of marriage in having children.
It is a reasonable debate to say gay marriage should not have extended the same treatment as heterosexual marriage. This is what republicans say, and it is labeled as being against gays.
I hope you are moderate enough to realize that.
The republicans have a legitimate reason to be pro civil union and anti gay marriage, without being against gays themselves.
This is why democrats will first off ask “Do you believe being gay is a sin”. Because then they can disregard their political actions in favor of their religious beliefs.
How about this for a solution? Marriage is recognized by religious institutions only and will have no contractual or legal standing. That way each religious sect can define marriage how they see fit. The law will recognize all couples as civil unions.
Problem not solved Ron. Are you in favor of Polygamy and have the Mormon Church honor all the marriages? That is still going on by the way. The Mormon guy will have one legal wife and 5 or 6 other women in the house who are technically not wives, but serve the same purpose. They have a dozen kids among them all. By the way, I can’t see God blessing a Gay marriage since it is a sin against God.
Hey Agent, how about you apologize to me for saying I insulted bob when it was really BS who did that? How about acknowledging that I did not call bob an ‘angry little man’, that I was ‘toning down the rhetoric’, and that I didn’t ‘violate my own stance’?
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like you asked me to do, you could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that you made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
Rosenblatt, you copied the insult down word for word. Stop doing that and maybe you won’t be misunderstood in the future.
October 6, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
That is what you consider an apology? Instead of taking responsibility for your poor reading comprehension skills, you deflected blame towards me.
Remember when I said “tell me exactly what you want me to post about the moniker thieves and I’ll post it, then we can be done”? Well, besides the fact that I guess you’ll never let it go, here – I’ll help you now like you helped me then.
Type this and we can put this matter to rest: “Rosenblatt, I was wrong when I said you called bob an angry little man and you did not violate your own stance like I originally claimed you did.” Post that sentence and let’s be done with this nonsense.
October 6, 2015 at 4:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
See my above comment regarding this.
If you don’t get your way will you keep doing this?
October 6, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ok Rosenblatt, I am sorry I misunderstood your word parsing copying of another poster calling Bob an angry little man. You know, you should really stop doing that. Don’t do it, period. Just call them out by name under their post and be done with it.
If you need the moniker names of all those who regularly swear and post nasty insults, I will be glad to furnish them. I can think of about 8 offhand who need some serious mental help.
October 7, 2015 at 9:50 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
You said, “If you don’t get your way will you keep doing this?” I am guessing you are also referring to Agent.
October 7, 2015 at 5:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron,
Agent is not mandating you talk a certain way to talk to him.
You are. You’re refusing to talk to him until he apologizes, you’ve been saying the same phrase for weeks.
There is a difference between getting heated and insulting someone, which you want him to stop, and basically stopping all contact and debate for weeks saying a one liner cliche phrase again and again until he does what you want.
October 6, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
What part of “couple” do you not understand? To take it further, a couple consists of 2 consenting adults.
Remember when you said, “Hey FFA, no doubt Rodgers is either 1 or 2 on the quarterback rankings. He shows it with every game. I wonder why he hasn’t won a Superbowl yet. Puzzling to say the least.”, even though he (the Packers) did win a Super Bowl in 2010?
Also, you falsely accused Rosenblatt of calling bob an “angry little man” even though it was BS who did and Rosenblatt was only holding BS accountable.
Rosenblatt put BS’s statement in quotes, which is the proper way to attribute words to someone else. That way everyone knows why he is holding that person accountable, per your request
Are ready to take some personal responsibility and learn some reading comprehension?
Another attempt to make a no win scenario for Agent. If he says yes, he’s against women. If he says no, you win on the false equivalency argument.
Grow up.
And my answer is YES. A child is always a blessing regardless of any actions by the parent.
Is a child less of a blessing if the father is a dead beat? If he leaves? Why does this change if he is a rapist?
October 6, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Gay couples having sex is also a sin against God. Any Christian preacher will tell you that. You should have figured that out by now.
October 6, 2015 at 7:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
That was a trap for you. Don’t fall for it. He wanted you to make comments like the sinful behavior of gays.
That way he can call you a zealot.
I’m really tired of his behavior.
October 7, 2015 at 8:33 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
I see your comment about homosexual acts. You do realize those exact same acts do happen in a heterosexual relationship, too, correct?
October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Judging by Agent’s general demeanor, I am guessing that No, he has no idea what acts take place in any sort of relationship. The IJ can barely stand him, much less another human being.
And Bob, go kick rocks bro. Do you even lift?
October 7, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Stan,
Do you even lift? Hilarious! I’m pretty sure not too many out here will get that. Awesome!
October 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
That does not solve all problems. Marriage as I’m talking about it is legal code, and tax benefits, and sorts afforded therein.
Taking the definition and making it religious…Is what you fight against and call people zealots regarding.
Planet, we know you don’t have a problem with Adam & Steve or any other deviant behavior. You should ask your pastor Mike what the Bible has to say about homosexual behavior. If he is one of those tolerant pastors, he is part of the problem, not the solution.
Nobody is endorsing deviant behavior. This is strictly a legal issue. Besides, deviant and moral are relative terms, and have no place in the law. Tell me where those terms are in the Constitution.
October 6, 2015 at 4:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Here’s the thing:
In your mind you will never give republicans credit even when they are right.
I just actually argued so well, that you basically had no reply other than a religious one.
I am in shock. I knew I was getting better, but to cause an ideologue to implode is new. It has happened a lot lately too.
Let’s keep these arguments tangible. You have made every argument intangible. Or you have tried for example with gay parenthood calling my comment garbage.
No. We are talking dollars and cents, and numbers. That’s how we are weighing it Ron.
And your reply was absurd ad hominem. You aren’t worth my time.
The reason I debated you before is because I thought you were. I wasn’t educated enough to know how stupid your arguments were.
Now go look at all my posts here, and more importantly look at Ron’s.
Everyone makes insults. Deal with it, and stay on topic.
October 6, 2015 at 5:34 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I think swears and/or personal attacks perpetrated by Ins102, Stan, BS, Confused, Captain Planet, Boogereater (in all his disguises) are immature and have no place on this site. Moniker theft is one of the worst offenses to post trash under someone else’s moniker to stir up trouble. Rosenblatt, I really don’t know how it took you 13 posts to condemn that behavior. I can only chalk it up to “word parsing”. You are a master at that. Stop it and you will get along better with me.
October 7, 2015 at 8:08 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent, you forgot to include bob and yourself when listing people who swear and make personal attacks on this site. Be fair and call out EVERYONE who does it, not just the people with views you don’t agree with.
October 6, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob,How many years have you been arguing with Ron on numerous subjects? Haven’t you learned by now that he is hopeless? In fact, there are about 8 trolls on this site who are equally hopeless. Ron is not as bad as most of them, he just doesn’t get it. The others swear, make ugly insults and are despicable.
You naivete extends well past that. You think typing a bunch of words makes you win an argument.
One question regarding gay marriage, where in the Constitution does it state that 2 consenting adults should be denied the same rights as 2 other consenting adults? I want word for word, not your interpretation.
If you can do that, I will concede to you.
October 7, 2015 at 9:58 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
The problem is that you complete misunderstand me. I completely understand what you are saying. You are either incapable of providing facts to back up your rhetoric or they just do not exist.
Quoting Friedman or any else are not facts, just someone’s opinion and/or observation. They may be right, but it is still an opinion and/or observation, not necessarily fact.
October 7, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, yes you are naive. Now stop voting because that naiveté is ruining the country. Go do a pushup.
October 7, 2015 at 3:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Stan,
Shut up kid. I don’t have time for Ron let alone you.
October 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Holy. Crap.
Ron, I have provided my evidence. Knock it off. Using the lines you use for other conservatives who act stupid on me is not appropriate.
The main reason you’re taking this course of action is that I have sufficiently proven you’re about hypocrisy instead of facts and it has harmed your ego.
October 7, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
My facts prove the hypocrisy of Republicans. That is all.
October 7, 2015 at 4:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
What facts?
You haven’t posted any! I asked you for them. You replied with nonsense!
October 8, 2015 at 11:26 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
I may have found the core issue for our arguments, you do not know the difference between facts and nonsense. I believe Agent is also afflicted with that particular disease. Unfortunately, there is no cure.
October 9, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Boob is a TOOL too! says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Boob,
Dave argued with class and had EXTREMELY valid points….really gets to you doesn’t it?! Stay off the steroids, it’s shows in your angry posts.
Dave,
Right on point and I just LOVE to see how ruffled you got Boob. Love how he tried to turn it around and say he got to you…he is such a joke and you can tell by his CRAZY rants all over IJ. Thank goodness the majority are like you and the Boobs and Agents of IJ are not. They only do this on-line cause you can’t put a true name and face to a moniker (even though I do know the real Agent’s name and place of business, but will be classy and not throw him under the bus) Keep it up my friend…you seem to be a smart person and I value your method of stating your opinions! Your arguments were spot on :)
Bob, following are a couple of gems you will appreciate.
“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government”. Milton Friedman
“There is no such thing as a free lunch”. Milton Friedman
When pondering whether gay couples should get the same benefits as heterosexual couples, there is always a cost to it.
October 12, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Agent,
The same benefit costs apply to heterosexual couples.
Being against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Even bob admitted to that. Are you against the Constitution?
It is easy to dismiss discrimination when you’re not the one being discriminated against.
October 12, 2015 at 5:12 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron, I believe Bob argued that the benefits Heterosexual couples for their children get should not apply to Gay couples who have no natural children. He posted a number of times on this issue and it sailed right over your head as usual.
October 12, 2015 at 7:51 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
bob’s exact words, “I don’t believe it’s ok to deny legal rights that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.” Can’t be much more clear. That is all I wanted him to admit.
Game, Set, Match. Ron Wins!!!
October 7, 2015 at 10:14 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, I think you may be a little confused on the posters. David is the leftist poster who rants the agenda all the time. Dave is the Conservative who actually makes sense on most issues.
Something that needs some thought is gay adoption. Suppose you have a gay couple adopting a kid, whether it is male or female. Do you think a young impressionable kid being around that lifestyle might warp the kid into thinking it is ok? I think the chances of the kid growing up normally and developing as a heterosexual is reduced substantially, don’t you?
Then how come heterosexual parents have homosexual children?
Sexual orientation, in most cases, is not environmental. There is no logical reason for someone to purposely expose themselves to the isolation, hate, discrimination, and suicidal thoughts most homosexuals experience.
Ron, your theory that homosexuals are just born that way is hogwash, just like all your other ideas about the economy, political leaders, leftist ideology.
It is no more of a hogwash theory than yours that homosexuality is a choice.
Nobody has been able to prove either. Until that happens, the Constitution states that you cannot treat 2 consenting adults differently than 2 other consenting adults. Are you against the Constitution?
October 7, 2015 at 4:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Quick commentary here:
The majority of people are not for treating gay people poorly.
October 7, 2015 at 11:31 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
If civil unions and marriages provided the same protections and benefits as marriage, a separate-but-equal argument might work. However, they don’t.
Unlike marriages, the rights and protections granted to people in a civil union are only available at the state level. Those rights vary from state to state, and do not follow them outside of the state in which the union was filed.
Unlike marriages, those in civil unions do not have the following:
– Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
– The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
– Tax benefits available to married couples only
– Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
– Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
A: Civil Unions by their nature do not have to be state law, any more than gay marriage laws.
B: This removes your first 2 points.
C: Immigration benefits can easily be handled by civil unions.
D: Wrong on tax benefits, except for ones that I put above, which they have no need for. They are not meant to have equal rights because they don’t have equal need.
E: Social security survivor benefits are for family based units with a primary and secondary earner. These benefits should not be extended to gays. Medical benefits are best handled through civil unions, and life insurance as you should know, is handled by insurance companies. If they want to accept civil unions they can. Or alternatively, we can pass a law regarding it. That is not a form of marital law.
Also, we can’t make a separate but equal law. The fact here remains that many of the benefits afforded by marriage involve supporting procreation. By default it must be a law regarding the needs of gay people, an honest debate regarding it I might add.
Not extending the same benefits procreating couples engage in.
Child birthing is no small issue. 3.9 million births per year, you have a risk of it even by having sex, even when using birth control. These families of 5 (average of 3) have far more of a need for most the benefits provided. They will literally have hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a gay couple just due to what happens in a procreating relationship.
You said, “Social security survivor benefits are for family based units with a primary and secondary earner. These benefits should not be extended to gays.” Why? From a Social Security benefits standpoint, what is the difference between a heterosexual couple who adopts a child(ren) and a homosexual couple who adopts a child(ren)? Should those children not receive survivor benefits?
In addition, from a Social Security benefits standpoint, what is the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a childless homosexual couple?
I’ll answer your attempt to derail the argument with another:
Do you believe that the exposure isn’t there, in a marriage, to have kids?
What percent of couples that are married never have kids? Could you give a number?
Do you know how much money this is? I posted a link above. This would allow ALL gay couples to have $500,000 more in their lifetime at retirement.
You say you advocate better spending.
Explain to me why they should get that money?
Should you? Why shouldn’t a single person receive this money?
The government is not a zero sum game.
Because we can’t stop some married couples without kids from getting survivor benefits, we should allow the system to be milked?
Is that it?
You are an ignorant person, who argues for points instead of what is best.
October 7, 2015 at 1:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Most importantly Ron:
Why do you deserve the gays deserve it?
I don’t want to hear your attempts to make me a hypocrite instead of forming your own argument for your case.
It isn’t honest debate. Why should the gays get that money?
Because hypocrisy due to the minority of couples?
Why should anyone receive as much help as a family who loses $500,000 of their retirement in child raising?
You know darn well I’m right on this, and instead, like a typical liberal you would rather try to focus on non existent hypocrisy instead of actual law and what is fair and best based on the facts.
What’s your fair solution? Give them all the benefit? 100%?
That’s fair?
You can’t dance around this. They don’t have the need. Do they are do they not need as much help as a child raising couple?
If not, they don’t need or deserve the benefit, whether or not someone else receives it.
October 7, 2015 at 1:34 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
A: Civil Unions by their nature do not have to be state law, any more than gay marriage laws.
– However, there is no federal law defining civil unions. Civil unions – for gay and straight couples – are implemented on a state-by-state basis.
B: This removes your first 2 points.
See above
C: Immigration benefits can easily be handled by civil unions.
– Civil union partners of immigrants cannot submit family based immigration petitions
D: Wrong on tax benefits, except for ones that I put above, which they have no need for. They are not meant to have equal rights because they don’t have equal need.
– A married couple can file jointly – those in civil unions can not, and thus can’t take advantage of the deductions offered by the IRS.
E: Social security survivor benefits are for family based units with a primary and secondary earner. These benefits should not be extended to gays. Medical benefits are best handled through civil unions, and life insurance as you should know, is handled by insurance companies. If they want to accept civil unions they can. Or alternatively, we can pass a law regarding it. That is not a form of marital law.
– In a marriage, if Spouse A dies, Spouse B is entitled to collect Social Security benefits. Spouse B is also exempt from estate taxes. This is not the case with civil unions.
Also, we can’t make a separate but equal law. The fact here remains that many of the benefits afforded by marriage involve supporting procreation. By default it must be a law regarding the needs of gay people, an honest debate regarding it I might add.
Not extending the same benefits procreating couples engage in.
Child birthing is no small issue. 3.9 million births per year, you have a risk of it even by having sex, even when using birth control. These families of 5 (average of 3) have far more of a need for most the benefits provided. They will literally have hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a gay couple just due to what happens in a procreating relationship.
– As there are many, many married straight couples that do not have or want children, yet still enjoy the benefits and protections marriage offers, this argument does not hold up.
When I said best handled by civil unions, and then clarified that civil unions can be federally based, it goes without saying I am talking about implementing fair civil unions.
I am not talking existent law. I am talking about the failures of gay marriage to take care of real issues. This is especially proven by the fact that Gay marriage federal law supersedes civil unions, doesn’t it? Why would I argue about failures in current civil union law?
This does away with most of your argument.
“In a marriage, if Spouse A dies, Spouse B is entitled to collect Social Security benefits. Spouse B is also exempt from estate taxes. This is not the case with civil unions. ”
As I already said, estate tax laws should be dealt with. We should not just pull over ALL current marriage laws. What we should do is make a law which is FAIR for them.
Now on your last one:
” As there are many, many married straight couples that do not have or want children, yet still enjoy the benefits and protections marriage offers, this argument does not hold up.”
This does NOT do away with my argument. 100% of all gay couples do not need the additional money. As I posted, the difference will be $500,000 over the course of a procreating couple’s life. This is why the law exists. They didn’t want to have people file for survivor benefits, and thus made it automatic. Do you support changing this to needing to file?
If you do, this actually makes you a hypocrite not I. If that’s the case, solving this problem is not done by making it worse and giving more benefits.
I will ask you again: Why do 100% of gays need the benefits that procreating couples do?
This will essentially be giving them a huge advantage.
Saying that other minority amounts of married couples have that benefits without kids is not a logical reason. It’s a philosophical matter at that point. I want to know why the gays need it, not why someone else doesn’t.
October 7, 2015 at 2:07 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
I left out a line in:
“In a marriage, if Spouse A dies, Spouse B is entitled to collect Social Security benefits. Spouse B is also exempt from estate taxes. This is not the case with civil unions. ”
As I already said, estate tax laws should be dealt with. We should not just pull over ALL current marriage laws. What we should do is make a law which is FAIR for them.”
I should have added, but I figured you already knew my stance, that gay couples do not deserve or need the additional social security benefits (survivor benefits).
I am vehemently against this area. They should not receive it.
I’ll be consistent on this: Married couples who have no kids should not receive it.
But the amount of married couples who have no kids during the full course of their life, is so minuscule it is insane.
October 7, 2015 at 2:10 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
The closest study I have seen goes to women 40-44 without kids, at 6%.
That is higher than in the past, but I would say the 94% of married couples with kids deserve more benefits than the 6% without, and all gay couples universally.
100% of gay couples should not get equal amounts of benefits to 94% of those who have an actual need, and retire with $500,000 less income.
October 7, 2015 at 2:40 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Choosing to have children does not entitle a person to more money from the government.
October 7, 2015 at 3:30 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
What gives someone entitlement BS?
Entitlements are based on need. If you’re going to tell me that we shouldn’t base it on need, then we shouldn’t have income thresholds for income taxes for the poor, or education assistance, or day care, etc.
We don’t just throw money at couples for no reason.
As I said in my other post: A survivor benefit was only created for families.
Should we do away with tax credits for family raising as well?
Do you support doing away with support for families? Have you revealed a hypocrisy here? Now you are against assistance being given to poor families based on need?
What are you even doing BS? Surely you should see, you’re talking BS. Ah ha! Punny.
Anyway: Just because someone chose to have a family doesn’t mean they no longer need more money. Do their children no longer deserve college? Do their children deserve to be left poor? Should we give all these benefits we gave to poor families to people who are just fine?
And make them $500,000 better off? We punish life choices as liberals now eh?
Because last I checked you weren’t for that.
October 7, 2015 at 3:31 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“100% of all gay couples do not need the additional money.”
Clearly false. There are currently 2 million children being raised by gay parents.
“The closest study I have seen goes to women 40-44 without kids, at 6%.”
Way off. 20% of women aged 40-44 do not have children.
And make them $500,000 better off? We punish life choices as liberals now eh?
Because last I checked you weren’t for that.
Actually, that’s what you’re proposing – if you don’t have kids, you and your spouse don’t deserve the benefits you worked for. I’m not arguing that tax breaks and assistance for children, education and healthcare should be stopped. I just think you deserve the benefits you worked for, regardless of whether you popped out a kid or not.
But really, this is a pointless debate. Marriage is the law of the land – for straight and gay couples – so same-sex spouses not receiving Survivors Benefits is pretty much a non-issue, now.
“Clearly false. There are currently 2 million children being raised by gay parents.”
Clearly false, see my other link showing it is 65,000. Where’s your link regarding the 2 million?
Regardless of such I will admit I shouldn’t have said all. Estimates are 10% of the population is gay (reasonable ones anyway, some say 20%) That is about 32,000,000. What is that…
.001 percent? So we logically should pass a law to make a scenario where 99.999 percent of gays are getting benefits they don’t need to the tune of helping them by half a million dollars over their life?
Equal to…31,950,000. Even if they adopted all children each year, (will not happen) it would take 320 years for them to get a child to each gay couple if we have no population growth which we will. Math. Try it some time!
October 7, 2015 at 4:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
“Actually, that’s what you’re proposing – if you don’t have kids, you and your spouse don’t deserve the benefits you worked for. I’m not arguing that tax breaks and assistance for children, education and healthcare should be stopped. I just think you deserve the benefits you worked for, regardless of whether you popped out a kid or not.
Ok no. They get the benefits they worked for. Which one are they not receiving that they worked for? At no point did I say any such thing. Survivor benefits are not given because you worked. Those are already given through social security. If you die they are non-transferable an exception was made for families. You want to extend this without reason.
You’re talking in circles here.
October 7, 2015 at 4:07 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
Also, law of the land does not make something right by the by.
Basically you don’t advocate giving more benefits to families. You’re saying that gays should receive the same amount for no reason at all. You keep saying you support it but other posts say you shouldn’t pay for their choices.
October 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm
David says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Are you being intentionally obtuse Bob? Adoption isn’t the only way gay people have children. There are many lesbians who get artificially inseminated and many gay guys that have surrogate mothers have children for them. And there’s also a large number of gay people who had children the old fashioned way and then came out of the closet later in life. You also forgot about foreign adoptions. My cousin is a lesbian who recently got married and they’re currently in the process of adopting two siblings from Guatemala.
“According to the 2010 Census, two million children in the United States are being raised by lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender parents (LGBT), the majority of them in southern states.”
Only a handful of states had legalized gay marriage at that time. Now that they have marriage’s legal benefits and protections in place, there’s more incentive for them to have kids.
Face it Bob, by your very own argument gay people need marriage in order to help them raise their children.
October 7, 2015 at 5:09 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Basically you don’t advocate giving more benefits to families. You’re saying that gays should receive the same amount for no reason at all. You keep saying you support it but other posts say you shouldn’t pay for their choices.
I’m not looking to extend or reduce anything. I just stated one of the many reasons that Civil Unions as they are currently written are inferior to marriage in terms of benefits and protections offered.
One of the benefits of Social Security is Survivors Benefits. The surviving spouse and/or minor children collect the deceased’s SS payments. You are the one saying that certain people don’t deserve the benefits they worked for solely because they didn’t have children.
October 7, 2015 at 5:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
You’re turning this ideological again. I’m saying they don’t “deserve” it. You’re forgetting when I asked for the “need” it was not an ideological need because of numbers.
I noticed you changed your wording to say the marriage law is more complete and affords more benefits. Yes. Benefits they should not receive.
And further to the point: Yes! I’m saying they shouldn’t get survivor benefits because those benefits go away when people die, the only exception that was created was created due to families.
