Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

[Stevinator]

Why does this need to be personalized? If you want anecdotes, I'm surrounded by them - commonly known as "future debs" (for 'debutante'). Have you never heard of someone marrying for money?

Then don't answer. I don't wish to get you in trouble with the mrs. Nor am I trying to be mean.

I certainly won't be marrying for money, and the last time that came up, I had all of it, she was a pile of student loans.

but to directly address this, sure, people can and do marry for money, but I don't believe that you think that's the norm. I take that back, i find it hard to beleive you think that's the norm. perhaps you really are as awful as you want to pretend to be--i just doubt it. I have this sneaking suspicion that you're a much nicer guy than you let on.

You have no clue what my family is like, nor those of my progenitors'. Furthermore, if you can't imagine that laws could change that, you're in for a very sad awakening. A facile example is the way your family all but certainly consigns their elderly to retirement homes or other forms of hospice care, while I do not and will not. I'm not trying to point this difference out in an explicit "I'm so much better than you" way, because my familial behavior is that of a very small minority nowadays, but I definitely take a certain amount of pride in not throwing away Gramps' life like a used tissue. Have you ever even considered that viewpoint?

I know you're trying to make a point, but my grandmother requires 24 hour care since her stroke/fall incident. We were getting by okay for quite some time just checking on them, and bringing food and whatnot. They're in their late nineties. We're not putting them there, she needs 24 hour care right now the nurses are showing up in the morning, and leaving right after they get her back in bed. she can't sit up without assistance. I saw them about monthly, sometimes more, and my parents were there nearly daily. After the accident, she needed daily care from nurses, and therapists, and, other people who I don't even know what they do. I certainly don't see it as putting them in home. She's going to what amounts to a hospital with apartments attached. We're not sure she'll make it. And never in my life have i forced my grandfather into doing anything he didn't want to. He knows my parent's have space for him (which would be a distant third option for him), but I think he wants to live down the hall from her room. If it was my wife of 70 years, I would. There's no way I'd stay at home, move in with someone else, or really go much of anywhere, while she's in that kind of shape.

I know I've been light on details, but whatever impression you got, it was wrong.

Hardly; it's the demonstration of your inherent statism/fascism. I WOULD support the law if it changed in my state, though I wouldn't like it, just as I support the prohibition of both guns and weed even though I don't practice like those laws. They're THE LAW. You can definitely pick which ones you're going to follow, but the fact is that the state is the body legally empowered to make those decisions, while the Feds are specifically not thus empowered. I know you probably don't like it, but there's a great bit of text that nobody likes any more - it's known as the Tenth Amendment.

Are you saying if it was legal you'd get *** married? I don't believe you. I don't think you married for money either. I think you're goading me into making a Jmerv is a closet *** joke, but it's so subtle, I don't know what to make of this. So assuming you're not saying you're going to rush out and get *** married, exactly how would you "support" the law? What would that look like?

BTW, if you are planning on getting *** married, my head will explode like my 'tar. If you're not, can you please admit you're just playing lame semantical games. You know damned well what I meant. Federal vs. state is a dodge, because i don't care which way it goes. i'm taking a position i think is right. If it's more legally proper to do it through the states, fine. I think there's precedent for the feds to step in, as they have before, but it goes state by state, I'm not going to see that as less just.

And I'm pretty much considering you an open liar from now on. That's SPECIFICALLY what you're demanding, even though you pretend it isn't. Because once you have legalized queer marriage, which grants them the previously unavailable protected class status, they can sue churches for not performing the rite. It's happened already, and will be more widespread. Incidentally, that's why I've started to refer to you in terms of "fascism" - there's not a gun to the priest's head (though you'd love that too) but instead it's the Obama "make you an offer you can't refuse" model enforced by legislating alternatives out of financial possibility. Churches won't be able to operate without being lawsuit magnets, in the way that the attacks against the Boy Scouts left it financially damaged.

Straight couples can't sue for not being allowed to use churches, why would gays suddenly be able to? it's not a protected status thing. That's a separate issue. Of course, i can understand why you might be confused, I mean, those big buildings are heavily subsidized by tax exemptions for churches and their donors, so i can see why you might think they're semi-public buildings. i mean heck, if the *** couple works, they DID basically pay in a little bit to the church--indirectly. But paying taxes doesn't mean you can claim whatever public property you want. I see your argument though.

And see, you can say the absolute worst thing you've said about me, and we can still tease. civility ftw.

I'm hard pressed not to resort to obscenity here. So I'll have to resume later.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/193170.Spencer_W_Kimball[/URL]]“Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.”

Stupid tags. the one time I want to do the orange text thing. :(

[Glurin]

Sometimes though, profanity is appropriate and the most effective way of getting the point across.

Also, it's been scientifically proven that talking like a sailor works as a painkiller.

