|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 6, 2008 17:29:28 GMT -5
Saunterelle, you claim it it all about being fair. Yet you want to tax some people at a much higher rate than others. Please explain to us how that is fair? You want judges to invent new civil rights to extend to fringe groups, yet do away with specifially enumerated rights. How is that fair? Remember this day Saunterelle, and your appeal to fairness. I plan to beat the crap out of you with your appeal to fairness for the next two years. Our tax system isn't fair. But it provides a measure of human decency which is supposed to be something America prides itself on. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 6, 2008 17:54:12 GMT -5
Old Gavin Newsom and San Francisco are becoming as marginalized as Berkeley. Old Gavin is going to continue to issue marriage license against the will of the people. He should be prosecuted. And if Attorney General Brown can be taken at his word, spoken yesterday, that his office will do what is required to uphold the state constitution, then maybe Gavin will be down the road. I'd certainly enjoy seeing that. For saunterelle.... a) I don't see a response from you on showing where the founders emphasized a seperation between chuch and state. b) The tax system is not in question here. Again, apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 6, 2008 19:03:13 GMT -5
Saunterelle, you claim it it all about being fair. Yet you want to tax some people at a much higher rate than others. Please explain to us how that is fair? You want judges to invent new civil rights to extend to fringe groups, yet do away with specifially enumerated rights. How is that fair? Remember this day Saunterelle, and your appeal to fairness. I plan to beat the crap out of you with your appeal to fairness for the next two years. Our tax system isn't fair. But it provides a measure of human decency which is supposed to be something America prides itself on. True, it isn't fair. Fair would be a uniform 10% or 12% tax across the boards. As it is the upper income classes pay more than their fair portion of taxes. But Barry-boy, aided by Nancy and Harry, have plans to make it even worse by placing confiscatory taxes on income above whatever level they decide makes on "wealthy." Yeah, real fair. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 6, 2008 19:22:07 GMT -5
Correct, those making $250K or more will pay 3% more than they do now. It's exactly the same they were paying under Clinton (when our country was doing much better).
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 6, 2008 19:53:16 GMT -5
You are misinformed saunterelle. When Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, which he will, the bottom tax bracket jumps 50% in taxes withheld to 15% right off the top. How is that a tax cut. Besides, Clinton did not simplify taxes, Reagan did. He had only four tax brackets.
Do you know how I know this is true? I have every tax bracket and rate all the way back to 1913.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 6, 2008 21:26:25 GMT -5
^^^^^^^ off topic  Now back on topic.... we have these examples of the tolerant left in the aftermath of their defeat on Prop. 8. How does this square with you, saunterelle? And if I, as a complete agnostic (which I am), see some activist harming one of my Christian neighbors or torching the church down the street, am I going to be somehow lessened in your tolerant eyes if I come to the aid of my neighbor? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 6, 2008 22:18:09 GMT -5
If gay people resort to violence it will only serve to undermine their cause. I think they've handled defeat pretty well. No riots in the Castro. Some whining, but that's to be expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 7, 2008 0:04:45 GMT -5
If gay people resort to violence it will only serve to undermine their cause. I think they've handled defeat pretty well. No riots in the Castro. Some whining, but that's to be expected. Which is why just about every large peace protest or anti-business protest turns into a riot. And of course there was whining, high liberal content does that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 7, 2008 0:40:42 GMT -5
If gay people resort to violence it will only serve to undermine their cause. Perhaps, but then what is to stop them if some of them do resort to violence? Then what saunterelle? Think it can't happen here? What if it does. Then what? If I posted something like that targeting a gay, or anyone in your political circle, you would label me a bigot, a homophobe and probably try to have me arrested for a "hate crime". Where is your moral outrage saunterelle? Where is your condemnation? What we get from you is "they wouldn't do it because it wouldn't advance their cause if they did". Saying, in essence, that it can't happen here. Well sometimes things do happen, and the first church that is bombed or burned... the first person injured or killed by one of these naybobs, I will be right back in this thread calling you out for your hypocrisy. Interesting sidebar, I was just re-reading the article above, while forming my reply to saunterelle's response, and a line from one of the "activists" jumped out at me..... And wouldn't that be just like a leftist lunatic to bring a knife to a gunfight? Because that, in many cases, would likely be what they would be running up against. Bummer for them, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 7, 2008 1:21:34 GMT -5
Calling for a Night of the Long Knives, eh? Interesting. I wonder if the activist knows the reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Nov 7, 2008 11:12:42 GMT -5
I keep hearing about the passage of Prop 8 as denying homosexuals the equal rights under the law.
Just exactly what rights are being denied?
The #1 argument in opposing Prop 8 was that: ""Our California Constitution--the law of our land---should guarantee the same freedoms and right to everyone. No one group should be singled out to be treated differently."
This is the same group that pushed forth The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act (AB 205)
"This bill created the presumption that domestic partners were to have all of the rights and responsibilities afforded spouses under state law."
In reality, the bill created rights only for same-sex partnerships while excluded opposite-sex partners. The bill in itself was nothing more than one group favoring benefits while denying others their own.
The cry of granting homosexuals full constitutional rights and protections as everyone seems a bit hypocritical as they are also guilty of denying others of their own rights.
Prop 8 was passed, but is only transitory. Already we have 4 lawsuites filed against it, and Attorney General Jerry Brown has stated that he will honor the some 70,000 same sex marriages already performed.
The intent of Prop 8 was to clearly define Marriage" in this stae as between a man and a woman. At the ruling of the State Supreme Court in May, 2008, the judges were asked to stay any marrigaes until after the vote. They refused and now we have a group of married homosexuals while deniying others to wed.
My feelings in all of this is, with Jerry Brown defending the case against anti prop 8 forces, we will find in the not to distant future that our vote really doesn't mean anything and yes again, courts will rule against the people and continue to legislate from the bench.
|
|