There is no need to pass this need on.
Answer the question: Why should gays receive this benefit?
Your only reply to date is because others receive it. Just now you tried to say compared to civil unions it would be more complete, so that merits it. That is still a philosophical comparison and you dismissed it based on need!
So then, if you don’t have a reason, I will repeat my line:
Basically you don’t advocate giving more benefits to families. You’re saying that gays should receive the same amount for no reason at all. You keep saying you support it but other posts say you shouldn’t pay for their choices.
October 7, 2015 at 5:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
My wording was poor, you’re neglecting to realize my argument was not attempting to make numbers of ideology.
It was building a case based on numbers.
Either you acknowledge that gay couples don’t have the same need as married couples, and thus the need doesn’t exist for them or you don’t.
Or you have another reason they need it.
Survivor benefits don’t just get passed on except for exceptions. Passing them on because heterosexual people get them isn’t a reason. Passing them on because that would make the laws the same, and more complete than civil ones isn’t a reason.
Give me a reason they should get that benefit.
October 7, 2015 at 5:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also BS:
I love how you keep trying to turn this ideological.
That is why you keep saying actually no I advocate taking away benefits or weighing what they deserve.
However you’re missing what Deserve means. What need means.
Laws need to exist for a purpose. Survivor laws provide assistance for families who have $500,000 less available at retirement, and rather than focus need on that you would rather do wasteful entitlements with no need, passing them on to people who do not have that need.
Given how many millions of gays will get this without need, we don’t have the money for it without taking from people who do.
This is no small deal. If we pass a law to give people money there has to be a reason. You’re basically throwing money at them for no reason.
And when I say we should have a reason to give it to them, you tell me I’m taking money away from them. That I’m stripping benefits.
That is a backwards argument BS! You’re giving money that does not apply, has no purpose, and you can’t even explain why it should be done?
GIVE ME A REASON WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THIS MONEY!
October 8, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hey Bob, I want to commend you for your efforts at educating the left on these issues although I think it is mostly in vain.
I have a good one for you which was sent to me by a friend. Recently the Pope visited America. During the visit, he made a speech in front of Congress.
The picture showed the Pope on the podium and all the Congressmen, Senators & Administration people seated in front of him. The caption below the picture said the Pope was doing what Jesus did. He was surrounding himself with Prostitutes, Thieves and Tax Collectors. It was priceless.
October 7, 2015 at 12:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
So if you’re too stupid to figure this out for social security.
Let’s say a procreating family helps their kids go to college. I am already planning this. It is hundreds and thousands of dollars that I won’t have in my investments when I retire.
Social security will help with this. Do gays have an equal need on a by nature basis?
Will they be even better off with more social security, than a procreating couple?
You’re talking about equality as an ideal for any of your arguments that you posted that I didn’t immediately dismiss as non issues that civil unions can handle.
It is clear these laws should not be the exact same. Gay relationships are not = to but separate from procreating ones.
Social Security provides retirement benefits to people that have worked and paid into the system. Benefits are based on what an individual has paid into the system over the years, not the size of that individual’s family. A single man that decided not to have kids has just as much right to collect his retirement benefits as a married father of four.
And normal people can’t collect other people’s benefits can they?
Survivor benefits are not for the sake of collecting what someone else put in.
They are for the needs of the family left behind by the survivor, in the typical procreating family.
October 7, 2015 at 2:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Should read, :And normal people can’t collect dead people’s benefits can they?
For example: My brother who paid in and died without a wife.
Can I go get it? Since he paid someone should get the benefits eh?
The survivor benefit is not so someone collects the benefit paid by someone who died.
As I said above, it is due to the family needs.
You will then say again: Not all married couples have kids.
94% of them do, and the government again, didn’t want to have applications for this process based on amount of kids and income. So they gave it across the board.
October 7, 2015 at 12:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also BS:
Nice try and thanks for playing…The level of indoctrination these days from otherwise very smart people.
I have to give you credit for your intellect. I will say you’re the only liberal who has had anything close to a rebuttal so far.
So good job on being a good thinker. Hopefully this will one day apply for finding the actual truth instead of things you want to be true.
Considering the costs of raising a child and children, do you believe that there exists a greater need for procreating families? That is $250,000 dollars a non procreating couple could invest. Even at 5% this would be bout a half a million dollars (the link I provided had two numbers, and only provided an investment return on the higher of the two, rather than the lower. I would prefer to focus on the middle middle class not the higher)
Do you believe it is fair, for someone who will have $500,000 more at retirement, to give them equal social security benefits?
There is a reason for tax benefits and social security survivor benefits in a procreating union.
Now if you can explain to me why they deserve the same benefits…Let’s hear it.
Ideological argument, based on nothing of substance.
Because the minority of heterosexual couples get something does not mean 100% of gays should. I’m asking why literally they have a need to get the benefit. Answer the damn question rather than trying to find a way to make me a hypocrite. This is why you fail in politics. You are more focused on making republicans hypocrites than you are on common sense!
The need doesn’t exist. Explain in a non-ideological way, not based on pointing out hypocrisy. Do the gays have the same need? Why should the benefit, be passed on?
Survivor benefits is the primary. This is the biggest one, now that you have lied, saying I didn’t list them, or didn’t read…Let’s hear you take personal responsibility for that comment! *wink wink* Tax benefits. Benefits to assist with college. These do exist for married couples.
October 7, 2015 at 1:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
And another question:
Should we pass a law monitoring heterosexual couple’s child birthing to ensure survivor benefits only go to ones with kids?
Because if you do believe on a non ideological basis that both of them don’t have the need…This is the more logical action than saying we should give it to other people who don’t need it.
October 7, 2015 at 3:17 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I do believe it is fair.
If two people work the same amount of time, and wrack up the same amount of credits, they deserve to receive the same Social Security benefit.
Whether they chose to have children or not is irrelevant. How they chose to spend their money in the years that they were working, is beside the point. How much they have in their savings accounts when they retire has has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
If you and I worked the same amount of time, we deserve the same Social Security benefit, period. I don’t deserve to be penalized because I chose not to have kids, and you don’t deserve extra because you had them.
I’ll tighten them because you’re trying hard to change the scenario since you’re wrong.
Does a married couple who has 3 kids, have need of the same amount of benefits as a gay couple with none, who had $500,000 more available at retirement?
In any scenario? Why does the gay person deserve the benefits of their partner who died? The only reason we allow survivor benefits, (not due to penalizing anyone) is due to the amount of need. Otherwise, those benefits would just go away like they do in all other scenarios. Social security is based on needs. Not wants.
Further: “Whether they chose to have children or not is irrelevant. How they chose to spend their money in the years that they were working, is beside the point. How much they have in their savings accounts when they retire has has absolutely no bearing on the matter.”
No. It isn’t. It was entirely relevant to the matter of whether or not they have a need. You’re trying to strip away benefits based on need.
“If you and I worked the same amount of time, we deserve the same Social Security benefit, period. I don’t deserve to be penalized because I chose not to have kids, and you don’t deserve extra because you had them.”
You are not penalized. People who have greater need are given more. You are arguing backwards. They will literally have $500,000 less than you because they had kids. Also, most people don’t have the choice in not having kids unless they have like 10 abortions, a vasectomy, or a surgery which most people don’t have.
October 7, 2015 at 3:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“If you and I worked the same amount of time, we deserve the same Social Security benefit, period. I don’t deserve to be penalized because I chose not to have kids, and you don’t deserve extra because you had them.”
Also, yes. I agree. So if you’re alive you will get them.
And if you’re dead you don’t. No one deserves another person’s social security or is entitled to it.
It was expanded due to the survivor’s need. Ergo survivor benefit.
You again made this ideological.
October 7, 2015 at 3:36 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
No. It isn’t. It was entirely relevant to the matter of whether or not they have a need. You’re trying to strip away benefits based on need.
I’m not trying to strip away anything. You’re the one saying that you only deserve benefits if you spawn.
October 7, 2015 at 4:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
BS:
When I said you’re trying to strip away benefits based on need, I mean the WEIGHT of whether or not we should give benefits.
At this point you are saying it should not be based on need.
“I’m not trying to strip away anything. You’re the one saying that you only deserve benefits if you spawn.”
Further: So then you don’t support benefits for families? Do they gays have equal need on this one!? Answer the question and stop diverting! You either support benefits based on need, and thus the families need it, or you don’t!
I’m not stripping benefits at all. These benefits are given as an exception because of need. They would normally get their own social security. They get what they paid for.
How is it fair they get this benefit without need when a single male does not? What need does two gay men have all the sudden which merits us suddenly giving them this survivor benefit that a single person doesn’t have?
October 7, 2015 at 4:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
This is like talking to an ideological wall.
Congratulations BS. You became a conservative. I know it’s torturing you inside. That’s why you’re trying our hardest to make it not so.
But you can’t change what is true. You’re wrong on this. And I expect you to admit you had a logical fallacy on this one in the future.
Then you will realize who gave you that logical fallacy on your own I’m sure. Which will finally explain to you why I don’t vote democrat.
I was not always this way.
Just a few years ago I told my mom to stop arguing about gay marriage and I didn’t care.
I never took up planned parenthood arguments.
I would say I was a lot like you. We don’t have forever to fix these issues. People with common sense like you are needed.
You’re clearly more capable than Ron of thinking. I see it in your arguments. You’re actually using logic. Incorrectly, but still your wheels are turning and I can tell.
Be one of the people who exposes this. I truly hope you do realize this in the future. For the good of everyone, logical thinkers are needed.
October 7, 2015 at 5:46 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Further: So then you don’t support benefits for families? Do they gays have equal need on this one!? Answer the question and stop diverting! You either support benefits based on need, and thus the families need it, or you don’t!”
I do support benefits for families. And I do support benefits based on need. But that’s not what survivor benefits are designed for.
Survivor benefits are basically a life insurance policy we buy with a portion of our Social Security taxes. And a childless widow is not any less deserving of receiving the benefits her husband paid for with years of work, than a widow with 5 kids.
October 6, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, the good news is that we do know right from wrong. Ecclesiastes 10:2 summed it all up with our opponents.
FFS kids these days all think they are fighting for equality due to democrats divide and conquer bull crap techniques, when really it’s about actual reasoning.
This blog really shows the divide we have in this country about what is right and what is wrong and how far left this President has taken the country. It will really be nice to get him replaced and get the country back on the “right” track. He has been a total disaster on every policy issue, governance and it is very embarrassing for the country.
This has been an issue well before President Obama took office. The fact that you think one person could alter the course of an entire country totally discredits you and your beliefs.
Just because you do not like the track this country is on, does not mean it is on the wrong track.
So then you were lying that you disagreed with Obama and were voting republican this time?
Or you want to make it philosophical to make agent a bad guy, even though you agree the country is on the wrong path?
Moving on: Yes. They are making the divide greater, because they are making the gay argument into an argument of bigotry. They are making the women’s arguments into arguments of misogyny. They are making the estate tax argument into arguments of domination of the poor. They are making immigration (which can crush an economy in excess) into bigotry. Even though, they also aren’t expanding entrance into the country. They just allowed people who were born here to stay here.
They are making abortion arguments into arguments of the “health of the mother”.
They are making the argument on how much the government should try to control the environment (carbon credits) into a world destruction argument. The sky is falling, the sky if falling! They are making the sequester about whether or not children and elderly will get a hot meal.
Obama is a part of this.
When you wake up and see the democrats goal is divide and conquer, you’ll see agent is right.
October 7, 2015 at 1:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
That’s leaving out a few too.
They are making paths to retirement (republicans have real plans I have gone over) about elderly vs business.
They are making medicare revisions (which while it would cut funding the goal is equal or better care, better directed money not the removal of care) into science and medicine against republicans.
I mean come on Ron! How do you not see this?
They know all it takes is to create an enemy of enough republicans to win.
So they create a hostile scenario intentionally.
October 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob wrote ‘So they create a hostile scenario intentionally.’ kind of like how you post, huh child? ron said the president alone can’t alter the course of an entire country and that the issues obama has faced were issues before he took office. he can still vote republican in the next election and not be lying. pretty sure he was just letting agent know the issues agent raised as ‘obama problems’ were problems before obama.
by the way, discriminating against one group of people (gays) and your arguments explaining why you think that way is 100% bigotry, as is telling women they must give birth even if she holds a different opinion on abortion than you.
all i ever see from you and agent is “since you don’t agree with me, you are wrong and you’re an idiot.” bigotry means intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. if you’re able to take a step back from telling people what they really meant and take a step back from swearing up a storm in every other post, you’ll see that’s you in a nutshell – if don’t agree with bob, you’re wrong no matter what. that, child, is the literal definition of bigotry.
October 7, 2015 at 2:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Confused:
Funny, I have made a point of not forcing my ideology regarding abortion outside of third trimester.
I have told Libby several times I’m not going to take the debate. So you made some bold assumptions there.
Moving on: My calling someone an idiot regarding politics is not the same as democrats telling you that the gays will be oppressed due to bigotry. It is not the same as saying people will die due to republicans.
Moving on further: If you would like to know why I’m not for abortion I would be happy to tell you.
And chances are…You might have some realizations along the way. It would however take too long. That’s why I don’t talk about it here.
It involves a horde of statistics I would have to re look up and post here.
My arguments are not if you disagree with me I’ll insult you. It is if you act like a brat I’ll insult you. Insulting is part of being human. Move on.
I have enough common decency to continue this conversations, as I am now.
And further you also believe that people who think differently than you are bad, ergo, people regarding abortions, and women, and bigotry ho!
(Not ho as in a woman, ho as in hi ho).
October 7, 2015 at 3:35 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob, you said ‘my calling someone an idiot regarding politics is not the same as democrats telling you that the gays will be oppressed due to bigotry.’ i agree, but are you saying gays are NOT being oppressed due to bigotry in this country right now? gays are fighting for what all americans are supposedly entitled to – EQUAL protection under the law. the only reason they don’t have this now is because they’re being oppressed. Equal protection under the law means the same as what others have, it does not mean creating new laws just for a subsection of americans. when women and blacks were given the right to vote, did america have to create a new law for each group, or were they simply considered ‘citizens of the united states’ and therefore got the SAME benefits everyone else already had?
October 7, 2015 at 4:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“bob, you said ‘my calling someone an idiot regarding politics is not the same as democrats telling you that the gays will be oppressed due to bigotry.’ i agree, but are you saying gays are NOT being oppressed due to bigotry in this country right now? gays are fighting for what all americans are supposedly entitled to – EQUAL protection under the law. the only reason they don’t have this now is because they’re being oppressed. Equal protection under the law means the same as what others have, it does not mean creating new laws just for a subsection of americans. when women and blacks were given the right to vote, did america have to create a new law for each group, or were they simply considered ‘citizens of the united states’ and therefore got the SAME benefits everyone else already had?”
Ok I’m glad you have finally started seeing some areas of common sense.
Moving on: Equal does not mean the same. Should all gay people be equal when it comes to child bearing? Should all single men by equal to a woman during pregnancy in needs? Should they get just as much bed rest? Are they not equal because the male doesn’t get bed rest and the mother does? How about maternity leave. Women need it so they get it. Are men being discriminated against? I realize we are moving toward paternity leave at some point but I am informing you that equal is not similarity.
Regarding gays: People are people and some are bad. Some people mistreat gays. The majority don’t. I would say hate crime laws, which will give you a greater punishment if someone beats you up for being gay, is a pretty greater than equal law to have. We have discrimination laws, etc. You’re trying to use societal discrimination against gays to say they are mistreated and stop discourse on what needs gays have. This should be based on need.
Moreover, republicans political ideals are not a part of that bigotry. They have reasons to advocate what they are, like I do. The majority of republicans are saying the same things as I am right now about gay marriage. Yet the democrats are framing it as an argument based on discrimination and bigotry. So yes, I would say calling something bigotry in order to lead in politics is a bad thing. They do it often.
October 7, 2015 at 4:45 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
all men are created equal = equal in the eyes of the law, equal in their value as humans, equal in their right and opportunity to pursue their happiness.
if you give benefits to one group of married people (men and women) then in order to be equal in the eyes of the law, those benefits must be made available for other groups of married people (gays).
note i said “made available” and not “given to.” gay men don’t need maternity leave, but they need access to paternity leave to be equal with the other, non-gay, married men. gay women should be able to access benefits for bed rest, but only if they are equal to the other, non-gay, women (so the pregnant one gets bed rest benefits, but her non-pregnant wife does not need those benefits)
October 7, 2015 at 5:04 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Equal access based on need.
You directed paternity need, you still didn’t direct my commentary on social security survivor needs.
The being treated equally means given support when you need it. The areas of marriage law can be extended via the proper laws, but they do not have equal needs and scenario for marriage so we should not extend the whole law over.
That is not equal treatment. That is special treatment.
October 8, 2015 at 11:52 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
okay bob, i’ll talk about survivor benefits. gay couples should be able to access social security survivor benefits like non-gay married couples can now.
say a gay couple gets married and either adopts a kid or has one with artificial insemination (as Dave posted above, 25% of gay married couples are raising children as of the 2010 census.) So now one parent dies leaving the other one to raise their child. blammo – survivorship benefits are now needed.
in summary – if two people are raising a child and one parent dies, the living parent should be able to access social security survivor benefits regardless of their sexual orientation.
October 8, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Thank you Ron for hiding your head in the sand like an Ostrich and keeping it there. You are in your own little world of Progressive Socialism and we are not surprised you voted for the guy twice.
October 9, 2015 at 3:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“okay bob, i’ll talk about survivor benefits. gay couples should be able to access social security survivor benefits like non-gay married couples can now.
say a gay couple gets married and either adopts a kid or has one with artificial insemination (as Dave posted above, 25% of gay married couples are raising children as of the 2010 census.) So now one parent dies leaving the other one to raise their child. blammo – survivorship benefits are now needed.
in summary – if two people are raising a child and one parent dies, the living parent should be able to access social security survivor benefits regardless of their sexual orientation.”
All of this is best directed in one phrase: We are not going to give automatic benefits to the 99.999 percent of gays who will never have children, just because .001% will adopt 1 child, and will not have an average of 3 based solely on exposure to sex.
In this scenario it actually DOES make sense to make people apply for it.
In married couples cases we are talking 94% of the population who will eventually have kids. I already posted a link.
I already posted a link regarding adoptable babies, and only 65,000 gays have a baby, and if they adopted all of the babies up for adoption each year it would take 320 years to have one child each. If they adopted half it would take 640. If they got to the 3 kid mark it would take 960 years, and 1920 years respectively at 50% and 100%.
The exposure is not there.
It is not equal to expose the 99.999% of people who don’t have the need to getting those benefits for the .001!!!
You liberals do this often and it’s exactly why we are so far in debt!
October 9, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also your 25% comment regarding gays, if you didn’t catch it by all my posts, is inaccurate.
Even then, same argument. They can apply for it. End of story.
You’re arguing for the sake of stupidity and I will have none of it.
Do you debate that to make this fair only those who have need should get the benefits?
Do you debate that a civil union law which required application for these benefits would ensure it goes to those who need it, and the amount of costs saved by not extending the benefit to 99.99% of about 30,000,000 people would be worth this applying?
With married couples the 6% who don’t have kids is not worth having an application process.
We seek what is A: Fair. B: Efficient.
My proposal fulfills A and B.
You have not given a reason why Civil unions done properly with the FAIR benefits, EFFICIENTLY would be worse than Gay marriage extending ALL benefits that we have just proven would not be FAIR or EFFICIENT.
Jesus Christ man, you know you’re wrong. Just admit it, and stop this idiotic argument!
October 9, 2015 at 3:45 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob, you say gay married couples shouldn’t get access to social security survivorship benefits because their need is minuscule compared to straight married couples and it promotes waste/unnecessary spending in the government.
If the gay couple has access to those benefits but doesn’t have kids, they can’t get the benefits and there’s no additional waste or spending for the (whatever) 99.99999% of gay couples who don’t meet the requirements for that benefit.
Giving gay couples this benefit would only apply to the (whatever) .00001% of gay married couples who have dependents when one of the parents dies.
Your argument of ‘it’s wasteful and unnecessary because so few gay couples will need it’ is wrong. It’s NOT wasteful because they can’t access the benefits UNTIL they actually need it, and then they should have it. What am I missing?
October 9, 2015 at 3:47 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
…and there’s no wasted efficiency either as the gay couple without kids, or with kids where both parents are alive, would never apply for the benefits because they don’t need them. The only time gay married couple would file a social security survivorship benefit claim would be when they need them.
October 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Oh my God…
See my comment to Rosenblatt regarding this.
It’s painfully clear you lost track of the conversation.
He just quoted you and I’m not re-posting on this matter.
Congratulations, you are making the case for civil unions. What you just said the current law does not do, and only would occur in the scenario I created.
October 9, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Let me spell it out for you:
Families spend about $250,000 more in the middle class if they have 2 kids. Not including college. Including 5% interest this would be about $500,000 they don’t have ready for retirement.
The survivor benefit provides this money they don’t have for retirement, which they would have received if the spouse died.
While they don’t weight the amount of kids this is due to waste. I already directed this. 65,000 applications are manageable. 12-17 million are not. Regardless of even that, you’re creating a scenario where they all get the benefit.
All of them will get this when their spouse dies.
It is not only when the need arises. Only in my scenario would it be when the need arises. Your scenario, as I pointed out to Ron, does not address need or purpose.
October 9, 2015 at 5:12 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
And more importantly Dave:
You’ve never heard this debate, that’s why you’re so clueless on it.
Ask yourself, why? Does it not make you afraid that all discourse on this is being chalked up to “bigotry” by Obama and democrats to use your emotions?
This again, is why I never vote democrat, and I literally never will. This is a level of manipulation republicans will never broach upon. They do it on every area too, as I pointed out here.
It’s a means to control.
October 7, 2015 at 1:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I have a brother by the name, so I am in habit of calling him Dave.
Bob, we haven’t even broached the subject of Planned Parenthood, the most barbaric abortion factory in the USA who have been caught on at least 8 video tapes bragging about selling baby parts on aborted babies, some are full term. They pay their CEO $500,000 for doing this so I guess they are making a lot of money in addition to getting taxpayer money. I really don’t see Ron, Confused, Rosenblatt, BS or any other liberal poster condemning them for their illegal and criminal actions.
October 7, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent, if you want to talk about murder, why dont you start with GW Bush and his hundreds of thousands of lost lives and a trillion dollars wasted on two needless wars. Then you can talk about abortion, you hypocrite.
Stop ruining this country. Stop voting. Just concentrate on trying to figure out your iPhone like all the other geriatrics in this country. Do us all a favor.
Thanks, Bro.
October 7, 2015 at 2:59 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Our poster Dave would be offended being put in the same category as poster David.
October 7, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Stan, why don’t you just leave and attend your next OWS meeting and leave the comments to the adults in the room?
October 7, 2015 at 3:17 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Stan,
48,000,000 babies were aborted last year, about 170,000,000 to 180,000,000 children are born per year.