[BobCox2]

Sometimes though, profanity is appropriate and the most effective way of getting the point across.

Also, it's been scientifically proven that talking like a sailor works as a painkiller.

(!@#$%^&*)

***

[Stevinator]

(!@#$%^&*)

***

Did it work?

[jmervyn]

I don't wish to get you in trouble with the mrs.

You won't - just pointing out that fiscal motivation is quite real.

I have this sneaking suspicion that you're a much nicer guy than you let on.

I better work on that. No, I'm not saying the majority of people marry for money, but you're truly ignorant if you think that it's a fractional percentage. Many women marry precisely so that they don't need to be the breadwinners.

I'm going to cut this short because my wife wants me to burn a couple of CD's for her.

Spoiler

I know you're trying to make a point, but my grandmother requires 24 hour care since her stroke/fall incident. We were getting by okay for quite some time just checking on them, and bringing food and whatnot. They're in their late nineties. We're not putting them there, she needs 24 hour care right now the nurses are showing up in the morning, and leaving right after they get her back in bed. she can't sit up without assistance. I saw them about monthly, sometimes more, and my parents were there nearly daily. After the accident, she needed daily care from nurses, and therapists, and, other people who I don't even know what they do. I certainly don't see it as putting them in home. She's going to what amounts to a hospital with apartments attached. We're not sure she'll make it. And never in my life have i forced my grandfather into doing anything he didn't want to. He knows my parent's have space for him (which would be a distant third option for him), but I think he wants to live down the hall from her room. If it was my wife of 70 years, I would. There's no way I'd stay at home, move in with someone else, or really go much of anywhere, while she's in that kind of shape.

I know I've been light on details, but whatever impression you got, it was wrong.



Are you saying if it was legal you'd get *** married? I don't believe you. I don't think you married for money either. I think you're goading me into making a Jmerv is a closet *** joke, but it's so subtle, I don't know what to make of this. So assuming you're not saying you're going to rush out and get *** married, exactly how would you "support" the law? What would that look like?

BTW, if you are planning on getting *** married, my head will explode like my 'tar. If you're not, can you please admit you're just playing lame semantical games. You know damned well what I meant. Federal vs. state is a dodge, because i don't care which way it goes. i'm taking a position i think is right. If it's more legally proper to do it through the states, fine. I think there's precedent for the feds to step in, as they have before, but it goes state by state, I'm not going to see that as less just.




Straight couples can't sue for not being allowed to use churches, why would gays suddenly be able to? it's not a protected status thing. That's a separate issue. Of course, i can understand why you might be confused, I mean, those big buildings are heavily subsidized by tax exemptions for churches and their donors, so i can see why you might think they're semi-public buildings. i mean heck, if the *** couple works, they DID basically pay in a little bit to the church--indirectly. But paying taxes doesn't mean you can claim whatever public property you want. I see your argument though.

And see, you can say the absolute worst thing you've said about me, and we can still tease. civility ftw.






Stupid tags. the one time I want to do the orange text thing. :([/QUOTE]

[krischan]

Stupid tags. the one time I want to do the orange text thing.

Like this?

Or this?

The second is actually a link, but with a dummy URL, so clicking on it probably won't lead to anywhere.

[BobCox2]

Representative (and failed VP nominee) Paul Ryan (R-WI) can tell you all about how great sequestration is. Why, he’s been a fan since 2004. Not just a fan — he’s pushed sequestration as the solution, as good governance, since 2004. When he finally got it in 2011, he bragged about it to Fox News. Oh, the conservatives finally got it, he told Sean Hannity! The holy grail of economic discipline is here! WOO HOO!

Ryan explained, “We want to make it very difficult for Congress to avoid this budget discipline.”
Now that it’s here, though, Paul Ryan no likey the sequester anymore. Budget discipline bad.
Watch James Carter’s (of Mitt Romney 47% video fame) Ryan sequester clip collection here:




.Now that the sequestration might actually take place he says it's "not good government."

[Glurin]

Yeah, that pretty much applies to everyone in D.C. Almost all of them were for the big threat of automatic spending cuts. (Of course they bickered about exactly where those cuts would happen, but the threat was what they really wanted.) Turns out though that when the time comes for those to actually, you know, happen, we get the typical "Lets raise taxes now and talk about maybe cutting spending later."

Boy, who coulda guessed that would happen? It's almost as if somebody was trying to manufacture a crisis in order to push their own agenda.

[BobCox2]

I'm hoping the agenda includes a constitutional convention.

Otherwise this is not getting fixed.

and we get the Stay-puff marshmallow flavor of the month

[Stevinator]

Like this?

Or this?

The second is actually a link, but with a dummy URL, so clicking on it probably won't lead to anywhere.

the "or this" one. I usually put the link on the next line, and not in the text like JM always does.

YOu can't just quote and see how you do it either, it shows up blue in the quote box.