Yes, we killed 25% of all babies involved with pregnancy.
1.72 billion abortions in 40 years.
Which is more important? Lives? Thousands vs millions doesn’t make agent a hypocrite.
Which is more important? Dollars or babies?
October 7, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent, why dont you get off this board and go pour some oil down the drain, punch a gay guy, cut down a tree, give a mentally ill person an assault rifle, take some money from poor people, give it to rich people, then refuse to provide medical care to someone.
JK I dont think you are competent to even do that, you just bitch about it online.
October 7, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob – do you think the reason a fetus was aborted should impact your analysis? I understand this is conjecture and I admit I’m exaggerating just to make an example, but say 1/2 of those abortions were done because the doctor said if the mother gave birth, there was a 100% chance she’d die – then the mother chose her life over her unborn child’s life because she’s already a single mother of 3 kids.
My question boils down to – does the context of why the abortion took place ever influence your views on abortion?
October 7, 2015 at 4:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt,
Thank God you’re back to your normal self. I absolutely encourage your question on this.
And my answer is yes. In the name of stopping fighting I will disregard cases of risk of the mother, incest, and rape. We already have exceptions in these scenarios.
Estimates I have seen give 1% of pregnancies are done to save the mother which is about 10,000 last year. 47,000 women died world wide due to abortions though. .3% were due to rape in America. The rest were unwanted. In New York City more blacks were aborted recently than born. This is terrible for the lower class. It’s essentially people weighing life based on class.
I said that my views on abortion are complicated. These are only some of them.
And I’m glad you actually asked for good reasons, I can tell.
October 7, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Thank God you’re back to your normal self.” Thanks for the compliment! :)
October 7, 2015 at 6:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I will admit you and Ron are just about the only two people who I consider to left leaning that I ever see making a pertinent comment to right side voters.
While Agent sees you in the same league as far left people like Libby I do not.
I will also admit I believe the issue with the two of you is mostly societal pressures put into your head by democrats.
I think the two of you want to be forward thinking. I think the two of you want to have solutions. I think the two of you want to be about eliminating hypocrisy.
These are technically good traits to have. I told BS we need people who are solid thinkers and like what I just said as headpieces on the right (not in politicians, I believe this already exists but is covered up. I mean in the grassroots sections of society itself).
I do think the two of you should calm down a bit on trying to believe everything is equal. It really isn’t.
This blinds the two of you when debates occur. Often Ron focuses on Agent as evidence of all conservatives being ideological. He binds the extremes on the right to the norm on the right. I will say you don’t do this as much as Ron, or really that often.
But this needs to change. We need people like you to start essentially talking common sense and real world scenarios to conservatives, so their go to points are not religious or poor arguments.
October 8, 2015 at 11:48 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
You said, “I will also admit I believe the issue with the two of you is mostly societal pressures put into your head by democrats.” let me clarify this for you, your belief is FALSE. I believe in legal fairness on this issue, period.
I am still waiting for you to quote where it says in the Constitution that it is OK to deny legal rights to 2 consenting adults that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.
Maybe you are still looking.
October 9, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron,
I really challenged your core belief system didn’t I?
You usually stay on point. You’re not right now. I don’t have to answer your consenting adults, based on the fact that it isn’t relevant.
You have to answer why these are “equal needs, equal rights”. You have to answer why they should receive ALL benefits of a pro creating couple based on need.
You can’t. And it’s bugging you that I’ve revealed this is the republican point, because you believe Republicans are the greater hypocrites. Usually you would give me evidence, like Reagan spending (something I already proved false) but you’re not even trying that.
It is societal pressures doing this Ron. You’re going to realize it one day.
You believe that being anti gay is bad, that’s why you’re seeing inequality where there is in fact benefits which are in preference of gays with gay marriage and make them ahead of pro creating couples. You’re equating disagreement with gay marriage with hypocrisy and bigotry.
I’ve seen you do it.
You have done this often.
It has to be rooted in societal pressure as to what you believe makes you a good person.
But I’m challenging you on that, which is why for the life of you, you can’t stay on topic.
Your world has been shattered, you aren’t the non-biased person you thought, and your are easily pulled by societal norms.
You realized it, and I can see it in your arguments.
October 9, 2015 at 3:09 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron,
I’ll answer your question regardless of it’s not serving a purpose or point:
“I am still waiting for you to quote where it says in the Constitution that it is OK to deny legal rights to 2 consenting adults that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.”
I don’t believe it’s ok to deny legal rights that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.
You’re trying to shift the argument to an ideological one, and are neglecting to realize what marriage is.
As I said, I am for marriage for gay couples. I am not for wasteful spending, equal benefits to a pro creating couple, which benefits are based on need, etc.
I will ask you this question in retort:
Why do you believe it is ok to grant access to benefits for pro creating couples who do not procreate?
Allow me to clarify: You’re trying to state equal rights aren’t being granted, and the rights you’re arguing about aren’t given because you’re talking a non procreating couple. The rights are not about two consenting adults.
The rights are about a procreating couple vs a non procreating one.
So you explain to me why a procreating couple should get no more assistance in the government than a non procreating one.
That is the important question. And why should we throw money at couples simply for getting married?
October 9, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
In other words Ron:
Why should couples all be given child birthing benefits, and benefits given to couples who have less money as a result (survivor benefits)
When the couple doesn’t child birth?
You’re framing this as equality, when in fact this creates inequality to the pro creating couples.
You’re making an ideological argument.
Do you understand this? You have not given a reason other than “Gay couples should get the same benefits as straight ones”.
I could make the same argument about women and men. That they should have the same benefits. But I’m never going to be pregnant! Should I have time off based on being pregnant?
I am not talking time off based no helping with the kid. I’m talking taking a month off before my baby is born to be safe, and a month off to recover. Should I do the same before the baby is born?
But it’s not equal Ron!
I gave examples to the other guy. Go read them there.
Equal treatment is not similarity.
You’re arguing for unequal treatment because you want to give a benefit simply because someone else is getting it, not because the person you want to receive it needs it. Disregarding your argument is not true, because people are not the recipients of this benefit, families are, which means a family is receiving it and a gay person is not, you have not established the reason this gay couple should receive the benefit in any tangible way that is not ideological.
October 9, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
You said, “You have to answer why these are ‘equal needs, equal rights’. You have to answer why they should receive ALL benefits of a pro creating couple based on need.” Simple, gay couples can have children through surrogates, in vitro fertilization and adoption.
Now answer my questions:
1. Do those children not count?
2. What if a procreating heterosexual couple cannot procreate and have a child one of those ways?
3. As has been stated before, should a couple have to prove that they can and will procreate to get married?
Whether I believe being anti gay is good or bad is totally irrelevant. All I am saying is that the law cannot be anti gay marriage. It is against the Constitution, period.
October 9, 2015 at 3:52 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Key words “CAN” key emphasis 99.99% don’t currently.
And when we talk Gay couples, it should not be extended universally, because it is not efficient or fair, for the 99.999% of gay couples who do not have a child.
65,000 have adopted a child currently. I gave the numbers. 30,000,000 are gay, this is 15,000,000 couples.
Applications for the 65,000 based on need is manageable, and fair.
Why should we give 14,000,000 couples benefits based on the supposed need of 65,000?
Because we do it for straight people across the board?
That has been your reply. That is an ideological argument.
My reply is this: When it comes to 94% of pro creating couples having babies, we would have millions of applications to sort through. It is not A: Efficient to make them apply. It doesn’t help anyone to do so.
Now in the case of 15,000,000 gay couples, it is more efficient, to have the 65,000 apply than to give benefits of hundreds of thousands of dollars to 14,000,0000 people. If we multiply it out, 300,000 each in credits and in survivor benefits (easily accurate) we come to: 4.2 trillion dollars of spending over the course of their lives.
We should not waste 4.2 trillion in benefits. We can’t manage that kind of loss.
October 9, 2015 at 3:52 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob the hypocrite, take 1
bob previously wrote: You’re going on a bullying campaign, literally, demanding Agent make an action or you won’t stop.
bob just wrote: “You have to answer why these are ‘equal needs, equal rights’. You have to answer”
gotcha.
rosenblatt and ron can’t tell agent he has to answer questions or else they won’t move on, but it’s okay when you tell ron he has to answer your questions.
nice consistency there hypocrite. can you explain the difference or maybe you’ll just pull out another FALSE EQUIVALENCY response instead?
October 9, 2015 at 4:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“1. Do those children not count?
2. What if a procreating heterosexual couple cannot procreate and have a child one of those ways?
3. As has been stated before, should a couple have to prove that they can and will procreate to get married?
Whether I believe being anti gay is good or bad is totally irrelevant. All I am saying is that the law cannot be anti gay marriage. It is against the Constitution, period.”
To you it’s relevant in that you believe republicans are anti gay, and that is why they are for or against these laws.
Moving on:
“All I am saying is that the law cannot be anti gay marriage. It is against the Constitution, period.””
An argument I never made. We are talking about the ramifications of universally applying all areas of marriage to gay couples. I even said I would call it gay marriage if it were not for this issue.
“1. Do those children not count?
Irrelevant. You’re trying to create a hypocrite scenario again. This point is not a point worth my time, my points, however…Include dollars and cents. 4.2 trillion. I will retort: Should we give away 4.2 trillion to gays who don’t need the benefits and do not have children?
2. What if a procreating heterosexual couple cannot procreate and have a child one of those ways?
94% of couples have children. On one side extending benefits to all gives 99.999% of the population benefits they don’t deserve. On the other it is 6% You’re trying to make a false equivalence argument instead of making a fair law. It makes sense to have gay couples apply.
3. As has been stated before, should a couple have to prove that they can and will procreate to get married?”
Irrelevant and you’re trying to do the same thing as the first. It’s wasteful to have the 6% apply. It is not wasteful to have 65,000 apply. Do you see the difference there? In one scenario having married couples apply would be roughly 7.8 million people (320 million population, remove 20% for gays and those who never get married, multiply by .5 for the number of couples, then multiply .06 to get 6%.)
And I will add rather than think logically like this, you are arguing philosophically and ideologically.
Each of your arguments has been an attempt to point out hypocrisy.
Like you say to republicans: Trying to say what is not ok, or what is wrong, DOES NOT SUDDENLY MAKE THINGS TURN OUT RIGHT!
Have you become the party of no and inefficient spending?
The reason I know this is societal pressure, is normally, YOU ARE AGAINST THE VERY THING YOU’RE ARGUING FOR. In this scenario it is the exception with ideology clouding your mind, to make a wasteful program which will give benefits to people who don’t need them.
I will ask you again: For the couples who have no kids SHOULD THEY RECEIVE THEM? And why?
A reply of “Because pro creating couples without kids get them” is an IDEOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHICAL argument and will not be accepted!
October 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron,
That 4.2 trillion is not including inflation.
You can usually take 3.5 in the course of the life of a human and apply it to the total to account for all interest.
That is 14.7 trillion. Then take the life expectancy (which is much shorter for gays, but I’ll only deduct it a few years to 75) and you have 196 billion in spending for people who have no need for it a year.
Are you ok with this spending?
Why?
Again, a reply of “non procreating heterosexuals get it!”
Is not a good reply as to why we should waste 196 billion a year.
Come off it Ron! You know you’re wrong.
October 9, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
As Agent loves to point out, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We do not make laws to cater to a the majority even if it is 99.9999999999999999999999999%
We treat all citizens equally. Please, for the love of God, read the Constitution.
October 9, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You @%@%ing ideologue. This is definitely a societal pressure and preconceived norms scenario.
Get your head, out of your @$$!
Let me direct this for you.
“As Agent loves to point out, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We do not make laws to cater to a the majority even if it is 99.9999999999999999999999999%”
Ok: A: Yes we do, when it comes to benefits.
B: The 99.999999999% are not equal to the .001% in this scenario in terms of the reason behind the law. Therefore the law is not being applied with any non-conformity. If we are going to pass procreating laws, you are applying pro creating laws to non procreating couples. It’s that simple Ron. This is by far your stupidest philosophical argument.
We treat all citizens equally. Please, for the love of God, read the Constitution.”
This is hyperbole for affect, and again, to try to make me a hypocrite.
This has nothing to do with the constitution at hand.
Should we stop all laws regarding equal pay for women since they don’t specifically have wording for men as well?
Women have a need for that it appears, to some degree, whereas men don’t.
When we give a benefit or a protection, we absolutely only give it to those who need it.
October 9, 2015 at 4:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron:
Essentially what you said is:
Procreating benefits cannot be restricted to the .001% of the people that procreate because that results in a violation of the constitution in that we treat all people equally when it comes to pro creating benefits, even those who don’t procreate should receive procreation benefits.
You sound like Agent right now. This is why I said you’re falling apart. You know it. You have panicked, and now all you can say is ideological crap.
The next time you mock agent for this, I think we have sufficiently proven you do go against science and facts on this one.
October 9, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob, Confused posted this above and I wanted to put it here too in hopes you can respond as I’m curious about this aspect too.
If the gay couple has access to [social security survivorship] benefits but doesn’t have kids, they can’t get the benefits and there’s no additional waste or spending for the (whatever) 99.99999% of gay couples who don’t meet the requirements for that benefit. Giving gay couples this benefit would only apply to the (whatever) .00001% of gay married couples who have dependents when one of the parents dies. [How can something be called wasteful when] they can’t access the benefits UNTIL they actually need it?
I also don’t understand your argument of ‘not many gay couples need it so it’s wasteful to give it to them’ when the benefit being discussed (social security survivorship benefits) won’t be given to anyone who doesn’t meet the requirement – 2 parents, 1 of whom is dead, with 1 dependent.
So the gay married couple without kids, or with kids with 2 living parents, wouldn’t ever apply for the benefits – there’d be no waste and no extra spending for the 99.9999% of gay married couples who don’t need that benefit.
October 9, 2015 at 4:56 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt,
I don’t think you’re aware of how survivor benefits work…And why we are debating. Now it is clear neither does Confused.
He actually finally almost got why I’m pissed and it’s clear he agrees with me now. I missed that post.
The survivor benefit currently doesn’t track children, but it exists for the purpose of families. It is an automatic extension for married couples. They don’t want to create a child application process.
So when I say I’m not ok with an auto extension, which would give survivor benefits to the 99.99% of gays without children just as a means to give help to the .001% to adopt, it makes perfect sense. Only the .001% have the need. It can be called wasteful because the 99.999% do not have the need. The need is there for these survivors because they are not as capable during the course of their lives to save up $500,000 dollars (including 5% interest on $250,000 dollars of spending for their kids not including college, in a two child family, likely much more for 3). They don’t have a huge retirement ready for them.
“So the gay married couple without kids, or with kids with 2 living parents, wouldn’t ever apply for the benefits – there’d be no waste and no extra spending for the 99.9999% of gay married couples who don’t need that benefit.”
You believe the cost of tracking this benefit will out weigh the 196 billion per year of giving the benefit out? I don’t.
I believe it would cost a couple million year to track 65,000 people. That would grow over time as more gay people had kids, but as we have shown, there are only 1.5 million total adopted kids. Or was it 2.5 million…It’s in my links above. Even if gays had all of them it will never surpass 1 billion to manage and save the money on the rest.
bob, Confused posted this above and I wanted to put it here too in hopes you can respond as I’m curious about this aspect too.
If the gay couple has access to [social security survivorship] benefits but doesn’t have kids, they can’t get the benefits and there’s no additional waste or spending for the (whatever) 99.99999% of gay couples who don’t meet the requirements for that benefit. Giving gay couples this benefit would only apply to the (whatever) .00001% of gay married couples who have dependents when one of the parents dies. [How can something be called wasteful when] they can’t access the benefits UNTIL they actually need it?
I also don’t understand your argument of ‘not many gay couples need it so it’s wasteful to give it to them’ when the benefit being discussed (social security survivorship benefits) won’t be given to anyone who doesn’t meet the requirement – 2 parents, 1 of whom is dead, with 1 dependent.
So the gay married couple without kids, or with kids with 2 living parents, wouldn’t ever apply for the benefits – there’d be no waste and no extra spending for the 99.9999% of gay married couples who don’t need that benefit.
October 9, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
In the even that you, Ron, and Dave believe that we should also track heterosexual couples then the way to address that is not by giving the benefits automatically to another group.
I have shown this will have huge impacts on spending. People who have real need will lose access to that money.
This is why I’m constantly saying this is about what is best, fair, and efficient.
Gay marriage extension does not apply fairness across the board nor efficiency in comparison to a law which required applications and gave fair benefits.
Starting at the weakest point of a current law, does not make a good point for a new law.
October 9, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
By the way Rosenblatt I must say again:
I love your attitude now that you’re back to your normal self.
These are pertinent questions to ask. You’re being inquisitive and I can tell it is for knowledge.
While I have been pissed at you in the past your posts here are changing my mind about you and I would like to thank you for debating in good form.
October 12, 2015 at 11:07 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
bob,
Thank you for finally conceding to me when you said, “I don’t believe it’s ok to deny legal rights that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.”
That is all gay couples want and has been my sole point regarding this issue, equal treatment under the law.
I am not sure why you keep referring to my argument as ideological when it is clearly based in Constitutional Law. You are the one creating problems where none exist.
You asked, “Why do you believe it is ok to grant access to benefits for pro creating couples who do not procreate?” I do not believe it is OK. More importantly, I do not think it will happen. Should a heterosexual couple who does not have a child receive the same benefits as a couple who does procreate?
Rosenblatt, I still don’t hear you condemning Planned Parenthood for their outrageous illegal/criminal behavior doing abortion on demand, some in the third trimester and most are not because the mother is in danger from child birth. Sure, there are cases where the health of the mother is at risk and we need to save the mother. I would like to see your stats on how often that happens and compare it to all the ones given just because they can. I would bet that most of the women did not know that Planned Parenthood was harvesting the baby for its organs.
“I still don’t hear you condemning Planned Parenthood for their outrageous illegal/criminal behavior doing abortion on demand”
That’s because you think when I reply to you that the only reason I did so was to argue with you. This mentality contributes to your poor reading comprehension so you never really hear what I’ve written anyway.
Still copying down what I say word for word Rosenblatt before replying? It really isn’t that hard and Bob has been kind enough to give you facts to work with. You accuse me of poor reading skills and say I don’t answer your questions and I have asked you at least 6 times on different blogs and this one if you were going to condemn Planned Parenthood for their behavior and criminal activity and this is what I get. Your silence is deafening.
You claim my silence is deafening, yet once again you proved what I was getting at – you never really hear what I say when I post things. Let me try making my point again.
The only reason you think I have not condemned Planned Parenthood for some of their unscrupulous tactics is because you failed to properly comprehend my posts when I did so. Basically, you’re getting on my case to do something I already did.
Wouldn’t you hate it if all next month I kept posting “you never apologized to me for saying I didn’t insult bob!” over and over, even though you already did? That’s exactly what you’re doing with me and Planned Parenthood right now.
October 8, 2015 at 10:08 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt, as I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, your biggest fault on this forum is to “parse” words, copy down entire posts of someone else and then conveniently sidestep. Once again, you have sidestepped condemning the most barbaric organization in the United States. Do you not know right from wrong? I know Ron doesn’t, but do you? Bob seems to think you have potential to use a little common sense with your replies to him. You couldn’t even condemn the moniker thieves for over a dozen times. As they say in the NFL, “Common Man”.
I’ve already condemned Planned Parenthood in our previous discussion on that topic. It’s not my fault you either can’t remember or don’t remember correctly. You continuing to say I have not condemned Planned Parenthood is disingenuous at best and intentional trolling at the worst.
Well, I was out of town some last week so I missed your condemnation. What article was it in? I have scrolled through a few articles and missed it. Of course, we do tend to cover a lot of subjects on every article. How much of this article was about Greenberg endorsing Jeb Bush? 5-10%?
I do remember thanking you for finally doing the right thing calling out the moniker thieves, but not Planned Parenthood.
Do me a favor Rosenblatt, Go onto Townhall.com on today, 10-8 newsletter and click on the very informative article titled – Democrats Remain Silent as Obama Economy Kills Jobs, Freezes Wages Amid More Layoffs to Come. It is a very telling report on how job numbers are jury rigged and later revised downward and how the Leftist approach to the economy has not worked for the past 7 years. I know Ron is very happy with what Obama has done and is overjoyed that the GDP is in the toilet, but I am reaching out to you like Bob did. I will be interested in your take. No need to copy my entire post.
October 8, 2015 at 12:55 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
1) Seriously – stop telling me how to post.
2) Ron is NOT happy with the job Obama and the democrats have done, which is why he said he’s voting for a Republican president next time (unless something drastic happens with the Dem ticket). He has even acknowledged many of Obama’s errors and mistakes, but I guess that’s not good enough for you.
3) Job numbers are not jury rigged. The report we all hear about unemployment is simply an initial estimate of unemployment and the numbers are then revised once the actual analysis is done.
You want to argue they shouldn’t release the estimate and they should just release the final report – that’s fine, I’m totally with you there. However, that’s how a lot of things are reported now anyway – look at CAT claim payments: initially PCS will say “this is estimated to be a $3B event” and then a couple months later will say “we’ve reviewed all the data and it turns out this actually was a $1B event.” That’s not deceptive – that’s simply updating an initial estimate to reflect the actual results.
October 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt, Seriously? Do you have to show rancor on every single post?
1. You should pay more attention to Ron’s posts over the years on the subject of Obama. His exact words were that he was disappointed in “some” of the policies, but not disappointed enough not to vote for him twice. The first term should have given him the full story on what was coming and he ignored it and did it again. How stupid was that?
2. The Labor Dept has been force feeding incorrect data for 7 years now on job creation or lack thereof. It is basically a shell game and the ministry of disinformation ie Labor Dept has gotten very good at manipulation of figures. The telling statistic is the Labor participation rate of currently 62.4% is the lowest since the Carter year of 1977. Obama cannot use the blame Bush excuse anymore. He has had his day and it is abominable. The good news is that he will be replaced and soon. Hopefully, not by another Democrat who may throw their hat in the ring because Hilliary is not going to be it.
October 8, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
1) I’ll let Ron respond to your comments about his views if he wants to discuss that with you further.
2) What you call a shell game I call “initially reporting an estimated figure, then revising said estimate with the actual data once it’s available.”
Again, this is the same way that PCS reports CAT exposure – first an estimate, then a revised/final number. Do you think PCS is playing a shell game with their data too?
Please note what I already said which you did not acknowledge in your reply: You want to argue they shouldn’t release the estimate and they should just release the final report – that’s fine, I’m totally with you there.
October 8, 2015 at 2:59 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt, as I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, your biggest fault on this forum is to “parse” words, copy down entire posts of someone else and then conveniently sidestep. Once again, you have sidestepped condemning the most barbaric organization in the United States. Do you not know right from wrong? I know Ron doesn’t, but do you?
and then you call out rosenblatt saying his posts are done with rancor? you are a hypocrite as you are the one injecting rancor in the conversations.
what exactly did rosenblatt say that was rancorous? did he respond to your personal attack by insulting you back? did he point out your worst faults like you did to him? no. you insulted him many times in one post and he did not take the bait and insult you back. open your eyes, you are the rancor king here.
October 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt, if the employment numbers are not jury rigged, how come every single month they post are always much higher than it ends up being after further review? Wouldn’t it be better to post Conservative numbers first and then brag on themselves for having better numbers later? The method used is disingenuous and dishonest and gives false information to the public. It is as bogus as the 5.1% unemployment rate and bragging on that when everyone knows it is false.
October 8, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You want to know how come the initial report is always higher than it ends up being after further review? The answer is simple and I already wrote this twice in this conversation: the initial report is an estimate which gets adjusted once the final analysis on all the data is completed
Do you think the way PCS reports CAT exposure is disingenuous or dishonest as they post an estimate of damage (say $3B) and months later revise the number (say to $1B) once their analysis on all factors is complete?
October 8, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
And I’ll say this for the third time too — you want to argue they shouldn’t release the estimate and they should just release the final report? That’s fine, I’m totally with you there.
October 8, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent wrote:
“Rosenblatt, how about you stop parsing words and copying everyones post before doing your own thing. That is a very bad habit and totally unnecessary.”
Captain Planet wrote Agent wrote: “Rosenblatt, how about you stop parsing words and copying everyones post before doing your own thing. That is a very bad habit and totally unnecessary.”
Rosenblatt, as long as you are in a light mood, try this one on for a test of your humor.
Bill & Hillary were at a Yankees game. A Secret Service agent came up and whispered something in his ear. He then picked Hillary up and threw her over the rail onto the field. She was cussing and fuming and the Secret Service agent said, Mr. President, the Yankees wanted you to throw out the first pitch.
That was a very useless post, Agent. Just trying to stir up trouble instead of discussing matters….such as….
Do you think the way PCS reports CAT exposure is disingenuous or dishonest as they post an estimate of damage (say $3B) and months later revise the number (say to $1B) once their analysis on all factors is complete?
October 9, 2015 at 5:31 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Way to side step Rosenblatt! You should try out for Dancing with the Stars with your fancy footwork. I talk about trumped up numbers with employment/unemployment, job creation, month after month and you blather on about PCS & CAT exposure that happens very infrequently in this country. I understand about estimates of damage from storms and see them on many articles. You cannot possibly think that a Progressive Socialist administration is not manipulating figures to make them look good. I call them the Ministry of Disinformation and they deserve that title.
Honestly… Greenberg’s endorsement means nothing to me. Though it does make sense he endorses Bush.
Jeb is at 4% latest poll….Money well spent????
If I were Jeb, I don’t think I would want Greenberg’s endorsement. At the rate Jeb is going, he will be down to Rand Paul numbers in a few weeks.
Agent,
Remember when you said, “Hey FFA, no doubt Rodgers is either 1 or 2 on the quarterback rankings. He shows it with every game. I wonder why he hasn’t won a Superbowl yet. Puzzling to say the least.”, even though he (the packers) did win a Super Bowl in 2010?
Also, you falsely accused Rosenblatt of calling bob an “angry little man” even though it was BS who did and Rosenblatt was only holding BS accountable?
Are ready to take some personal responsibility?
I won’t lie – getting an apology from Agent who mistakenly said I called bob an ‘angry little man’, that I wasn’t ‘toning down the rhetoric’, and that I ‘violated my own stance’ would be nice.
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like Agent asked me to do, Agent could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that he made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2015/09/28/382874.htm/?comments
Do you personally go back to all your posts to take some personal responsibility?
My guess is Agent doesn’t think it has merit.
Move on Ron. You must be a nightmare for your girlfriends, or fiance, or wife.
bob,
So typical.
I have taken responsibility when proven wrong. Agent NEVER has and he has been proven wrong plenty of times.
I know I would be a dream for your wife, assuming someone was dumb enough to marry you.
When someone tells me my post is wrong (like when you, bob, said agent didn’t swear so my ‘swearing and personal attack’ post was erroneous), yes, I take personal responsibility for the error.
Agent has NEVER ONCE admitted he misspoke, mistyped or was wrong about anything he’s ever said. He ripped into me for a post I did not make, so yes, Agent should now take responsibility and apologize for his error because I didn’t say what he claimed I did – someone else did.
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like Agent asked me to do, Agent could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that he made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
Bob, these Progressive Trolls keep thinking they can beat us down by repeating their same tired posts and their ideology does not permit Common Sense reasoning. We have proved them wrong on thousands of occasions and most of the time, they resort to name calling like “angry little man” or any number of other ugly names. That is the mantra of Progressive Socialists. Very immature and I can envision them rolling on a floor kicking their feet when they are proven wrong. You have done a good job on this subject, but what do you have to show for it?
Hey Ron, how about apologizing for voting for Obama twice after doing your extensive due diligence/research? Are you still defending his governance and policies? How about some personal responsibility on your part? How about failing to remember that 500,000 people have left NY state because of high taxation and poor governance of your political leaders? How about Buffalo getting beat on their home turf by the average NY Giants?
Hey Agent, how about you apologize to me for saying I insulted bob when it was really BS who did that? How about acknowledging that I did not call bob an ‘angry little man’, that I was ‘toning down the rhetoric’, and that I didn’t ‘violate my own stance’?
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like you asked me to do, you could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that you made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2015/09/28/382874.htm/?comments
Wow, Agent – what an unrelated rant you have going on here! Deflect conversations often? You are really something else.
Agent,
I and Rosenblatt have proven you wrong.
If you can PROVE, without making any assumptions, that either Senator McCain or Mitt Romney would have been better, based on actual results, I will apologize for voting for President Obama. Your proof must be quantifiable with no room for opinion.
Rosenblatt, how about you stop parsing words and copying everyones post before doing your own thing. That is a very bad habit and totally unnecessary.
How about a lesson: I hereby condemn the childish swearing and boorish behavior of any commenter on this forum including myself.
It took 13 times for you to condemn the moniker thieves by parsing words, trying to say you did it when you didn’t.
Ron, how about you justifying why you voted for Obama twice and voting Democrat in every Presidential election? I could care less about your votes for Republicans in local and state races. Republicans in NY are at best RINO’s so it is about the same as the Democrats in that state.
agent – how about you learn some reading comprehension? ron already admitted in this comment section that he voted for George Bush in 2000 – he has not voted democrat in EVERY presidential election like you incorrectly claim.
Agent,
Why do my votes matter to you? It is unAmerican to disrespect someone else’s vote. Have I ever questioned your vote for any particular candidate? No. Would I agree with all of your votes? Highly unlikely, but I respect your right to make your own decision for what ever reason you decide.
It’s nice to know that you care more about me voting for local Republicans more than something else in your life. How flattering.
As I said before, most counties in NY are actually Conservative. It is Liberal NYC that skews everything to the left.
‘Practically every state has laws protecting voter privacy and secrecy of ballots. The idea is over 1,000 years old and comes from times when threats and violence were how votes were gained. under the Voting Rights Act, it’s illegal for anyone to bully you or use force or threats of force to influence your vote’
considering how agent talks to people who have different beliefs than him, especially with liberal versus conservative beliefs, i see we have not come very far in the past 1,000 years
confused,
Most of us have come a long way. It is Agent who is stuck in the 1st Millennium.
Agent, grow up and take care of your own business…why does Rosenblatt have to be your “moniker guard”?? And Agent is NOT uncommon on an insurance web-site. You are one of the worst up here when it comes to how you speak to others…but when the shoe is on the other foot everyone must stick up for you. You are a joke. Get over yourself and put your big boy pants on. If you for ONE day tried to be a little more kind on this site and stop saying rude, RACIST gibberish, you may find that a lot of people would come around to you and even start to try and understand your thoughts and opinions. Years back when I first started reading the Journal, you actually were one of the people I enjoyed reading the comments from…you have just consistently showed that you are mean, hypocritical and bash people just as bad as they give it back to you…and YOU usually are the aggravator from the get go….examples, the following are things you have said, I am copying and pasting:
1. Hey Gen Y, you are stupid not to bundle and you pay more as a result
2. He is one sick individual and needs help with his Anger Management issue.
3. I feel sorry for your employer as well. You will never achieve success with that attitude
4. UW, your post shows your ignorance
5. Rosenblatt, knock knock, anyone home?
6. I heard you say that you have lots of Muslim friends and they are great and fantastic people. Perhaps you will get some of those 85,000 Syrians that Kerry is bringing in. No doubt some of them will be ISIS and we will see how safe Iowa is then.
Just a few…I could post at least 20 more. On the bright side, you are not quite as bad as Bob and your post make much more sense than his and most importantly are much shorter.
AND FINALLY, yes Rosenblatt, I know “swears and personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” :) I just get over seeing Agent’s post sometimes and cannot help myself. I respect you Rosenblatt.
well said sir – or ma’am – well said
and this is what you get on a slow news day….
What did Jeb do to piss Hank off to get this endorsement? Is his the endorsement you want?
With that endorsement, I am glad to be a Democrat.
Remember the words of Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, “If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat!”
I would prefer not to remember a lie from Clinton, but that’s just me.
In current day voting for a liberal will not result in a return to fiscal responsibility, or any of the traits conservatism ideals believe.
Also: Jeb is the right endorsement. While you and the left have labeled George W Bush as a lot worse than he is, go look up a bit about Jeb.
He’s a climate change advocated, but doesn’t like the left’s over reach.
His tax ideals are good.
I would choose him if you guys didn’t do such a good job destroying him. In any case I’m probably going Fiorina.
bob,
You are supporting a serial liar? Are you sure you’re not a Liberal?
Really, show me why you think these republicans are less qualified.
The only thing you’ve ever done is the same thing you say republicans do.
You call republicans liars and hypocrites.
Fair enough, show me why I should vote democrat this time around.
You be the salesman.
I’ll sell the republican side, which I already partly did.
Explain to me why democrats are the better choice.
bob – ron said Fiorina was a liar, not that you shouldn’t vote for her or that she was a worse option or less qualified than any democrats. try to stay on point – nobody here is telling others how to vote (well, except for Agent) – ron simply said Carly also lies, not that you shouldn’t vote for her if you want.
Confused,
No. Just no. So what was the point in his comment? It is clearly to say I don’t know how to vote any better than a democrat who is voting for a liar. It is his same false equivalency statement. I would say it is patently on point to then discuss what the reason to vote actually is.
Also, he has to prove she’s a liar.
Also Confused:
I love how here I am with a huge host of questions as to why to vote democrat, and rather than have the conversation and direct my points on why not to, you would rather make it an intangible retort.
Oh you were finished? Good. Now allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like?
That’s about what your argument amounts to.
bob,
I am not trying to sell anything and never said Democrats are a better choice. I just like to point out facts. You are the one trying to convince that the facts are not as important as talking points, ideology and “methodology”.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know a few things about me that I have stated multiple times:
1. I never stated that I am a moderate. I am an Independent. I vote for people, not parties.
2. I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life
3. I plan on voting for the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016 unless some unknown Democrat throws their hat in the ring.
The reason I point out the hypocrisy of the Republican party is because of how disappointing it is to me. In addition, there is far more hypocrisy from the right than the left.
“I am not trying to sell anything and never said Democrats are a better choice. I just like to point out facts. You are the one trying to convince that the facts are not as important as talking points, ideology and “methodology”.
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know a few things about me that I have stated multiple times:
1. I never stated that I am a moderate. I am an Independent. I vote for people, not parties.
2. I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life
3. I plan on voting for the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016 unless some unknown Democrat throws their hat in the ring.
The reason I point out the hypocrisy of the Republican party is because of how disappointing it is to me. In addition, there is far more hypocrisy from the right than the left.”
Ah yes, you are just trying to prove that I’m more of a hypocrite than those on the left. That’s all. Got it.
In terms of methodology, really? I just used fact for all my points. I am not the one trying to convince someone anything is more important than methodology.
You making a statement doesn’t make it true. Go ahead and show me the measures. I just showed you several.
By which measure are they more hypocrites?
I eagerly await your reply.
Also: You voted for Obama twice. You are not over the age of 40. I know you didn’t vote Dole. I know you didn’t Vote Bush W. You did not vote for more republican candidates, you’re misleading people to appear independent. An independent does not call republicans the greater hypocrites while voting for them. I am intelligent enough to know you desire to be moderate, like many Catholics, because of an ego.
I know a lot about you, more than you do.
Look at my posts in this area regarding gay marriage.
Did you know even half of them? Had you pondered even half of them?
Yet you dislike republicans in this area. Do you know their position? Were you aware why they are against gay marriage, or did you believe it was zealotry?
Answer the damn questions!
You’re a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan!
bob, please remember to factor in non-presidential elections when counting how many democrats and republicans ron has voted for. i’m pretty sure those elections still count, so i don’t know why you only talked about his presidential voting record.
bob,
You said, “Ah yes, you are just trying to prove that I’m more of a hypocrite than those on the left. That’s all. Got it.” FALSE. I did not say you. I was referring to Republican politicians
You said, “By which measure are they more hypocrites?”
1. They are “fiscally conservative” yet every Republican President has overseen deficits, using increasing, and increased the debt.
2. They are for freedom, until someone else’s freedom offends them.
3. They are for less government, until they want the government to regulate marriage, women’s health, and privacy for the sake of protection.
4. They are against higher taxes, until they want to increase taxes on 43% of the country.
5. They believe in freedom of religion, unless it is not a religion they agree with
6. They say government does not create jobs, them criticize Democrats for failing to create jobs.
7. They have no problem wasted trillions on destroying and rebuilding other countries, but want to cut domestic spending.
8. They are against welfare, unless it is corporate welfare that goes to profitable companies who cut jobs and/or send jobs overseas.
You said, “You are not over the age of 40.” FALSE
You said, ” I know you didn’t Vote Bush W.” FALSE, the first time. I did not vote for him in 2004 due to his fiscal irresponsibility. You do not cut taxes in the middle of a war or military conflict, period.
You said, “Yet you dislike republicans in this area. Do you know their position? Were you aware why they are against gay marriage, or did you believe it was zealotry?” They do not like gays, period. You can spin it any way you want, but there is absolutely no legal basis to treat 2 consenting adults different than 2 other consenting adults, period. Try reading the Constitution and tell where it says you can.
Please stop making false assumption about me, my voting record and what I do and do not believe.
You are a bullying and I will treat you like piece of scum that you are.
Bob, there is one thing that is cast in concrete and that is the 16 Republicans are all far more qualified to be President than the thug liar Hilliary, the Communist Sanders and the dufus VP Biden who is just as far left as Obama and has been the dutiful foot soldier. Biden is also a pervert as we have seen.
I don’t care much for Jeb because he is a RINO and we need a strong leader with a spine and Jeb is a milquetoast.
Agent,
This is exactly why Ron should like Jeb. Jeb is a Catholic who agrees with the pope on most issues, inclusive of climate change.
Jeb should be the moderate Ron is looking for.
Agent – I think swears and/or personal attacks, even when directed towards politicians instead of IJ posters, are immature and have no place on this site.
Rosenblatt,
You’re an adult. Be the change you want to see, let it go, move on.
This has gone on way too long.
Your pride is far too hurt over it.
bob – my pride has nothing to do with this. Agent asked me to call out people by name and tell those who swear and make personal attacks that it has no place on this site. I’m doing this per Agent’s request.
This has been weeks Rosenblatt, weeks of you saying the same comment as well as Ron.
You’re going on a bullying campaign, literally, demanding Agent make an action or you won’t stop.
How about you knock it off? The two of you are acting like kids.
you know all about how to bully someone and act like a kid yourself, child
Confused:
TELLING THESE TWO THAT DEMANDING AGENT TO MAKE A FORMAL APOLOGY IS BULLYING IS NOT AN ACT OF BULLYING.
AND CALLING SOMEONE AN IDIOT IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT IS NOT BULLYING.
GROW UP!
Let’s have a conversation where you aren’t trying to make pointless comments.
I’ll give you the opportunity right now
ADDRESS MY ARGUMENTS.
Don’t want to?
Then you have no point in being here!
My purpose here is to make sense.
In fact, being that I’m giving you the chance to make that choice, it means you have an option!
Ron and Rosenblatt are not giving an option. They have been at this for weeks!
They won’t debate anything else. They won’t move on, it’s a bunch of crap.
What I’m telling you, is different. I’m saying knock it off let’s have a conversation. If you’re an idiot in that conversation I’ll call you one.
We will argue on it. We will end it.
You don’t know what the !#%@ bullying is.
bob wrote “You don’t know what the !#%@ bullying is.” I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site.
bob,
Agent does have an option, he could just admit that he was wrong and apologize.
Then again, that would not be very Conservative, would it?
Agent,
Care to define what a communist is and what a democratic socialist is? It doesn’t have to be by the end of the day if you want to do some actual research. I can extend the deadline until the end of the work week.
Captain –
Twisting definition to try to say democrats are not advocating for movements toward communism is dishonest.
Next question, move on.
Planet, I don’t have to do your bidding and do definitions for you. I got my education and know. If you want to know, Google it. Besides that, you wouldn’t get it anyway. Obama/Hilliary/Biden/Sanders=Socialist. That is all you need to know.
Agent says “…you wouldn’t get it anyway”
I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site, Agent.
Bob,
I haven’t read a comment of yours in probably 3 years, not going to start now. It’s called ignoring the bully.
Agent, I knew you didn’t know the difference.
Pretty sure Bob and Agent are dating, they both spend enough time together and have similar views. Congrats, you girls make an excellent couple.
Hillary ’16!
Ron,
You are beyond full of crap.
Grow up.
I don’t even have the time to explain to you why. Just learn more about politics.
I’m tired of educating you.
I’ll do one last educating aspect, and this easily one of the best reasons to not vote democrat:
I have mentioned the estate tax many times. So have you. You say we need the revenues somewhere.
However, again, an estate tax at 55% each time a family gets big enough to make their own large business ensure that no single person can build a big business unless they make their company go public. Public companies are under much more scrutiny with discrimination laws, if someone has a better resume (Ivy League school) and you don’t hire them, you could get into trouble. Watch me while I say the combo of discrimination laws, elite schools, and the estate tax ensure an elite class will always get an auto in to a publicly traded company.
The estate tax brings in according to the CBO 8 billion accounting for the capital, businesses, and jobs it destroys a year. This is not a debate, it does have the affect no matter how much we debate the degree of destroying a means to building capital or maintaining capital in a business transfer.
Do you know an easy way to get that? A slight change to income taxes. We do not need the 8 billion in estate taxes.
This is easily a huge reason to never support a democrat.
Also, I have seen the methods to the lies with democrats, it is NOT equal.
For example this planned parenthood mess. They are trying to create a reason for their existence, because the republicans keep saying they don’t have one. They receive public funding, and charge to do abortions (not publicly funded). However, without public funding for the services they try to say only they can do (but they cannot name what they are) they would not have enough money to exist. So they are using public funding to have a brick and mortal company dishonestly, and are then saying we refer people to mammograms. Watch me while I inform you that during the debates in 2012 Obama said if planned parenthood was defunded women would lose access to mammograms (lie).
You see, they need planned parenthood to exist as a voting point. Divide and conquer.
They do this a lot.
Live. Learn Ron!
Women vs men. Church vs gays. This is not an opinion, but rather a fact, in WA state we passed discrimination laws that would essentially create a war among the church and gays, regarding celebratory fees. The republicans had the SAME law, and supported it (oh my Ron, could it be democrats are lying that republicans don’t support these laws, and are INTENTIONALLY trying to create a war and need for themselves by inserting something controversial into the bill?).
This same thing happened with marriages. Republicans acknowledge that gay marriage is not the same is straight. Straight people generally have babies, so a scenario generally exists with a primary and secondary earner. It makes sense to thus have a survivorship clause for social security. For gay people, it does not. There are real reasons to not support gay marriage as having the same needs as gay ones. The majority of republicans support civil unions. But hey, the democrats needed an enemy to the gays.
The same thing happened with the birth control. That didn’t matter at all, considering the cost, and they made a battle of it.
During the election in 2012, I received emails saying that children and elderly would go without a hot meal due to republican cuts. They gave exact numbers as if it was a fact. It was not.
Republicans now against the children and the elderly. Republicans vs blacks (Biden saying they will put you back in chains) republicans vs businesses based on a lie (estate tax) republicans vs hell, the world! Based one a lie (republicans support some degree of changes but are mainly trying to stop democrats from taking over reaching control over businesses in the name of a supposed ideal which they often do) republicans vs Hispanic folks (immigration, because hey, no economy has ever failed under the stresses of letting to many people into it who require assistance)
Then we have the QE and stimulus. Big reasons to not vote democrat. But hey, you believe the last time we debated that those still may have passed with republicans in office!
You aren’t a moderate Ron. Or you would see this.
You wouldn’t see republicans efforts to defund planned parenthood as bad, you would wonder what planned parenthood exists for.
We have abortion clinics. We have clinics. Now the woman goes to two appointments, whereas republicans such as Santorum said they would pass all the funding to women to clinics. This is why planned parenthood is on trial. They are trying to say they have services different than a clinic and are thus needed. They can’t say what those are. They increase costs. And now it’s bad that republicans want to streamline healthcare for women, right?
Meanwhile, the owner of planned parenthood makes half a million a year and is lying about what services planned parenthood provides.
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Grow up!
Should I now insert the more reasons other than why I don’t vote democrat, and estate tax for why I vote republican? I would say estate tax is a huge one.
“Straight people generally have babies, so a scenario generally exists with a primary and secondary earner. It makes sense to thus have a survivorship clause for social security. For gay people, it does not.”
I’m honestly asking for clarification here, bob. Don’t rip into me for things I didn’t ask or what you think I’m trying to say.
Are you saying even though gay people can adopt children and raise them, it still does not make sense to give gay people a similar survivorship clause in social security as straight couples get because ‘the gay couple doesn’t have the same needs as a straight couple’?
If a gay couple legally adopts a child and raises it for 18+ years, the gay couple should not have access to the same survivorship benefits straight couples with children have? Is that what you’re saying?
Rosenblatt –
Being gay and having a child is not something that science will pretty much cause to happen.
Marriage was created for the purpose of care of the children that would come from marriage. Most benefits have this in mind.
Note that this is why gay people are pushing for adoption. To combat what I just said. So they can say “we can have kids too”. However, the overwhelming majority don’t want them.
If you want to make a clause which will give them benefits if they either act as a stay at home parent, or they just choose to let a primary earner earn the money and they stay at home, that is fine.
bob,
You said, Marriage was created for the purpose of care of the children that would come from marriage.” No, that would be intercourse.
If that were true, God would only bless married couples with children.
You said, “Note that this is why gay people are pushing for adoption. To combat what I just said. So they can say “we can have kids too”. However, the overwhelming majority don’t want them.” Please cite your source for this garbage.
Do the majority of Gay couples and married couples have children? Are you telling me 51% of gay people have children? Are you telling me the number will ever compete with the amount of children that people will have in a marriage by accident?
The average is 3! Tell me gay couples will have needs comparable to 3 children!
Regarding your Marriage comment:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION. Society structured marriage based on women and children.
This is why there are laws in countries predominantly Islamic in which the brother or any living relative of the dead husband takes care of the wife when a woman is widowed. It is actually a law, and the same law goes for the kids.
Marriage in the courts, in government, was to take care of kids and bind the responsibility of couples who have kids to their wife and husband and children raising. Don’t talk to me about garbage. You just tried to force me into a religious zealot by making the topic about religion.
If a conservative came in here and said marriage was about God you would go straight for their jugular and you know it! And here you are making that religious argument I suppose as a Catholic, as long as it makes me a hypocrite Ron!
Bad ethical debating tactics, REVEALED.
In other words:
Gay people have to choose to have 3 kids, how many will make that choice over how many people will accidentally have 3 or more?
Birth control is not 100% effective. My first child was born on that, for example. My first technical child who was aborted by my ex was born like that as well, and another from a woman in my history.
From the very act of being married, you will have children. From the very act of being gay and married you won’t.
These benefits were created for the kids and to make their lives livable. It was not about love. It was not about status. The assistance with college for example. EIC credits for mothers, which encourages them to get back into work. There was a need, it gets filled.
Extending all to gays is absurd!
And saying gays encounter risk of pregnancy at all times is absurd! There will NEVER be as much child adoption by gays as there is child birth. NEVER.
And if a gay person decides to live outside their means by adopting to get assistance, that is WRONG.
The point here is NEED. You idiotic child!
bob wrote from the very act of being married, you will have children.
my hetero fiance and i don’t want to have kids. 2 hetero married couples we know don’t want kids either. the very act of marriage does not result in children you simpleton
And more importantly:
Where will all these adoption babies come from for gay couples?
You think that more gay couples receiving adopted babies, will have children than people who have kids as a whole?
I have to separate these since if I post more than one link I risk it being removed.
http://adoptionsbygladney.com/adoption/domestic/adoption-facts
Each year 51,000 children are put up for adoption. There are a total of 1.5 million adopted children living currently.
Estimates of the amount of people who are gay vary from 4 to 10% or even higher. Let’s use 4%. There are 12.8 million gay couples at that point.
Even if they adopted ALL the children put up for adoption and currently living, only about one in 11 could have a child.
So the overwhelming majority whether they want to or not, will not have a child. End of story!
This is disregarding that only about 65,000 are living with a gay parent. We would have to assume that these 12.8 million gay people don’t really want kids at that point.
Marriage was originally created as a transaction between two men to purchase a daughter from her father. In fact if the man was wealthy enough, he could purchase several brides. Up until a couple hundred years ago, women had no say in who they ended up with in the vast majority of marriages. Then times changed, and so did our cultural norms regarding marriage.
Nowadays people get married for many reasons, many of whom never want children or are incapable of even having them. Infertile and elderly couples get married all the time, and yet you never heard a peep from conservatives complaining about them getting social security survivorship benefits. Gay couples have just as much of a right to those benefits as elderly and infertile couples.
Bottom line is, consenting adults do not have to justify their reason to marry to you or any other moralist on their high horse.
If you want traditional Biblical marriage, move to Saudi Arabia where you can still buy women from their fathers. Otherwise make peace with the fact that cultures evolve over time and traditions change.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/offandrunning/adoption_fact_sheet.php
So next time you tell me my common sense is garbage, go @#%@#% yourself.
I’m in insurance. As an underwriter I would call the exposure A (Children) a minor one for gay marriage and the exposure B (Children) for a heterosexual couple not even remotely comparable, and the statement Gay couples do not pose a risk or substantial concern for raising children, would be accurate.
Each year we adopt 50,000 kids, whereas about 3.9 million are born.
Of the 1.5 million kids who will need help, 50,000 go to gays.
Also, there are literal credits when it comes to adopting. Meaning, gay people already get support here.
They don’t need the marital laws in this area.
David,
The culture you’re talking about, as you said yourself, was hundreds of years ago.
Besides which, LIE. I won’t go into the debate how wrong you are because my first comment makes there no need.
Current marriage in the U.S. of A was established for parenting of the children.
Where there is need, we give a benefit. I am not putting my moral high horse anywhere, nor have I made a moral argument.
I have made one of need.
Passing on benefits to those who are not child bearers, is insane.
Social security survivor benefits were created for why I said they are.
Marriage and EIC credits exist to get mothers back to work after having kids.
College credits that go to married couples (For example I can get a return of nearly the entire amount to send my wife to college) exists for the same purpose. To get the family out of poverty.
This is about using the government for need.
You tell me why the standard definition should apply exactly the same for gay couples based on need?
Are their needs equal?
Give me a reason.
If you don’t have one, we are affording benefits beyond their need without reason. That is a waste of our money as a nation.
Also David –
When someone is an ideologue, they always try to discredit someone based on ideology.
Example: You are trying to say I need to get off my high horse and are focused on morality. It’s cute, but it makes you an ideologue.
If you truly cared about the government handing out benefits to non-childbearing married couples, then you would have been lobbying to prevent women who have gone through menopause from getting married because they’re no longer fertile. You would force couples who want to get married to undergo a fertility test and sign a vow to have children before the government sanctions their union and provides those marriage benefits.
But you didn’t. No Republicans ever proposed such things. They only tried to frame marriage as being 100% about children because a group they don’t like wanted the same marriage benefits afforded to everyone else.
You’re just desperately searching for a secular reason to keep gay people from getting married, because being in a homosexual relationship is against your religion and you’re clever enough to realize that the government can’t impose your religion on everyone else.
I can rest easy though, knowing that your outdated views have already lost. Gay marriage is the law of the land now. You’re on the wrong side of history and your moaning and complaining about gay people getting married are going to be seen in the same light as the racists who tried to prevent interracial couples from marrying. It makes my heart feel good to see bigotry wither away and die.
David – You’re just wrong here. You are trying to make absurd comments.
We don’t need to pass laws regarding sterile couples. The are not the norm.
Marriage laws were created due to how society works, survivor benefits were for survivors who needed benefits. Go look into why they were created. Social security is not that old the debate is still up for review.
There is no “ALL” argument in any scenario.
You’re trying to say because not “ALL” married people have kids it has nothing to do with marriage.
Ok, then what is the purpose of marriage in regards to the government? It has to have one, otherwise what Ron suggested would be the case. It would just be a status in religions.
Provide the purpose. Is it love? I don’t think so. I’m more of a secular person than a religious one. This is what you don’t get. My “kind” are out dated?
The secular agnostic turned Catholic using logical reasoning? No.
This is what we call taking an extreme and using it to derail an argument Dave. That’s what you did.
I put norms. I put the purpose of marriage. That is what it’s for. To provide for the family, including children.
You actually get less tax write offs for being married than if you were both single. Are you aware of this? Do you know why? They figure while alive you need less benefits with two people.
However, if you have kids, you need more, especially if one of the two providers dies.
Government need is the issue. Also, you said:
“f you truly cared about the government handing out benefits to non-childbearing married couples, then you would have been lobbying to prevent women who have gone through menopause from getting married because they’re no longer fertile”
No. I wouldn’t. My issue isn’t non child bearing married couples receiving benefits. My issue is non child bearing couples having access to child bearing couple benefits.
Non bearing couples are the extreme in one case, while the norm for the other.
Rather than passing laws to police child birthing, instead we decided to make it apply to all married couples. It’s really that simple.
Do YOU propose we police child birthing couples instead?
You’re projecting a bit.
Also Dave, I have to say this:
You are an arrogant dumb #@%@#%. Sorry for the insult, but you just labeled all people who are against gay marriage as bigoted while I just gave the true argument.
It is not bigoted, and you don’t get to throw that term out there, while thinking how amazingly advanced you are.
My parents thought they were the future back in the 50’s and 60’s. They thought they were love. This is an issue with youth. They label others as bigots in black and white fights.
I’m talking purple to black to white here. The thing is you have such a polarized world view, you don’t get that.
Dave,
I realized my one comment doesn’t make sense there and you’re probably too stupid to get it.
My issue is with non child bearing couples by nature (100%) having access as a whole to child bearing benefits.
The most gay couples per year that can have a child is 50,000, as that is how many children are put up for adoption.
When it comes to married heterosexual couples, 3.9 million are born each year. The average family has 3 kids. The need exists.
I also already said to Rosenblatt, that if he wants to extend children benefits to gays who adopt, that is fine. I even said benefits actually exist for that purpose. But to approach that through marital law is absurd.
What you’re essentially saying is gay people deserve equal rights even when they don’t have equal needs, and that marriage laws don’t fill the purpose I said even though they do, and really it’s just a piece of paper (ideological belief) which was created due to people wanting to own their wives hundreds of years ago (ideological lie) and is now dated (as if the purpose it was used for to help kids no longer exists).
*smacks forehead*
Put even better for you Dave –
How is marital law more fair than civil unions for gay couples?
I am going to love this. I know your answer already. Then they have the “title” of marriage eh? (Ideological Argument).
My question for you is this: Considering gay couples don’t have need for survivor benefits and don’t bear children, would you be ok with a civil union which provided them every benefit they wanted (visitation rights which they already basically have unless a family denies them the ability, but I digress, estate handling which they already have if they write a will, and is best addressed through estate laws and not marital laws, but I digress etc).
Or does it have to be gay marriage? If it does can you explain to me the reason? What difference specifically causes you to believe this way?
Prove to me you’re not an ideologue, and if your reply even once includes the words: Bigotry, oppression, moral high horse, religion, or stories about your believe regarding the origins of marriage to discredit current law and purpose, etc I’m going to probably insult you and just toss your argument down the drain.
Wow Bob, you’re going off on quite the tear in your multiple ranting posts. I must have really gotten under your skin.
Let’s just nip this argument about children and families right in the bud. I don’t give a rat’s ass if a couple wants kids or not. I don’t care if one spouse stays home or they both work. Consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of whether they plan to have kids or not. There are plenty of marriage benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with children, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, not having to testify against your spouse, etc.
Quit pretending to be a moral crusader looking out for women and children. You’re just a bigot who has latched on to a thin justification to deny people you don’t like the same rights everyone else has. End of story. And thank Jesus your way of thought is dying a swift death.
bob wrote “You are an arrogant dumb #@%@#%” I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site.
Reading through your rants again, it appears that you want to carve out some of the benefits of marriage and place them into a separate but equal institution and call it a civil union.
No dice. There are over 1100 federal benefits to marriage, many of which have nothing to do with child rearing whatsoever. It’s stupid to waste time and money creating an entirely new arrangement of rights and responsibilities for gay couples when we already have a system that works perfectly fine: marriage.
You have claimed to be a small government conservative in the past. Why are you willing to waste our tax dollars to create new laws and increase the size and complexity of our government? Why do you want government bureaucrats to pick and choose which marriage benefits to grant to committed gay couples?
Our current Congress can barely agree to keep the government’s lights on and you expect them to get together and craft a massive new institution built entirely for gay people? You’re either being naïve or disingenuous and don’t actually want gay people to have any rights whatsoever. I vote the latter given your fanatical Catholic beliefs.
I know it hurts your poor little feelings that those evil sodomites want to partake in what you consider a holy sacrament but tough titty. Gay marriage is now the law of the land, and hearing religious bigots whine and complain about losing this battle always brings a smile to my face.
Dave,
I notice rather than address my points you address that I got ticked off at your stupidity, something I’m sure has happened with you regarding conservative ideals.
“There are plenty of marriage benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with children, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, not having to testify against your spouse”
Each of these can be handled through laws not involving marriage.
The primary issue here is if we extend all benefits, we have social security survivor ones.
See my comment to BS. Most families spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this. It ruins their retirement. Do gays have an equal need by nature to this benefit?
We should not extend all even if there were 1000 benefits in common, if we gave benefits putting gays hundreds of thousands of dollars of an advantage just for being married.
“You have claimed to be a small government conservative in the past. Why are you willing to waste our tax dollars to create new laws and increase the size and complexity of our government? Why do you want government bureaucrats to pick and choose which marriage benefits to grant to committed gay couples? ”
Not related to the argument at hand. Also, making separate laws for gay marriage will not increase the size and complexity of government in this scenario any more than passing what you said was the expansion of 1000 laws. Stay on point. This was an attempt of discrediting me by not dealing with the topic at hand.
“I don’t give a rat’s ass if a couple wants kids or not. I don’t care if one spouse stays home or they both work. Consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of whether they plan to have kids or not”
BINGO! I already knew this would be your argument.
You have created this in your head as an ideological injustice.
Any couple should be allowed to be together, unified by the state then? Is that why they should be able to marry whomever they want? Is it a status, to say “I’m married?”.
Here’s something I will tell you, I’m even ok with THAT. I’m ok with them saying they are “married”. However the problem here is in the GOVERNMENT definition of marriage and what it affords.
Hell, I would allow any civil union couple to say they are married.
They still do not have the same needs as pro creating unions. I’ll even call them that instead of married couples if it makes you feel better, because clearly, I butt hurt you due to your ideology more than you did I.
These are not equal need scenarios, and you just said even if they had separate needs, and would end up ahead of procreating laws (unfair) you would support it because reasons! Good job!
Ron and Rosenblatt:
Grow up. People argue. One is right. One is wrong.
People say insults.
Get on with your lives, we are not in highschool. We are not in some world of equilibrium. Watch the movie. You’ll see what I mean.
That’s what you wand to occur. I’ll inform you to take your equilibrium the next time you’re angry, but I for one embrace being human.
That includes getting pissed off at injustice. That’s not something I’ll let go, because it motivates me to invoke and start change!
So piss off!
Your whole premise that marriage exists solely as an arrangement to provide benefits to couples raising children just isn’t true. If it was, there wouldn’t be hundreds of federal marital benefits that have nothing to do with raising children. It’s just bullshit that you made up in a desperate attempt to find a secular reason to deny gay people from getting married.
There are millions of straight married couples that never want or will have children. In fact, there are now more married couples without children than married couples with them. The number of married couples with children have been declining for decades.
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2012/us-household-change.aspx
Also, what’s this drivel about gay people getting an advantage? So what? Childless straight couples (which we have now established to be more numerous than couples with children) get the exact same advantage in regards to survivorship benefits. Gay people are entitled to them too.
Ok I have finally learned something from Agent that will change my entire point making process.
Dave, I will admit I argued entirely wrong with you, and made it too long.
Let’s shorten this to two questions and post a link:
http://www.caniretireyet.com/having-kids-vs-retiring-earlier/
Considering the costs of raising a child and children, do you believe that there exists a greater need for procreating families? That is $250,000 dollars a non procreating couple could invest. Even at 5% this would be bout a half a million dollars (the link I provided had two numbers, and only provided an investment return on the higher of the two, rather than the lower. I would prefer to focus on the middle middle class not the higher)
Do you believe it is fair, for someone who will have $500,000 more at retirement, to give them equal social security benefits?
“Also, what’s this drivel about gay people getting an advantage? So what? Childless straight couples (which we have now established to be more numerous than couples with children) get the exact same advantage in regards to survivorship benefits. Gay people are entitled to them too.”
Norm – vs extreme.
Also: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Did you just argue the majority of married couples will NEVER have kids? Your link does not study the same married couples over time. All it shows is more married couples may be waiting to have kids. To say the majority will not have kids is insane!
The process of being married poses the risks of kids.
Now I’m going to do what you did to me: So then, it costs more to separate it out on a case by case basis doesn’t it Dave? So applying for benefits when you have kids doesn’t make sense, as opposed to I don’t know, GIVING THE BENEFITS TO ALL PEOPLE WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KIDS AS A RESULT OF THE EXPOSURE OF SEX.
Norm – Extreme. You actually just tried to argue that marriage does not impact procreation. Are you an idiot?
Also Dave:
Some vs ALL
ALL gay people would get this benefit. We should extend an injustice not based on need, because SOME heterosexual couples have this need?
We should harm our budget, because SOME heterosexual couples have no kids?
I am all for efficiency. In no scenario should ALL gays get these benefits. They don’t need it. That’s a fact. Argue against the need.
I gave an exposure in no scenario would any gay person need this money. NONE.
Are you seriously making an argument about economic fairness Bob? Coming from a person who despises the estate tax? If some people choose not to have children and are able save up an extra $500,000 by retirement age then why would you care? Talk about class warfare.
A person who makes $118,500 per year gets the exact same Social Security benefit as a person who makes $20,000,000 per year. This isn’t fair either, but I have never seen you call for removing the cap on taxable income for Social Security.
There are 2 million children being raised by gay parents right now Bob. Gay people are perfectly capable of having children through surrogacy, artificial insemination or through adoption.
If you don’t want couples who don’t intend on having kids to get married and take advantage of social security benefits then that’s fine. But at least be consistent. Demand that every marriage license come with a fertility test and a pledge to have children. As it stands, gay couples are currently raising hundreds of thousands of children. Your entire argument about providing benefits for raising a family applies to them too.
The norm as of now may be that gay married couples disproportionately have fewer kids than straight ones, but who’s to say that that trend will stay the same forever? Until this year, the majority of gay people were locked out of marriage, a key requirement that most adoption agencies have when deciding where to place children. The times are changing Bob.
Oy ve Dave…You are so absurd.
I’ll start here since this is your biggest fallacy:
“There are 2 million children being raised by gay parents right now Bob. Gay people are perfectly capable of having children through surrogacy, artificial insemination or through adoption.”
http://www.pbs.org/pov/offandrunning/adoption_fact_sheet.php
There aren’t even 2 million children adopted period. According to PBS, a fairly liberal organization, it is 65,000 by gay couples.
Even if it were 2 million from gay couples, 3.9 million are born each year, 94% of married couples will eventually have kids.
If ten percent of the U.S. is gay, this is 30 million people, and 15 million couples. Even if all of the 15 million went to adopt kids only 50,000 kids are put up for adoption each year. The exposure is not there. Furthermore, by the very nature of being married you are exposed to kids by default in a procreating union. 94% will have a kid. You cannot derail the argument based on 6%.
“If you don’t want couples who don’t intend on having kids to get married and take advantage of social security benefits then that’s fine. But at least be consistent. Demand that every marriage license come with a fertility test and a pledge to have children. As it stands, gay couples are currently raising hundreds of thousands of children. Your entire argument about providing benefits for raising a family applies to them too. ”
I already said to BS this would be fine with me. I don’t think they deserve it either. But if you’re going to tell me gay people have as much need as a family, they don’t. Normally the social security benefit cannot be transferred. It is only transferable for the surviving family. This is an exception made, not the rule about passing on benefits.
“The norm as of now may be that gay married couples disproportionately have fewer kids than straight ones, but who’s to say that that trend will stay the same forever? Until this year, the majority of gay people were locked out of marriage, a key requirement that most adoption agencies have when deciding where to place children. The times are changing Bob”
Science says it. If only 50,000 kids are available they will never have access to as many kids. Considering 10% of the population at most is gay, and 94% of couples have kids, those 94% will always have more exposure and more kids. But moreover, they will only have so many kids, and in order for adoption to be available, there has to be enough procreating adults to create the kids. It’s math. Try it sometime.
“A person who makes $118,500 per year gets the exact same Social Security benefit as a person who makes $20,000,000 per year. This isn’t fair either, but I have never seen you call for removing the cap on taxable income for Social Security. ”
I know what you want me to say. That if someone pays in they deserve the money. Then you will say the same applies to gay folks. And they do get it. Unless they die. What you want is to pass their benefit to someone else. Which we only do due to need. However, disregarding that, you’re assuming what my response is. Would I support doing away for social security for the upper class? Yes. In fact I told this to Libby in the past. Have Ron help you look it up. He’s found my quotes before I am sure he can help you with this. So…So much for that derailing argument, but it isn’t relevant as it is, as to making this law fair. We can focus on laws on a case by case basis, instead of for ideological concepts and avoiding hypocrisy.
“Are you seriously making an argument about economic fairness Bob? Coming from a person who despises the estate tax? If some people choose not to have children and are able save up an extra $500,000 by retirement age then why would you care? Talk about class warfare. ”
WHY DID I SAY I DON’T LIKE THE ESTATE TAX? Read it! What did I say? I said I would even support getting the measly $8 billion from income taxes from the wealthy. My issue is it harms the ability for a middle class fellow to make a business that competes with corporations. I also mentioned that a person who makes a public company can then put his child through an ivy league school, and have an auto reason to hire him based on his resume. It stops small banks from rising up, whether family owned or not. Business transference and growth is hindered by a huge degree. If we want to tax the individual, tax the individual. I have made this argument before regarding for example the corporate tax. My logic for that is the same. The corporation shares it’s pie with all people in the corp. If you want to get the corporation owner’s, go for the income tax. This is absurd.
You’re trying everything you can to prove me a hypocrite instead of using common sense as to what the needs are of the public.
Rosenblatt – And this same thing should be extended beyond that to other areas which keep in mind the role of marriage in having children.
It is a reasonable debate to say gay marriage should not have extended the same treatment as heterosexual marriage. This is what republicans say, and it is labeled as being against gays.
I hope you are moderate enough to realize that.
The republicans have a legitimate reason to be pro civil union and anti gay marriage, without being against gays themselves.
This is why democrats will first off ask “Do you believe being gay is a sin”. Because then they can disregard their political actions in favor of their religious beliefs.
bob,
How about this for a solution? Marriage is recognized by religious institutions only and will have no contractual or legal standing. That way each religious sect can define marriage how they see fit. The law will recognize all couples as civil unions.
Problem solved.
Problem not solved Ron. Are you in favor of Polygamy and have the Mormon Church honor all the marriages? That is still going on by the way. The Mormon guy will have one legal wife and 5 or 6 other women in the house who are technically not wives, but serve the same purpose. They have a dozen kids among them all. By the way, I can’t see God blessing a Gay marriage since it is a sin against God.
Hey Agent, how about you apologize to me for saying I insulted bob when it was really BS who did that? How about acknowledging that I did not call bob an ‘angry little man’, that I was ‘toning down the rhetoric’, and that I didn’t ‘violate my own stance’?
Otherwise, every time I write “I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site” like you asked me to do, you could just incorrectly call me a hypocrite without ever acknowledging that you made a mistake and ascribed BS’s post to me.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2015/09/28/382874.htm/?comments
Rosenblatt, you copied the insult down word for word. Stop doing that and maybe you won’t be misunderstood in the future.
That is what you consider an apology? Instead of taking responsibility for your poor reading comprehension skills, you deflected blame towards me.
Remember when I said “tell me exactly what you want me to post about the moniker thieves and I’ll post it, then we can be done”? Well, besides the fact that I guess you’ll never let it go, here – I’ll help you now like you helped me then.
Type this and we can put this matter to rest: “Rosenblatt, I was wrong when I said you called bob an angry little man and you did not violate your own stance like I originally claimed you did.” Post that sentence and let’s be done with this nonsense.
See my above comment regarding this.
If you don’t get your way will you keep doing this?
Ok Rosenblatt, I am sorry I misunderstood your word parsing copying of another poster calling Bob an angry little man. You know, you should really stop doing that. Don’t do it, period. Just call them out by name under their post and be done with it.
If you need the moniker names of all those who regularly swear and post nasty insults, I will be glad to furnish them. I can think of about 8 offhand who need some serious mental help.
bob,
You said, “If you don’t get your way will you keep doing this?” I am guessing you are also referring to Agent.
Ron,
Agent is not mandating you talk a certain way to talk to him.
You are. You’re refusing to talk to him until he apologizes, you’ve been saying the same phrase for weeks.
There is a difference between getting heated and insulting someone, which you want him to stop, and basically stopping all contact and debate for weeks saying a one liner cliche phrase again and again until he does what you want.
Agent,
What part of “couple” do you not understand? To take it further, a couple consists of 2 consenting adults.
Remember when you said, “Hey FFA, no doubt Rodgers is either 1 or 2 on the quarterback rankings. He shows it with every game. I wonder why he hasn’t won a Superbowl yet. Puzzling to say the least.”, even though he (the Packers) did win a Super Bowl in 2010?
Also, you falsely accused Rosenblatt of calling bob an “angry little man” even though it was BS who did and Rosenblatt was only holding BS accountable.
Rosenblatt put BS’s statement in quotes, which is the proper way to attribute words to someone else. That way everyone knows why he is holding that person accountable, per your request
Are ready to take some personal responsibility and learn some reading comprehension?
Agent,
Is it a blessing when someone is impregnated from rape, incest, and intercourse with someone underage? Those are also sins.
Ron,
Another attempt to make a no win scenario for Agent. If he says yes, he’s against women. If he says no, you win on the false equivalency argument.
Grow up.
And my answer is YES. A child is always a blessing regardless of any actions by the parent.
Is a child less of a blessing if the father is a dead beat? If he leaves? Why does this change if he is a rapist?
Gay couples having sex is also a sin against God. Any Christian preacher will tell you that. You should have figured that out by now.
Agent,
That was a trap for you. Don’t fall for it. He wanted you to make comments like the sinful behavior of gays.
That way he can call you a zealot.
I’m really tired of his behavior.
Agent,
I see your comment about homosexual acts. You do realize those exact same acts do happen in a heterosexual relationship, too, correct?
Judging by Agent’s general demeanor, I am guessing that No, he has no idea what acts take place in any sort of relationship. The IJ can barely stand him, much less another human being.
And Bob, go kick rocks bro. Do you even lift?
Stan,
Do you even lift? Hilarious! I’m pretty sure not too many out here will get that. Awesome!
That does not solve all problems. Marriage as I’m talking about it is legal code, and tax benefits, and sorts afforded therein.
Taking the definition and making it religious…Is what you fight against and call people zealots regarding.
Planet, we know you don’t have a problem with Adam & Steve or any other deviant behavior. You should ask your pastor Mike what the Bible has to say about homosexual behavior. If he is one of those tolerant pastors, he is part of the problem, not the solution.
Agent,
Nobody is endorsing deviant behavior. This is strictly a legal issue. Besides, deviant and moral are relative terms, and have no place in the law. Tell me where those terms are in the Constitution.
Here’s the thing:
In your mind you will never give republicans credit even when they are right.
I just actually argued so well, that you basically had no reply other than a religious one.
I am in shock. I knew I was getting better, but to cause an ideologue to implode is new. It has happened a lot lately too.
Let’s keep these arguments tangible. You have made every argument intangible. Or you have tried for example with gay parenthood calling my comment garbage.
No. We are talking dollars and cents, and numbers. That’s how we are weighing it Ron.
And your reply was absurd ad hominem. You aren’t worth my time.
The reason I debated you before is because I thought you were. I wasn’t educated enough to know how stupid your arguments were.
Now I am. This ends. Get lost kid.
I think swears and/or personal attacks are immature and have no place on this site.
Look, pointless comments!
Yay!
Now go look at all my posts here, and more importantly look at Ron’s.
Everyone makes insults. Deal with it, and stay on topic.
I think swears and/or personal attacks perpetrated by Ins102, Stan, BS, Confused, Captain Planet, Boogereater (in all his disguises) are immature and have no place on this site. Moniker theft is one of the worst offenses to post trash under someone else’s moniker to stir up trouble. Rosenblatt, I really don’t know how it took you 13 posts to condemn that behavior. I can only chalk it up to “word parsing”. You are a master at that. Stop it and you will get along better with me.
Agent, you forgot to include bob and yourself when listing people who swear and make personal attacks on this site. Be fair and call out EVERYONE who does it, not just the people with views you don’t agree with.
Bob,How many years have you been arguing with Ron on numerous subjects? Haven’t you learned by now that he is hopeless? In fact, there are about 8 trolls on this site who are equally hopeless. Ron is not as bad as most of them, he just doesn’t get it. The others swear, make ugly insults and are despicable.
I know, I’m just naive is all this comes down to.
Bah.
bob,
You naivete extends well past that. You think typing a bunch of words makes you win an argument.
One question regarding gay marriage, where in the Constitution does it state that 2 consenting adults should be denied the same rights as 2 other consenting adults? I want word for word, not your interpretation.
If you can do that, I will concede to you.
Agent,
The problem is that you complete misunderstand me. I completely understand what you are saying. You are either incapable of providing facts to back up your rhetoric or they just do not exist.
Quoting Friedman or any else are not facts, just someone’s opinion and/or observation. They may be right, but it is still an opinion and/or observation, not necessarily fact.
Bob, yes you are naive. Now stop voting because that naiveté is ruining the country. Go do a pushup.
Stan,
Shut up kid. I don’t have time for Ron let alone you.
Holy. Crap.
Ron, I have provided my evidence. Knock it off. Using the lines you use for other conservatives who act stupid on me is not appropriate.
The main reason you’re taking this course of action is that I have sufficiently proven you’re about hypocrisy instead of facts and it has harmed your ego.
bob,
My facts prove the hypocrisy of Republicans. That is all.
What facts?
You haven’t posted any! I asked you for them. You replied with nonsense!
bob,
I may have found the core issue for our arguments, you do not know the difference between facts and nonsense. I believe Agent is also afflicted with that particular disease. Unfortunately, there is no cure.
Boob,
Dave argued with class and had EXTREMELY valid points….really gets to you doesn’t it?! Stay off the steroids, it’s shows in your angry posts.
Dave,
Right on point and I just LOVE to see how ruffled you got Boob. Love how he tried to turn it around and say he got to you…he is such a joke and you can tell by his CRAZY rants all over IJ. Thank goodness the majority are like you and the Boobs and Agents of IJ are not. They only do this on-line cause you can’t put a true name and face to a moniker (even though I do know the real Agent’s name and place of business, but will be classy and not throw him under the bus) Keep it up my friend…you seem to be a smart person and I value your method of stating your opinions! Your arguments were spot on :)
Bob, following are a couple of gems you will appreciate.
“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government”. Milton Friedman
“There is no such thing as a free lunch”. Milton Friedman
When pondering whether gay couples should get the same benefits as heterosexual couples, there is always a cost to it.
Agent,
The same benefit costs apply to heterosexual couples.
Being against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Even bob admitted to that. Are you against the Constitution?
It is easy to dismiss discrimination when you’re not the one being discriminated against.
Ron, I believe Bob argued that the benefits Heterosexual couples for their children get should not apply to Gay couples who have no natural children. He posted a number of times on this issue and it sailed right over your head as usual.
Agent,
bob’s exact words, “I don’t believe it’s ok to deny legal rights that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.” Can’t be much more clear. That is all I wanted him to admit.
Game, Set, Match. Ron Wins!!!
Bob, I think you may be a little confused on the posters. David is the leftist poster who rants the agenda all the time. Dave is the Conservative who actually makes sense on most issues.
Something that needs some thought is gay adoption. Suppose you have a gay couple adopting a kid, whether it is male or female. Do you think a young impressionable kid being around that lifestyle might warp the kid into thinking it is ok? I think the chances of the kid growing up normally and developing as a heterosexual is reduced substantially, don’t you?
Agent,
Then how come heterosexual parents have homosexual children?
Sexual orientation, in most cases, is not environmental. There is no logical reason for someone to purposely expose themselves to the isolation, hate, discrimination, and suicidal thoughts most homosexuals experience.
Ron, your theory that homosexuals are just born that way is hogwash, just like all your other ideas about the economy, political leaders, leftist ideology.
Agent,
It is no more of a hogwash theory than yours that homosexuality is a choice.
Nobody has been able to prove either. Until that happens, the Constitution states that you cannot treat 2 consenting adults differently than 2 other consenting adults. Are you against the Constitution?
Quick commentary here:
The majority of people are not for treating gay people poorly.
If civil unions and marriages provided the same protections and benefits as marriage, a separate-but-equal argument might work. However, they don’t.
Unlike marriages, the rights and protections granted to people in a civil union are only available at the state level. Those rights vary from state to state, and do not follow them outside of the state in which the union was filed.
Unlike marriages, those in civil unions do not have the following:
– Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
– The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
– Tax benefits available to married couples only
– Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
– Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance
A: Civil Unions by their nature do not have to be state law, any more than gay marriage laws.
B: This removes your first 2 points.
C: Immigration benefits can easily be handled by civil unions.
D: Wrong on tax benefits, except for ones that I put above, which they have no need for. They are not meant to have equal rights because they don’t have equal need.
E: Social security survivor benefits are for family based units with a primary and secondary earner. These benefits should not be extended to gays. Medical benefits are best handled through civil unions, and life insurance as you should know, is handled by insurance companies. If they want to accept civil unions they can. Or alternatively, we can pass a law regarding it. That is not a form of marital law.
Also, we can’t make a separate but equal law. The fact here remains that many of the benefits afforded by marriage involve supporting procreation. By default it must be a law regarding the needs of gay people, an honest debate regarding it I might add.
Not extending the same benefits procreating couples engage in.
Child birthing is no small issue. 3.9 million births per year, you have a risk of it even by having sex, even when using birth control. These families of 5 (average of 3) have far more of a need for most the benefits provided. They will literally have hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a gay couple just due to what happens in a procreating relationship.
bob,
You said, “Social security survivor benefits are for family based units with a primary and secondary earner. These benefits should not be extended to gays.” Why? From a Social Security benefits standpoint, what is the difference between a heterosexual couple who adopts a child(ren) and a homosexual couple who adopts a child(ren)? Should those children not receive survivor benefits?
In addition, from a Social Security benefits standpoint, what is the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a childless homosexual couple?
Ron,
I’ll answer your attempt to derail the argument with another:
Do you believe that the exposure isn’t there, in a marriage, to have kids?
What percent of couples that are married never have kids? Could you give a number?
Do you know how much money this is? I posted a link above. This would allow ALL gay couples to have $500,000 more in their lifetime at retirement.
You say you advocate better spending.
Explain to me why they should get that money?
Should you? Why shouldn’t a single person receive this money?
The government is not a zero sum game.
Because we can’t stop some married couples without kids from getting survivor benefits, we should allow the system to be milked?
Is that it?
You are an ignorant person, who argues for points instead of what is best.
Most importantly Ron:
Why do you deserve the gays deserve it?
I don’t want to hear your attempts to make me a hypocrite instead of forming your own argument for your case.
It isn’t honest debate. Why should the gays get that money?
Because hypocrisy due to the minority of couples?
Why should anyone receive as much help as a family who loses $500,000 of their retirement in child raising?
You know darn well I’m right on this, and instead, like a typical liberal you would rather try to focus on non existent hypocrisy instead of actual law and what is fair and best based on the facts.
What’s your fair solution? Give them all the benefit? 100%?
That’s fair?
You can’t dance around this. They don’t have the need. Do they are do they not need as much help as a child raising couple?
If not, they don’t need or deserve the benefit, whether or not someone else receives it.
A: Civil Unions by their nature do not have to be state law, any more than gay marriage laws.
– However, there is no federal law defining civil unions. Civil unions – for gay and straight couples – are implemented on a state-by-state basis.
B: This removes your first 2 points.
See above
C: Immigration benefits can easily be handled by civil unions.
– Civil union partners of immigrants cannot submit family based immigration petitions
D: Wrong on tax benefits, except for ones that I put above, which they have no need for. They are not meant to have equal rights because they don’t have equal need.
– A married couple can file jointly – those in civil unions can not, and thus can’t take advantage of the deductions offered by the IRS.
E: Social security survivor benefits are for family based units with a primary and secondary earner. These benefits should not be extended to gays. Medical benefits are best handled through civil unions, and life insurance as you should know, is handled by insurance companies. If they want to accept civil unions they can. Or alternatively, we can pass a law regarding it. That is not a form of marital law.
– In a marriage, if Spouse A dies, Spouse B is entitled to collect Social Security benefits. Spouse B is also exempt from estate taxes. This is not the case with civil unions.
Also, we can’t make a separate but equal law. The fact here remains that many of the benefits afforded by marriage involve supporting procreation. By default it must be a law regarding the needs of gay people, an honest debate regarding it I might add.
Not extending the same benefits procreating couples engage in.
Child birthing is no small issue. 3.9 million births per year, you have a risk of it even by having sex, even when using birth control. These families of 5 (average of 3) have far more of a need for most the benefits provided. They will literally have hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a gay couple just due to what happens in a procreating relationship.
– As there are many, many married straight couples that do not have or want children, yet still enjoy the benefits and protections marriage offers, this argument does not hold up.
BS:
When I said best handled by civil unions, and then clarified that civil unions can be federally based, it goes without saying I am talking about implementing fair civil unions.
I am not talking existent law. I am talking about the failures of gay marriage to take care of real issues. This is especially proven by the fact that Gay marriage federal law supersedes civil unions, doesn’t it? Why would I argue about failures in current civil union law?
This does away with most of your argument.
“In a marriage, if Spouse A dies, Spouse B is entitled to collect Social Security benefits. Spouse B is also exempt from estate taxes. This is not the case with civil unions. ”
As I already said, estate tax laws should be dealt with. We should not just pull over ALL current marriage laws. What we should do is make a law which is FAIR for them.
Now on your last one:
” As there are many, many married straight couples that do not have or want children, yet still enjoy the benefits and protections marriage offers, this argument does not hold up.”
This does NOT do away with my argument. 100% of all gay couples do not need the additional money. As I posted, the difference will be $500,000 over the course of a procreating couple’s life. This is why the law exists. They didn’t want to have people file for survivor benefits, and thus made it automatic. Do you support changing this to needing to file?
If you do, this actually makes you a hypocrite not I. If that’s the case, solving this problem is not done by making it worse and giving more benefits.
I will ask you again: Why do 100% of gays need the benefits that procreating couples do?
This will essentially be giving them a huge advantage.
Saying that other minority amounts of married couples have that benefits without kids is not a logical reason. It’s a philosophical matter at that point. I want to know why the gays need it, not why someone else doesn’t.
BS:
I left out a line in:
“In a marriage, if Spouse A dies, Spouse B is entitled to collect Social Security benefits. Spouse B is also exempt from estate taxes. This is not the case with civil unions. ”
As I already said, estate tax laws should be dealt with. We should not just pull over ALL current marriage laws. What we should do is make a law which is FAIR for them.”
I should have added, but I figured you already knew my stance, that gay couples do not deserve or need the additional social security benefits (survivor benefits).
I am vehemently against this area. They should not receive it.
I’ll be consistent on this: Married couples who have no kids should not receive it.
But the amount of married couples who have no kids during the full course of their life, is so minuscule it is insane.
BS:
The closest study I have seen goes to women 40-44 without kids, at 6%.
That is higher than in the past, but I would say the 94% of married couples with kids deserve more benefits than the 6% without, and all gay couples universally.
100% of gay couples should not get equal amounts of benefits to 94% of those who have an actual need, and retire with $500,000 less income.
Choosing to have children does not entitle a person to more money from the government.
What gives someone entitlement BS?
Entitlements are based on need. If you’re going to tell me that we shouldn’t base it on need, then we shouldn’t have income thresholds for income taxes for the poor, or education assistance, or day care, etc.
We don’t just throw money at couples for no reason.
As I said in my other post: A survivor benefit was only created for families.
Should we do away with tax credits for family raising as well?
Do you support doing away with support for families? Have you revealed a hypocrisy here? Now you are against assistance being given to poor families based on need?
What are you even doing BS? Surely you should see, you’re talking BS. Ah ha! Punny.
Anyway: Just because someone chose to have a family doesn’t mean they no longer need more money. Do their children no longer deserve college? Do their children deserve to be left poor? Should we give all these benefits we gave to poor families to people who are just fine?
And make them $500,000 better off? We punish life choices as liberals now eh?
Because last I checked you weren’t for that.
“100% of all gay couples do not need the additional money.”
Clearly false. There are currently 2 million children being raised by gay parents.
“The closest study I have seen goes to women 40-44 without kids, at 6%.”
Way off. 20% of women aged 40-44 do not have children.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500188.html
And make them $500,000 better off? We punish life choices as liberals now eh?
Because last I checked you weren’t for that.
Actually, that’s what you’re proposing – if you don’t have kids, you and your spouse don’t deserve the benefits you worked for. I’m not arguing that tax breaks and assistance for children, education and healthcare should be stopped. I just think you deserve the benefits you worked for, regardless of whether you popped out a kid or not.
But really, this is a pointless debate. Marriage is the law of the land – for straight and gay couples – so same-sex spouses not receiving Survivors Benefits is pretty much a non-issue, now.
Dave – I said the closest I have seen:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/08/nation/la-na-childless-couples-20131208
“Clearly false. There are currently 2 million children being raised by gay parents.”
Clearly false, see my other link showing it is 65,000. Where’s your link regarding the 2 million?
Regardless of such I will admit I shouldn’t have said all. Estimates are 10% of the population is gay (reasonable ones anyway, some say 20%) That is about 32,000,000. What is that…
.001 percent? So we logically should pass a law to make a scenario where 99.999 percent of gays are getting benefits they don’t need to the tune of helping them by half a million dollars over their life?
Equal to…31,950,000. Even if they adopted all children each year, (will not happen) it would take 320 years for them to get a child to each gay couple if we have no population growth which we will. Math. Try it some time!
BS:
“Actually, that’s what you’re proposing – if you don’t have kids, you and your spouse don’t deserve the benefits you worked for. I’m not arguing that tax breaks and assistance for children, education and healthcare should be stopped. I just think you deserve the benefits you worked for, regardless of whether you popped out a kid or not.
Ok no. They get the benefits they worked for. Which one are they not receiving that they worked for? At no point did I say any such thing. Survivor benefits are not given because you worked. Those are already given through social security. If you die they are non-transferable an exception was made for families. You want to extend this without reason.
You’re talking in circles here.
BS:
Also, law of the land does not make something right by the by.
Basically you don’t advocate giving more benefits to families. You’re saying that gays should receive the same amount for no reason at all. You keep saying you support it but other posts say you shouldn’t pay for their choices.
Are you being intentionally obtuse Bob? Adoption isn’t the only way gay people have children. There are many lesbians who get artificially inseminated and many gay guys that have surrogate mothers have children for them. And there’s also a large number of gay people who had children the old fashioned way and then came out of the closet later in life. You also forgot about foreign adoptions. My cousin is a lesbian who recently got married and they’re currently in the process of adopting two siblings from Guatemala.
“According to the 2010 Census, two million children in the United States are being raised by lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender parents (LGBT), the majority of them in southern states.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/children-sex-parents-harmed-anti-gay-laws-study/story?id=14862339
Another point of interest: 25% of gay couples are raising children as of the 2010 census.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-couples-census-data-trickles-quarter-raising-children/story?id=13850332
Only a handful of states had legalized gay marriage at that time. Now that they have marriage’s legal benefits and protections in place, there’s more incentive for them to have kids.
Face it Bob, by your very own argument gay people need marriage in order to help them raise their children.
Basically you don’t advocate giving more benefits to families. You’re saying that gays should receive the same amount for no reason at all. You keep saying you support it but other posts say you shouldn’t pay for their choices.
I’m not looking to extend or reduce anything. I just stated one of the many reasons that Civil Unions as they are currently written are inferior to marriage in terms of benefits and protections offered.
One of the benefits of Social Security is Survivors Benefits. The surviving spouse and/or minor children collect the deceased’s SS payments. You are the one saying that certain people don’t deserve the benefits they worked for solely because they didn’t have children.
BS:
You’re turning this ideological again. I’m saying they don’t “deserve” it. You’re forgetting when I asked for the “need” it was not an ideological need because of numbers.
I noticed you changed your wording to say the marriage law is more complete and affords more benefits. Yes. Benefits they should not receive.
And further to the point: Yes! I’m saying they shouldn’t get survivor benefits because those benefits go away when people die, the only exception that was created was created due to families.
There is no need to pass this need on.
Answer the question: Why should gays receive this benefit?
Your only reply to date is because others receive it. Just now you tried to say compared to civil unions it would be more complete, so that merits it. That is still a philosophical comparison and you dismissed it based on need!
So then, if you don’t have a reason, I will repeat my line:
Basically you don’t advocate giving more benefits to families. You’re saying that gays should receive the same amount for no reason at all. You keep saying you support it but other posts say you shouldn’t pay for their choices.
BS:
My wording was poor, you’re neglecting to realize my argument was not attempting to make numbers of ideology.
It was building a case based on numbers.
Either you acknowledge that gay couples don’t have the same need as married couples, and thus the need doesn’t exist for them or you don’t.
Or you have another reason they need it.
Survivor benefits don’t just get passed on except for exceptions. Passing them on because heterosexual people get them isn’t a reason. Passing them on because that would make the laws the same, and more complete than civil ones isn’t a reason.
Give me a reason they should get that benefit.
Also BS:
I love how you keep trying to turn this ideological.
That is why you keep saying actually no I advocate taking away benefits or weighing what they deserve.
However you’re missing what Deserve means. What need means.
Laws need to exist for a purpose. Survivor laws provide assistance for families who have $500,000 less available at retirement, and rather than focus need on that you would rather do wasteful entitlements with no need, passing them on to people who do not have that need.
Given how many millions of gays will get this without need, we don’t have the money for it without taking from people who do.
This is no small deal. If we pass a law to give people money there has to be a reason. You’re basically throwing money at them for no reason.
And when I say we should have a reason to give it to them, you tell me I’m taking money away from them. That I’m stripping benefits.
That is a backwards argument BS! You’re giving money that does not apply, has no purpose, and you can’t even explain why it should be done?
GIVE ME A REASON WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THIS MONEY!
Hey Bob, I want to commend you for your efforts at educating the left on these issues although I think it is mostly in vain.
I have a good one for you which was sent to me by a friend. Recently the Pope visited America. During the visit, he made a speech in front of Congress.
The picture showed the Pope on the podium and all the Congressmen, Senators & Administration people seated in front of him. The caption below the picture said the Pope was doing what Jesus did. He was surrounding himself with Prostitutes, Thieves and Tax Collectors. It was priceless.
So if you’re too stupid to figure this out for social security.
Let’s say a procreating family helps their kids go to college. I am already planning this. It is hundreds and thousands of dollars that I won’t have in my investments when I retire.
Social security will help with this. Do gays have an equal need on a by nature basis?
Will they be even better off with more social security, than a procreating couple?
You’re talking about equality as an ideal for any of your arguments that you posted that I didn’t immediately dismiss as non issues that civil unions can handle.
It is clear these laws should not be the exact same. Gay relationships are not = to but separate from procreating ones.
Social Security provides retirement benefits to people that have worked and paid into the system. Benefits are based on what an individual has paid into the system over the years, not the size of that individual’s family. A single man that decided not to have kids has just as much right to collect his retirement benefits as a married father of four.
Dead people don’t collect benefits do they?
And normal people can’t collect other people’s benefits can they?
Survivor benefits are not for the sake of collecting what someone else put in.
They are for the needs of the family left behind by the survivor, in the typical procreating family.
Should read, :And normal people can’t collect dead people’s benefits can they?
For example: My brother who paid in and died without a wife.
Can I go get it? Since he paid someone should get the benefits eh?
The survivor benefit is not so someone collects the benefit paid by someone who died.
As I said above, it is due to the family needs.
You will then say again: Not all married couples have kids.
94% of them do, and the government again, didn’t want to have applications for this process based on amount of kids and income. So they gave it across the board.
Also BS:
Nice try and thanks for playing…The level of indoctrination these days from otherwise very smart people.
I have to give you credit for your intellect. I will say you’re the only liberal who has had anything close to a rebuttal so far.
So good job on being a good thinker. Hopefully this will one day apply for finding the actual truth instead of things you want to be true.
BS:
Let’s make this the same argument as for Dave:
Let’s shorten this to two questions and post a link:
http://www.caniretireyet.com/having-kids-vs-retiring-earlier/
Considering the costs of raising a child and children, do you believe that there exists a greater need for procreating families? That is $250,000 dollars a non procreating couple could invest. Even at 5% this would be bout a half a million dollars (the link I provided had two numbers, and only provided an investment return on the higher of the two, rather than the lower. I would prefer to focus on the middle middle class not the higher)
Do you believe it is fair, for someone who will have $500,000 more at retirement, to give them equal social security benefits?
There is a reason for tax benefits and social security survivor benefits in a procreating union.
Now if you can explain to me why they deserve the same benefits…Let’s hear it.
bob,
You said, “Now if you can explain to me why they deserve the same benefits…Let’s hear it.”
I’ll be happy to answer. Because married, childless heterosexual couples receive those same benefits now. Any other ridiculous questions?
You have yet to prove that a same sex married couple would receive any more benefits just because they are homosexuals.
Ideological argument, based on nothing of substance.
Because the minority of heterosexual couples get something does not mean 100% of gays should. I’m asking why literally they have a need to get the benefit. Answer the damn question rather than trying to find a way to make me a hypocrite. This is why you fail in politics. You are more focused on making republicans hypocrites than you are on common sense!
The need doesn’t exist. Explain in a non-ideological way, not based on pointing out hypocrisy. Do the gays have the same need? Why should the benefit, be passed on?
Survivor benefits is the primary. This is the biggest one, now that you have lied, saying I didn’t list them, or didn’t read…Let’s hear you take personal responsibility for that comment! *wink wink* Tax benefits. Benefits to assist with college. These do exist for married couples.
And another question:
Should we pass a law monitoring heterosexual couple’s child birthing to ensure survivor benefits only go to ones with kids?
Because if you do believe on a non ideological basis that both of them don’t have the need…This is the more logical action than saying we should give it to other people who don’t need it.
I do believe it is fair.
If two people work the same amount of time, and wrack up the same amount of credits, they deserve to receive the same Social Security benefit.
Whether they chose to have children or not is irrelevant. How they chose to spend their money in the years that they were working, is beside the point. How much they have in their savings accounts when they retire has has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
If you and I worked the same amount of time, we deserve the same Social Security benefit, period. I don’t deserve to be penalized because I chose not to have kids, and you don’t deserve extra because you had them.
No. You just tried to change the parameters.
I’ll tighten them because you’re trying hard to change the scenario since you’re wrong.
Does a married couple who has 3 kids, have need of the same amount of benefits as a gay couple with none, who had $500,000 more available at retirement?
In any scenario? Why does the gay person deserve the benefits of their partner who died? The only reason we allow survivor benefits, (not due to penalizing anyone) is due to the amount of need. Otherwise, those benefits would just go away like they do in all other scenarios. Social security is based on needs. Not wants.
Further: “Whether they chose to have children or not is irrelevant. How they chose to spend their money in the years that they were working, is beside the point. How much they have in their savings accounts when they retire has has absolutely no bearing on the matter.”
No. It isn’t. It was entirely relevant to the matter of whether or not they have a need. You’re trying to strip away benefits based on need.
“If you and I worked the same amount of time, we deserve the same Social Security benefit, period. I don’t deserve to be penalized because I chose not to have kids, and you don’t deserve extra because you had them.”
You are not penalized. People who have greater need are given more. You are arguing backwards. They will literally have $500,000 less than you because they had kids. Also, most people don’t have the choice in not having kids unless they have like 10 abortions, a vasectomy, or a surgery which most people don’t have.
“If you and I worked the same amount of time, we deserve the same Social Security benefit, period. I don’t deserve to be penalized because I chose not to have kids, and you don’t deserve extra because you had them.”
Also, yes. I agree. So if you’re alive you will get them.
And if you’re dead you don’t. No one deserves another person’s social security or is entitled to it.
It was expanded due to the survivor’s need. Ergo survivor benefit.
You again made this ideological.
No. It isn’t. It was entirely relevant to the matter of whether or not they have a need. You’re trying to strip away benefits based on need.
I’m not trying to strip away anything. You’re the one saying that you only deserve benefits if you spawn.
BS:
When I said you’re trying to strip away benefits based on need, I mean the WEIGHT of whether or not we should give benefits.
At this point you are saying it should not be based on need.
“I’m not trying to strip away anything. You’re the one saying that you only deserve benefits if you spawn.”
Further: So then you don’t support benefits for families? Do they gays have equal need on this one!? Answer the question and stop diverting! You either support benefits based on need, and thus the families need it, or you don’t!
I’m not stripping benefits at all. These benefits are given as an exception because of need. They would normally get their own social security. They get what they paid for.
How is it fair they get this benefit without need when a single male does not? What need does two gay men have all the sudden which merits us suddenly giving them this survivor benefit that a single person doesn’t have?
This is like talking to an ideological wall.
Congratulations BS. You became a conservative. I know it’s torturing you inside. That’s why you’re trying our hardest to make it not so.
But you can’t change what is true. You’re wrong on this. And I expect you to admit you had a logical fallacy on this one in the future.
Then you will realize who gave you that logical fallacy on your own I’m sure. Which will finally explain to you why I don’t vote democrat.
I was not always this way.
Just a few years ago I told my mom to stop arguing about gay marriage and I didn’t care.
I never took up planned parenthood arguments.
I would say I was a lot like you. We don’t have forever to fix these issues. People with common sense like you are needed.
You’re clearly more capable than Ron of thinking. I see it in your arguments. You’re actually using logic. Incorrectly, but still your wheels are turning and I can tell.
Be one of the people who exposes this. I truly hope you do realize this in the future. For the good of everyone, logical thinkers are needed.
“Further: So then you don’t support benefits for families? Do they gays have equal need on this one!? Answer the question and stop diverting! You either support benefits based on need, and thus the families need it, or you don’t!”
I do support benefits for families. And I do support benefits based on need. But that’s not what survivor benefits are designed for.
Survivor benefits are basically a life insurance policy we buy with a portion of our Social Security taxes. And a childless widow is not any less deserving of receiving the benefits her husband paid for with years of work, than a widow with 5 kids.
Bob, the good news is that we do know right from wrong. Ecclesiastes 10:2 summed it all up with our opponents.
I cannot believe the dumbassary of Dave above.
FFS kids these days all think they are fighting for equality due to democrats divide and conquer bull crap techniques, when really it’s about actual reasoning.
Bob, it really is David, not Dave.
This blog really shows the divide we have in this country about what is right and what is wrong and how far left this President has taken the country. It will really be nice to get him replaced and get the country back on the “right” track. He has been a total disaster on every policy issue, governance and it is very embarrassing for the country.
Agent,
This has been an issue well before President Obama took office. The fact that you think one person could alter the course of an entire country totally discredits you and your beliefs.
Just because you do not like the track this country is on, does not mean it is on the wrong track.
Ron,
So then you were lying that you disagreed with Obama and were voting republican this time?
Or you want to make it philosophical to make agent a bad guy, even though you agree the country is on the wrong path?
Moving on: Yes. They are making the divide greater, because they are making the gay argument into an argument of bigotry. They are making the women’s arguments into arguments of misogyny. They are making the estate tax argument into arguments of domination of the poor. They are making immigration (which can crush an economy in excess) into bigotry. Even though, they also aren’t expanding entrance into the country. They just allowed people who were born here to stay here.
They are making abortion arguments into arguments of the “health of the mother”.
They are making the argument on how much the government should try to control the environment (carbon credits) into a world destruction argument. The sky is falling, the sky if falling! They are making the sequester about whether or not children and elderly will get a hot meal.
Obama is a part of this.
When you wake up and see the democrats goal is divide and conquer, you’ll see agent is right.
That’s leaving out a few too.
They are making paths to retirement (republicans have real plans I have gone over) about elderly vs business.
They are making medicare revisions (which while it would cut funding the goal is equal or better care, better directed money not the removal of care) into science and medicine against republicans.
I mean come on Ron! How do you not see this?
They know all it takes is to create an enemy of enough republicans to win.
So they create a hostile scenario intentionally.
bob wrote ‘So they create a hostile scenario intentionally.’ kind of like how you post, huh child? ron said the president alone can’t alter the course of an entire country and that the issues obama has faced were issues before he took office. he can still vote republican in the next election and not be lying. pretty sure he was just letting agent know the issues agent raised as ‘obama problems’ were problems before obama.
by the way, discriminating against one group of people (gays) and your arguments explaining why you think that way is 100% bigotry, as is telling women they must give birth even if she holds a different opinion on abortion than you.
all i ever see from you and agent is “since you don’t agree with me, you are wrong and you’re an idiot.” bigotry means intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. if you’re able to take a step back from telling people what they really meant and take a step back from swearing up a storm in every other post, you’ll see that’s you in a nutshell – if don’t agree with bob, you’re wrong no matter what. that, child, is the literal definition of bigotry.
Confused:
Funny, I have made a point of not forcing my ideology regarding abortion outside of third trimester.
I have told Libby several times I’m not going to take the debate. So you made some bold assumptions there.
Moving on: My calling someone an idiot regarding politics is not the same as democrats telling you that the gays will be oppressed due to bigotry. It is not the same as saying people will die due to republicans.
Moving on further: If you would like to know why I’m not for abortion I would be happy to tell you.
And chances are…You might have some realizations along the way. It would however take too long. That’s why I don’t talk about it here.
It involves a horde of statistics I would have to re look up and post here.
My arguments are not if you disagree with me I’ll insult you. It is if you act like a brat I’ll insult you. Insulting is part of being human. Move on.
I have enough common decency to continue this conversations, as I am now.
And further you also believe that people who think differently than you are bad, ergo, people regarding abortions, and women, and bigotry ho!
(Not ho as in a woman, ho as in hi ho).
bob, you said ‘my calling someone an idiot regarding politics is not the same as democrats telling you that the gays will be oppressed due to bigotry.’ i agree, but are you saying gays are NOT being oppressed due to bigotry in this country right now? gays are fighting for what all americans are supposedly entitled to – EQUAL protection under the law. the only reason they don’t have this now is because they’re being oppressed. Equal protection under the law means the same as what others have, it does not mean creating new laws just for a subsection of americans. when women and blacks were given the right to vote, did america have to create a new law for each group, or were they simply considered ‘citizens of the united states’ and therefore got the SAME benefits everyone else already had?
“bob, you said ‘my calling someone an idiot regarding politics is not the same as democrats telling you that the gays will be oppressed due to bigotry.’ i agree, but are you saying gays are NOT being oppressed due to bigotry in this country right now? gays are fighting for what all americans are supposedly entitled to – EQUAL protection under the law. the only reason they don’t have this now is because they’re being oppressed. Equal protection under the law means the same as what others have, it does not mean creating new laws just for a subsection of americans. when women and blacks were given the right to vote, did america have to create a new law for each group, or were they simply considered ‘citizens of the united states’ and therefore got the SAME benefits everyone else already had?”
Ok I’m glad you have finally started seeing some areas of common sense.
Moving on: Equal does not mean the same. Should all gay people be equal when it comes to child bearing? Should all single men by equal to a woman during pregnancy in needs? Should they get just as much bed rest? Are they not equal because the male doesn’t get bed rest and the mother does? How about maternity leave. Women need it so they get it. Are men being discriminated against? I realize we are moving toward paternity leave at some point but I am informing you that equal is not similarity.
Regarding gays: People are people and some are bad. Some people mistreat gays. The majority don’t. I would say hate crime laws, which will give you a greater punishment if someone beats you up for being gay, is a pretty greater than equal law to have. We have discrimination laws, etc. You’re trying to use societal discrimination against gays to say they are mistreated and stop discourse on what needs gays have. This should be based on need.
Moreover, republicans political ideals are not a part of that bigotry. They have reasons to advocate what they are, like I do. The majority of republicans are saying the same things as I am right now about gay marriage. Yet the democrats are framing it as an argument based on discrimination and bigotry. So yes, I would say calling something bigotry in order to lead in politics is a bad thing. They do it often.
all men are created equal = equal in the eyes of the law, equal in their value as humans, equal in their right and opportunity to pursue their happiness.
if you give benefits to one group of married people (men and women) then in order to be equal in the eyes of the law, those benefits must be made available for other groups of married people (gays).
note i said “made available” and not “given to.” gay men don’t need maternity leave, but they need access to paternity leave to be equal with the other, non-gay, married men. gay women should be able to access benefits for bed rest, but only if they are equal to the other, non-gay, women (so the pregnant one gets bed rest benefits, but her non-pregnant wife does not need those benefits)
Equal access based on need.
You directed paternity need, you still didn’t direct my commentary on social security survivor needs.
The being treated equally means given support when you need it. The areas of marriage law can be extended via the proper laws, but they do not have equal needs and scenario for marriage so we should not extend the whole law over.
That is not equal treatment. That is special treatment.
okay bob, i’ll talk about survivor benefits. gay couples should be able to access social security survivor benefits like non-gay married couples can now.
say a gay couple gets married and either adopts a kid or has one with artificial insemination (as Dave posted above, 25% of gay married couples are raising children as of the 2010 census.) So now one parent dies leaving the other one to raise their child. blammo – survivorship benefits are now needed.
in summary – if two people are raising a child and one parent dies, the living parent should be able to access social security survivor benefits regardless of their sexual orientation.
Thank you Ron for hiding your head in the sand like an Ostrich and keeping it there. You are in your own little world of Progressive Socialism and we are not surprised you voted for the guy twice.
“okay bob, i’ll talk about survivor benefits. gay couples should be able to access social security survivor benefits like non-gay married couples can now.
say a gay couple gets married and either adopts a kid or has one with artificial insemination (as Dave posted above, 25% of gay married couples are raising children as of the 2010 census.) So now one parent dies leaving the other one to raise their child. blammo – survivorship benefits are now needed.
in summary – if two people are raising a child and one parent dies, the living parent should be able to access social security survivor benefits regardless of their sexual orientation.”
All of this is best directed in one phrase: We are not going to give automatic benefits to the 99.999 percent of gays who will never have children, just because .001% will adopt 1 child, and will not have an average of 3 based solely on exposure to sex.
In this scenario it actually DOES make sense to make people apply for it.
In married couples cases we are talking 94% of the population who will eventually have kids. I already posted a link.
I already posted a link regarding adoptable babies, and only 65,000 gays have a baby, and if they adopted all of the babies up for adoption each year it would take 320 years to have one child each. If they adopted half it would take 640. If they got to the 3 kid mark it would take 960 years, and 1920 years respectively at 50% and 100%.
The exposure is not there.
It is not equal to expose the 99.999% of people who don’t have the need to getting those benefits for the .001!!!
You liberals do this often and it’s exactly why we are so far in debt!
Also your 25% comment regarding gays, if you didn’t catch it by all my posts, is inaccurate.
Even then, same argument. They can apply for it. End of story.
You’re arguing for the sake of stupidity and I will have none of it.
Do you debate that to make this fair only those who have need should get the benefits?
Do you debate that a civil union law which required application for these benefits would ensure it goes to those who need it, and the amount of costs saved by not extending the benefit to 99.99% of about 30,000,000 people would be worth this applying?
With married couples the 6% who don’t have kids is not worth having an application process.
We seek what is A: Fair. B: Efficient.
My proposal fulfills A and B.
You have not given a reason why Civil unions done properly with the FAIR benefits, EFFICIENTLY would be worse than Gay marriage extending ALL benefits that we have just proven would not be FAIR or EFFICIENT.
Jesus Christ man, you know you’re wrong. Just admit it, and stop this idiotic argument!
bob, you say gay married couples shouldn’t get access to social security survivorship benefits because their need is minuscule compared to straight married couples and it promotes waste/unnecessary spending in the government.
If the gay couple has access to those benefits but doesn’t have kids, they can’t get the benefits and there’s no additional waste or spending for the (whatever) 99.99999% of gay couples who don’t meet the requirements for that benefit.
Giving gay couples this benefit would only apply to the (whatever) .00001% of gay married couples who have dependents when one of the parents dies.
Your argument of ‘it’s wasteful and unnecessary because so few gay couples will need it’ is wrong. It’s NOT wasteful because they can’t access the benefits UNTIL they actually need it, and then they should have it. What am I missing?
…and there’s no wasted efficiency either as the gay couple without kids, or with kids where both parents are alive, would never apply for the benefits because they don’t need them. The only time gay married couple would file a social security survivorship benefit claim would be when they need them.
Oh my God…
See my comment to Rosenblatt regarding this.
It’s painfully clear you lost track of the conversation.
He just quoted you and I’m not re-posting on this matter.
Congratulations, you are making the case for civil unions. What you just said the current law does not do, and only would occur in the scenario I created.
Let me spell it out for you:
Families spend about $250,000 more in the middle class if they have 2 kids. Not including college. Including 5% interest this would be about $500,000 they don’t have ready for retirement.
The survivor benefit provides this money they don’t have for retirement, which they would have received if the spouse died.
While they don’t weight the amount of kids this is due to waste. I already directed this. 65,000 applications are manageable. 12-17 million are not. Regardless of even that, you’re creating a scenario where they all get the benefit.
All of them will get this when their spouse dies.
It is not only when the need arises. Only in my scenario would it be when the need arises. Your scenario, as I pointed out to Ron, does not address need or purpose.
And more importantly Dave:
You’ve never heard this debate, that’s why you’re so clueless on it.
Ask yourself, why? Does it not make you afraid that all discourse on this is being chalked up to “bigotry” by Obama and democrats to use your emotions?
This again, is why I never vote democrat, and I literally never will. This is a level of manipulation republicans will never broach upon. They do it on every area too, as I pointed out here.
It’s a means to control.
I have a brother by the name, so I am in habit of calling him Dave.
Bob, we haven’t even broached the subject of Planned Parenthood, the most barbaric abortion factory in the USA who have been caught on at least 8 video tapes bragging about selling baby parts on aborted babies, some are full term. They pay their CEO $500,000 for doing this so I guess they are making a lot of money in addition to getting taxpayer money. I really don’t see Ron, Confused, Rosenblatt, BS or any other liberal poster condemning them for their illegal and criminal actions.
Agent, if you want to talk about murder, why dont you start with GW Bush and his hundreds of thousands of lost lives and a trillion dollars wasted on two needless wars. Then you can talk about abortion, you hypocrite.
Stop ruining this country. Stop voting. Just concentrate on trying to figure out your iPhone like all the other geriatrics in this country. Do us all a favor.
Thanks, Bro.
Our poster Dave would be offended being put in the same category as poster David.
Stan, why don’t you just leave and attend your next OWS meeting and leave the comments to the adults in the room?
Stan,
48,000,000 babies were aborted last year, about 170,000,000 to 180,000,000 children are born per year.
Yes, we killed 25% of all babies involved with pregnancy.
1.72 billion abortions in 40 years.
Which is more important? Lives? Thousands vs millions doesn’t make agent a hypocrite.
Which is more important? Dollars or babies?
Agent, why dont you get off this board and go pour some oil down the drain, punch a gay guy, cut down a tree, give a mentally ill person an assault rifle, take some money from poor people, give it to rich people, then refuse to provide medical care to someone.
JK I dont think you are competent to even do that, you just bitch about it online.
Bob – do you think the reason a fetus was aborted should impact your analysis? I understand this is conjecture and I admit I’m exaggerating just to make an example, but say 1/2 of those abortions were done because the doctor said if the mother gave birth, there was a 100% chance she’d die – then the mother chose her life over her unborn child’s life because she’s already a single mother of 3 kids.
My question boils down to – does the context of why the abortion took place ever influence your views on abortion?
Rosenblatt,
Thank God you’re back to your normal self. I absolutely encourage your question on this.
And my answer is yes. In the name of stopping fighting I will disregard cases of risk of the mother, incest, and rape. We already have exceptions in these scenarios.
Estimates I have seen give 1% of pregnancies are done to save the mother which is about 10,000 last year. 47,000 women died world wide due to abortions though. .3% were due to rape in America. The rest were unwanted. In New York City more blacks were aborted recently than born. This is terrible for the lower class. It’s essentially people weighing life based on class.
I said that my views on abortion are complicated. These are only some of them.
And I’m glad you actually asked for good reasons, I can tell.
“Thank God you’re back to your normal self.” Thanks for the compliment! :)
I will admit you and Ron are just about the only two people who I consider to left leaning that I ever see making a pertinent comment to right side voters.
While Agent sees you in the same league as far left people like Libby I do not.
I will also admit I believe the issue with the two of you is mostly societal pressures put into your head by democrats.
I think the two of you want to be forward thinking. I think the two of you want to have solutions. I think the two of you want to be about eliminating hypocrisy.
These are technically good traits to have. I told BS we need people who are solid thinkers and like what I just said as headpieces on the right (not in politicians, I believe this already exists but is covered up. I mean in the grassroots sections of society itself).
I do think the two of you should calm down a bit on trying to believe everything is equal. It really isn’t.
This blinds the two of you when debates occur. Often Ron focuses on Agent as evidence of all conservatives being ideological. He binds the extremes on the right to the norm on the right. I will say you don’t do this as much as Ron, or really that often.
But this needs to change. We need people like you to start essentially talking common sense and real world scenarios to conservatives, so their go to points are not religious or poor arguments.
bob,
You said, “I will also admit I believe the issue with the two of you is mostly societal pressures put into your head by democrats.” let me clarify this for you, your belief is FALSE. I believe in legal fairness on this issue, period.
I am still waiting for you to quote where it says in the Constitution that it is OK to deny legal rights to 2 consenting adults that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.
Maybe you are still looking.
Ron,
I really challenged your core belief system didn’t I?
You usually stay on point. You’re not right now. I don’t have to answer your consenting adults, based on the fact that it isn’t relevant.
You have to answer why these are “equal needs, equal rights”. You have to answer why they should receive ALL benefits of a pro creating couple based on need.
You can’t. And it’s bugging you that I’ve revealed this is the republican point, because you believe Republicans are the greater hypocrites. Usually you would give me evidence, like Reagan spending (something I already proved false) but you’re not even trying that.
It is societal pressures doing this Ron. You’re going to realize it one day.
You believe that being anti gay is bad, that’s why you’re seeing inequality where there is in fact benefits which are in preference of gays with gay marriage and make them ahead of pro creating couples. You’re equating disagreement with gay marriage with hypocrisy and bigotry.
I’ve seen you do it.
You have done this often.
It has to be rooted in societal pressure as to what you believe makes you a good person.
But I’m challenging you on that, which is why for the life of you, you can’t stay on topic.
Your world has been shattered, you aren’t the non-biased person you thought, and your are easily pulled by societal norms.
You realized it, and I can see it in your arguments.
Ron,
I’ll answer your question regardless of it’s not serving a purpose or point:
“I am still waiting for you to quote where it says in the Constitution that it is OK to deny legal rights to 2 consenting adults that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.”
I don’t believe it’s ok to deny legal rights that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.
You’re trying to shift the argument to an ideological one, and are neglecting to realize what marriage is.
As I said, I am for marriage for gay couples. I am not for wasteful spending, equal benefits to a pro creating couple, which benefits are based on need, etc.
I will ask you this question in retort:
Why do you believe it is ok to grant access to benefits for pro creating couples who do not procreate?
Allow me to clarify: You’re trying to state equal rights aren’t being granted, and the rights you’re arguing about aren’t given because you’re talking a non procreating couple. The rights are not about two consenting adults.
The rights are about a procreating couple vs a non procreating one.
So you explain to me why a procreating couple should get no more assistance in the government than a non procreating one.
That is the important question. And why should we throw money at couples simply for getting married?
In other words Ron:
Why should couples all be given child birthing benefits, and benefits given to couples who have less money as a result (survivor benefits)
When the couple doesn’t child birth?
You’re framing this as equality, when in fact this creates inequality to the pro creating couples.
You’re making an ideological argument.
Do you understand this? You have not given a reason other than “Gay couples should get the same benefits as straight ones”.
I could make the same argument about women and men. That they should have the same benefits. But I’m never going to be pregnant! Should I have time off based on being pregnant?
I am not talking time off based no helping with the kid. I’m talking taking a month off before my baby is born to be safe, and a month off to recover. Should I do the same before the baby is born?
But it’s not equal Ron!
I gave examples to the other guy. Go read them there.
Equal treatment is not similarity.
You’re arguing for unequal treatment because you want to give a benefit simply because someone else is getting it, not because the person you want to receive it needs it. Disregarding your argument is not true, because people are not the recipients of this benefit, families are, which means a family is receiving it and a gay person is not, you have not established the reason this gay couple should receive the benefit in any tangible way that is not ideological.
bob,
You said, “You have to answer why these are ‘equal needs, equal rights’. You have to answer why they should receive ALL benefits of a pro creating couple based on need.” Simple, gay couples can have children through surrogates, in vitro fertilization and adoption.
Now answer my questions:
1. Do those children not count?
2. What if a procreating heterosexual couple cannot procreate and have a child one of those ways?
3. As has been stated before, should a couple have to prove that they can and will procreate to get married?
Whether I believe being anti gay is good or bad is totally irrelevant. All I am saying is that the law cannot be anti gay marriage. It is against the Constitution, period.
Key words “CAN” key emphasis 99.99% don’t currently.
And when we talk Gay couples, it should not be extended universally, because it is not efficient or fair, for the 99.999% of gay couples who do not have a child.
65,000 have adopted a child currently. I gave the numbers. 30,000,000 are gay, this is 15,000,000 couples.
Applications for the 65,000 based on need is manageable, and fair.
Why should we give 14,000,000 couples benefits based on the supposed need of 65,000?
Because we do it for straight people across the board?
That has been your reply. That is an ideological argument.
My reply is this: When it comes to 94% of pro creating couples having babies, we would have millions of applications to sort through. It is not A: Efficient to make them apply. It doesn’t help anyone to do so.
Now in the case of 15,000,000 gay couples, it is more efficient, to have the 65,000 apply than to give benefits of hundreds of thousands of dollars to 14,000,0000 people. If we multiply it out, 300,000 each in credits and in survivor benefits (easily accurate) we come to: 4.2 trillion dollars of spending over the course of their lives.
We should not waste 4.2 trillion in benefits. We can’t manage that kind of loss.
bob the hypocrite, take 1
bob previously wrote: You’re going on a bullying campaign, literally, demanding Agent make an action or you won’t stop.
bob just wrote: “You have to answer why these are ‘equal needs, equal rights’. You have to answer”
gotcha.
rosenblatt and ron can’t tell agent he has to answer questions or else they won’t move on, but it’s okay when you tell ron he has to answer your questions.
nice consistency there hypocrite. can you explain the difference or maybe you’ll just pull out another FALSE EQUIVALENCY response instead?
“1. Do those children not count?
2. What if a procreating heterosexual couple cannot procreate and have a child one of those ways?
3. As has been stated before, should a couple have to prove that they can and will procreate to get married?
Whether I believe being anti gay is good or bad is totally irrelevant. All I am saying is that the law cannot be anti gay marriage. It is against the Constitution, period.”
To you it’s relevant in that you believe republicans are anti gay, and that is why they are for or against these laws.
Moving on:
“All I am saying is that the law cannot be anti gay marriage. It is against the Constitution, period.””
An argument I never made. We are talking about the ramifications of universally applying all areas of marriage to gay couples. I even said I would call it gay marriage if it were not for this issue.
“1. Do those children not count?
Irrelevant. You’re trying to create a hypocrite scenario again. This point is not a point worth my time, my points, however…Include dollars and cents. 4.2 trillion. I will retort: Should we give away 4.2 trillion to gays who don’t need the benefits and do not have children?
2. What if a procreating heterosexual couple cannot procreate and have a child one of those ways?
94% of couples have children. On one side extending benefits to all gives 99.999% of the population benefits they don’t deserve. On the other it is 6% You’re trying to make a false equivalence argument instead of making a fair law. It makes sense to have gay couples apply.
3. As has been stated before, should a couple have to prove that they can and will procreate to get married?”
Irrelevant and you’re trying to do the same thing as the first. It’s wasteful to have the 6% apply. It is not wasteful to have 65,000 apply. Do you see the difference there? In one scenario having married couples apply would be roughly 7.8 million people (320 million population, remove 20% for gays and those who never get married, multiply by .5 for the number of couples, then multiply .06 to get 6%.)
And I will add rather than think logically like this, you are arguing philosophically and ideologically.
Each of your arguments has been an attempt to point out hypocrisy.
Like you say to republicans: Trying to say what is not ok, or what is wrong, DOES NOT SUDDENLY MAKE THINGS TURN OUT RIGHT!
Have you become the party of no and inefficient spending?
The reason I know this is societal pressure, is normally, YOU ARE AGAINST THE VERY THING YOU’RE ARGUING FOR. In this scenario it is the exception with ideology clouding your mind, to make a wasteful program which will give benefits to people who don’t need them.
I will ask you again: For the couples who have no kids SHOULD THEY RECEIVE THEM? And why?
A reply of “Because pro creating couples without kids get them” is an IDEOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHICAL argument and will not be accepted!
Ron,
That 4.2 trillion is not including inflation.
You can usually take 3.5 in the course of the life of a human and apply it to the total to account for all interest.
That is 14.7 trillion. Then take the life expectancy (which is much shorter for gays, but I’ll only deduct it a few years to 75) and you have 196 billion in spending for people who have no need for it a year.
Are you ok with this spending?
Why?
Again, a reply of “non procreating heterosexuals get it!”
Is not a good reply as to why we should waste 196 billion a year.
Come off it Ron! You know you’re wrong.
bob,
As Agent loves to point out, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We do not make laws to cater to a the majority even if it is 99.9999999999999999999999999%
We treat all citizens equally. Please, for the love of God, read the Constitution.
You @%@%ing ideologue. This is definitely a societal pressure and preconceived norms scenario.
Get your head, out of your @$$!
Let me direct this for you.
“As Agent loves to point out, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We do not make laws to cater to a the majority even if it is 99.9999999999999999999999999%”
Ok: A: Yes we do, when it comes to benefits.
B: The 99.999999999% are not equal to the .001% in this scenario in terms of the reason behind the law. Therefore the law is not being applied with any non-conformity. If we are going to pass procreating laws, you are applying pro creating laws to non procreating couples. It’s that simple Ron. This is by far your stupidest philosophical argument.
We treat all citizens equally. Please, for the love of God, read the Constitution.”
This is hyperbole for affect, and again, to try to make me a hypocrite.
This has nothing to do with the constitution at hand.
Should we stop all laws regarding equal pay for women since they don’t specifically have wording for men as well?
Women have a need for that it appears, to some degree, whereas men don’t.
When we give a benefit or a protection, we absolutely only give it to those who need it.
Ron:
Essentially what you said is:
Procreating benefits cannot be restricted to the .001% of the people that procreate because that results in a violation of the constitution in that we treat all people equally when it comes to pro creating benefits, even those who don’t procreate should receive procreation benefits.
You sound like Agent right now. This is why I said you’re falling apart. You know it. You have panicked, and now all you can say is ideological crap.
The next time you mock agent for this, I think we have sufficiently proven you do go against science and facts on this one.
bob, Confused posted this above and I wanted to put it here too in hopes you can respond as I’m curious about this aspect too.
If the gay couple has access to [social security survivorship] benefits but doesn’t have kids, they can’t get the benefits and there’s no additional waste or spending for the (whatever) 99.99999% of gay couples who don’t meet the requirements for that benefit. Giving gay couples this benefit would only apply to the (whatever) .00001% of gay married couples who have dependents when one of the parents dies. [How can something be called wasteful when] they can’t access the benefits UNTIL they actually need it?
I also don’t understand your argument of ‘not many gay couples need it so it’s wasteful to give it to them’ when the benefit being discussed (social security survivorship benefits) won’t be given to anyone who doesn’t meet the requirement – 2 parents, 1 of whom is dead, with 1 dependent.
So the gay married couple without kids, or with kids with 2 living parents, wouldn’t ever apply for the benefits – there’d be no waste and no extra spending for the 99.9999% of gay married couples who don’t need that benefit.
Rosenblatt,
I don’t think you’re aware of how survivor benefits work…And why we are debating. Now it is clear neither does Confused.
He actually finally almost got why I’m pissed and it’s clear he agrees with me now. I missed that post.
The survivor benefit currently doesn’t track children, but it exists for the purpose of families. It is an automatic extension for married couples. They don’t want to create a child application process.
So when I say I’m not ok with an auto extension, which would give survivor benefits to the 99.99% of gays without children just as a means to give help to the .001% to adopt, it makes perfect sense. Only the .001% have the need. It can be called wasteful because the 99.999% do not have the need. The need is there for these survivors because they are not as capable during the course of their lives to save up $500,000 dollars (including 5% interest on $250,000 dollars of spending for their kids not including college, in a two child family, likely much more for 3). They don’t have a huge retirement ready for them.
“So the gay married couple without kids, or with kids with 2 living parents, wouldn’t ever apply for the benefits – there’d be no waste and no extra spending for the 99.9999% of gay married couples who don’t need that benefit.”
You believe the cost of tracking this benefit will out weigh the 196 billion per year of giving the benefit out? I don’t.
I believe it would cost a couple million year to track 65,000 people. That would grow over time as more gay people had kids, but as we have shown, there are only 1.5 million total adopted kids. Or was it 2.5 million…It’s in my links above. Even if gays had all of them it will never surpass 1 billion to manage and save the money on the rest.
bob, Confused posted this above and I wanted to put it here too in hopes you can respond as I’m curious about this aspect too.
If the gay couple has access to [social security survivorship] benefits but doesn’t have kids, they can’t get the benefits and there’s no additional waste or spending for the (whatever) 99.99999% of gay couples who don’t meet the requirements for that benefit. Giving gay couples this benefit would only apply to the (whatever) .00001% of gay married couples who have dependents when one of the parents dies. [How can something be called wasteful when] they can’t access the benefits UNTIL they actually need it?
I also don’t understand your argument of ‘not many gay couples need it so it’s wasteful to give it to them’ when the benefit being discussed (social security survivorship benefits) won’t be given to anyone who doesn’t meet the requirement – 2 parents, 1 of whom is dead, with 1 dependent.
So the gay married couple without kids, or with kids with 2 living parents, wouldn’t ever apply for the benefits – there’d be no waste and no extra spending for the 99.9999% of gay married couples who don’t need that benefit.
In the even that you, Ron, and Dave believe that we should also track heterosexual couples then the way to address that is not by giving the benefits automatically to another group.
I have shown this will have huge impacts on spending. People who have real need will lose access to that money.
This is why I’m constantly saying this is about what is best, fair, and efficient.
Gay marriage extension does not apply fairness across the board nor efficiency in comparison to a law which required applications and gave fair benefits.
Starting at the weakest point of a current law, does not make a good point for a new law.
By the way Rosenblatt I must say again:
I love your attitude now that you’re back to your normal self.
These are pertinent questions to ask. You’re being inquisitive and I can tell it is for knowledge.
While I have been pissed at you in the past your posts here are changing my mind about you and I would like to thank you for debating in good form.
bob,
Thank you for finally conceding to me when you said, “I don’t believe it’s ok to deny legal rights that have been granted to 2 other consenting adults.”
That is all gay couples want and has been my sole point regarding this issue, equal treatment under the law.
I am not sure why you keep referring to my argument as ideological when it is clearly based in Constitutional Law. You are the one creating problems where none exist.
You asked, “Why do you believe it is ok to grant access to benefits for pro creating couples who do not procreate?” I do not believe it is OK. More importantly, I do not think it will happen. Should a heterosexual couple who does not have a child receive the same benefits as a couple who does procreate?
Thanks Agent.
Rosenblatt, I still don’t hear you condemning Planned Parenthood for their outrageous illegal/criminal behavior doing abortion on demand, some in the third trimester and most are not because the mother is in danger from child birth. Sure, there are cases where the health of the mother is at risk and we need to save the mother. I would like to see your stats on how often that happens and compare it to all the ones given just because they can. I would bet that most of the women did not know that Planned Parenthood was harvesting the baby for its organs.
“I still don’t hear you condemning Planned Parenthood for their outrageous illegal/criminal behavior doing abortion on demand”
That’s because you think when I reply to you that the only reason I did so was to argue with you. This mentality contributes to your poor reading comprehension so you never really hear what I’ve written anyway.
Still copying down what I say word for word Rosenblatt before replying? It really isn’t that hard and Bob has been kind enough to give you facts to work with. You accuse me of poor reading skills and say I don’t answer your questions and I have asked you at least 6 times on different blogs and this one if you were going to condemn Planned Parenthood for their behavior and criminal activity and this is what I get. Your silence is deafening.
You claim my silence is deafening, yet once again you proved what I was getting at – you never really hear what I say when I post things. Let me try making my point again.
The only reason you think I have not condemned Planned Parenthood for some of their unscrupulous tactics is because you failed to properly comprehend my posts when I did so. Basically, you’re getting on my case to do something I already did.
Wouldn’t you hate it if all next month I kept posting “you never apologized to me for saying I didn’t insult bob!” over and over, even though you already did? That’s exactly what you’re doing with me and Planned Parenthood right now.
Rosenblatt, as I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, your biggest fault on this forum is to “parse” words, copy down entire posts of someone else and then conveniently sidestep. Once again, you have sidestepped condemning the most barbaric organization in the United States. Do you not know right from wrong? I know Ron doesn’t, but do you? Bob seems to think you have potential to use a little common sense with your replies to him. You couldn’t even condemn the moniker thieves for over a dozen times. As they say in the NFL, “Common Man”.
I’ve already condemned Planned Parenthood in our previous discussion on that topic. It’s not my fault you either can’t remember or don’t remember correctly. You continuing to say I have not condemned Planned Parenthood is disingenuous at best and intentional trolling at the worst.
Well, I was out of town some last week so I missed your condemnation. What article was it in? I have scrolled through a few articles and missed it. Of course, we do tend to cover a lot of subjects on every article. How much of this article was about Greenberg endorsing Jeb Bush? 5-10%?
I don’t remember the exact article, but I know for a fact you replied to my post and thanked me for finally saying it.
I do remember thanking you for finally doing the right thing calling out the moniker thieves, but not Planned Parenthood.
Do me a favor Rosenblatt, Go onto Townhall.com on today, 10-8 newsletter and click on the very informative article titled – Democrats Remain Silent as Obama Economy Kills Jobs, Freezes Wages Amid More Layoffs to Come. It is a very telling report on how job numbers are jury rigged and later revised downward and how the Leftist approach to the economy has not worked for the past 7 years. I know Ron is very happy with what Obama has done and is overjoyed that the GDP is in the toilet, but I am reaching out to you like Bob did. I will be interested in your take. No need to copy my entire post.
1) Seriously – stop telling me how to post.
2) Ron is NOT happy with the job Obama and the democrats have done, which is why he said he’s voting for a Republican president next time (unless something drastic happens with the Dem ticket). He has even acknowledged many of Obama’s errors and mistakes, but I guess that’s not good enough for you.
3) Job numbers are not jury rigged. The report we all hear about unemployment is simply an initial estimate of unemployment and the numbers are then revised once the actual analysis is done.
You want to argue they shouldn’t release the estimate and they should just release the final report – that’s fine, I’m totally with you there. However, that’s how a lot of things are reported now anyway – look at CAT claim payments: initially PCS will say “this is estimated to be a $3B event” and then a couple months later will say “we’ve reviewed all the data and it turns out this actually was a $1B event.” That’s not deceptive – that’s simply updating an initial estimate to reflect the actual results.
Rosenblatt, Seriously? Do you have to show rancor on every single post?
1. You should pay more attention to Ron’s posts over the years on the subject of Obama. His exact words were that he was disappointed in “some” of the policies, but not disappointed enough not to vote for him twice. The first term should have given him the full story on what was coming and he ignored it and did it again. How stupid was that?
2. The Labor Dept has been force feeding incorrect data for 7 years now on job creation or lack thereof. It is basically a shell game and the ministry of disinformation ie Labor Dept has gotten very good at manipulation of figures. The telling statistic is the Labor participation rate of currently 62.4% is the lowest since the Carter year of 1977. Obama cannot use the blame Bush excuse anymore. He has had his day and it is abominable. The good news is that he will be replaced and soon. Hopefully, not by another Democrat who may throw their hat in the ring because Hilliary is not going to be it.
1) I’ll let Ron respond to your comments about his views if he wants to discuss that with you further.
2) What you call a shell game I call “initially reporting an estimated figure, then revising said estimate with the actual data once it’s available.”
Again, this is the same way that PCS reports CAT exposure – first an estimate, then a revised/final number. Do you think PCS is playing a shell game with their data too?
Please note what I already said which you did not acknowledge in your reply: You want to argue they shouldn’t release the estimate and they should just release the final report – that’s fine, I’m totally with you there.
Rosenblatt, as I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, your biggest fault on this forum is to “parse” words, copy down entire posts of someone else and then conveniently sidestep. Once again, you have sidestepped condemning the most barbaric organization in the United States. Do you not know right from wrong? I know Ron doesn’t, but do you?
and then you call out rosenblatt saying his posts are done with rancor? you are a hypocrite as you are the one injecting rancor in the conversations.
what exactly did rosenblatt say that was rancorous? did he respond to your personal attack by insulting you back? did he point out your worst faults like you did to him? no. you insulted him many times in one post and he did not take the bait and insult you back. open your eyes, you are the rancor king here.
Rosenblatt, if the employment numbers are not jury rigged, how come every single month they post are always much higher than it ends up being after further review? Wouldn’t it be better to post Conservative numbers first and then brag on themselves for having better numbers later? The method used is disingenuous and dishonest and gives false information to the public. It is as bogus as the 5.1% unemployment rate and bragging on that when everyone knows it is false.
You want to know how come the initial report is always higher than it ends up being after further review? The answer is simple and I already wrote this twice in this conversation: the initial report is an estimate which gets adjusted once the final analysis on all the data is completed
Do you think the way PCS reports CAT exposure is disingenuous or dishonest as they post an estimate of damage (say $3B) and months later revise the number (say to $1B) once their analysis on all factors is complete?
And I’ll say this for the third time too — you want to argue they shouldn’t release the estimate and they should just release the final report? That’s fine, I’m totally with you there.
Agent wrote:
“Rosenblatt, how about you stop parsing words and copying everyones post before doing your own thing. That is a very bad habit and totally unnecessary.”
Hahaha
Captain Planet wrote Agent wrote: “Rosenblatt, how about you stop parsing words and copying everyones post before doing your own thing. That is a very bad habit and totally unnecessary.”
I see your post and raise you one :D
Rosenblatt, as long as you are in a light mood, try this one on for a test of your humor.
Bill & Hillary were at a Yankees game. A Secret Service agent came up and whispered something in his ear. He then picked Hillary up and threw her over the rail onto the field. She was cussing and fuming and the Secret Service agent said, Mr. President, the Yankees wanted you to throw out the first pitch.
“Oooh. I get it. I get jokes. Hahahahahahahaha” -HJS
I love ya Rosenblatt…seriously, just love ya!
Thanks Agent is a TOOL! And for what it’s worth, I can’t say I disagree at all with what you wrote earlier.
Rosenblatt,
We can all act over the top sometimes.
I agree with you in a lot of your posts today.
Careful Tool, someone might think you have weird tendencies. Perhaps you should exchange phone numbers or email addresses.
That was a very useless post, Agent. Just trying to stir up trouble instead of discussing matters….such as….
Do you think the way PCS reports CAT exposure is disingenuous or dishonest as they post an estimate of damage (say $3B) and months later revise the number (say to $1B) once their analysis on all factors is complete?
Way to side step Rosenblatt! You should try out for Dancing with the Stars with your fancy footwork. I talk about trumped up numbers with employment/unemployment, job creation, month after month and you blather on about PCS & CAT exposure that happens very infrequently in this country. I understand about estimates of damage from storms and see them on many articles. You cannot possibly think that a Progressive Socialist administration is not manipulating figures to make them look good. I call them the Ministry of Disinformation and they deserve that title.