Olberman With Sobering Words About Prop 8

:lmao:

Keith never knew you were a Rump Ranger. Was that a tear I almost saw running down your cheek? Give me a fucking break, the people voted and they rejected the gay agenda.
 
Damocles said:
Not a problem. I like questions like this. Sometimes it gets me to rethink things too. Not in this case. I don't think that government should be mucking around in the bedrooms of consenting adults or deciding who has a right to visit me in the hospital. It should damned well be anybody I choose, even if it is "icky" to somebody else.
Click to expand...

What is the old clique, one man's trash is another's treasure!

I don't know how many times I have heard my mother phrase it!
 
Grind said:
With civil unions, gays can have all the same legal rights, and they can still live together, be together and love each other.

Black people weren't giving civil unions. I'm sorry I know many people have their hearts in the right place but it is NOT an apt analogy to compare gay people TODAY to black people 40 years ago. IT'S NOT THE SAME.

I want to make it very clear - I would not have voted for prop 8. I would have voted against it. I have no problem with gay marriage.

But at least in this circumstance - Did they lose anything more than the ability to legally call themselves married? Who the fuck cares about a word? Ok the state doesn't call you married . .. call yourself married. I just don't get why it's worth crying over if you simply aren't CALLED something.

If you lost rights, that's a different issue, and I'm with you all the way.

But both sides - if it's just a word we are talking about.. who the fuck cares. seriously.
Click to expand...

Why not, they weren't able to marry the people they fell in love with, how is it different? They are both being discriminated against and the reasoning for doing so is not sound!
 
webbway said:
:lmao:

Keith never knew you were a Rump Ranger. Was that a tear I almost saw running down your cheek? Give me a fucking break, the people voted and they rejected the gay agenda.
Click to expand...

A very bad case of cranial inversion, seek help!
 
Grind said:
shut up idiot. You are completely ignorant of massachusetts politics, the way our state pisses money away, and the corruption we have in our state government.

You can still have police without a state income tax - IDIOT. There are quite a few states that don't have an income tax and do JUST FINE.

And even if we are to stipulate that property taxes would go up, that would be decided on a town by town basis, we would at least have much more direct control in deciding how our money is taken and where it's spent.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring reality grind. It's easy to say "Gee, we waste money so it would be just fine to get rid of our income tax" without looking at the figures, which is what you never do. You just spout anti-tax ignorance and platitudes. The fact is, that "waste" you are talking about probably makes up an insignificant portion of the budget that doesn't barely begin to account with the massive shortfall abolishing the income tax would create.

You need to cut 70% of the spending in areas that the constitution allows you to. That would be not only stupid, but irresponsible beyond belief. They would raise the sales or property tax to make up for it because it would be so irresponsible - just like in New Hampshire, which has by far the highest property tax in the nation. Local government WOULD raise property taxes to make up for the massive amount state government would have to cut in aid. It would be a massive fail for Massachusettes.
 
Grind said:
With civil unions, gays can have all the same legal rights, and they can still live together, be together and love each other.

Black people weren't giving civil unions. I'm sorry I know many people have their hearts in the right place but it is NOT an apt analogy to compare gay people TODAY to black people 40 years ago. IT'S NOT THE SAME.

I want to make it very clear - I would not have voted for prop 8. I would have voted against it. I have no problem with gay marriage.

But at least in this circumstance - Did they lose anything more than the ability to legally call themselves married? Who the fuck cares about a word? Ok the state doesn't call you married . .. call yourself married. I just don't get why it's worth crying over if you simply aren't CALLED something.

If you lost rights, that's a different issue, and I'm with you all the way.

But both sides - if it's just a word we are talking about.. who the fuck cares. seriously.
Click to expand...

Ignorant fool.
 
Watermark said:
blah blah blah I'm a bottom feeder...

They would raise the sales or property tax to make up for it because it would be so irresponsible - just like in New Hampshire, which has by far the highest property tax in the nation. Local government WOULD raise property taxes to make up for the massive amount state government would have to cut in aid. .
Click to expand...

SO FUCKING WHAT? Some towns would need to raise property taxes higher than others. That's FINE by me.

And watermark you don't know shit about massachusetts politcs so stfu.

I'll pwn you later when I'm not so tired.
 
Grind said:
SO FUCKING WHAT? Some towns would need to raise property taxes higher than others. That's FINE by me.

And watermark you don't know shit about massachusetts politcs so stfu.

I'll pwn you later when I'm not so tired.
Click to expand...
Why, do you encourage him. I mean I KNOW you are a Red Sox fan but I still thought you had SOME smarts. :D
 
Socrtease said:
Why, do you encourage him. I mean I KNOW you are a Red Sox fan but I still thought you had SOME smarts. :D
Click to expand...

HaHa, you must love Soc. A sh*t talking lawyer which I know is repetitive. Soc still loves Watermark because lord knows he doesn't like winners because he has expressed his feelings about U!S!C!
 
Robdawg said:
I know lots of people vote to keep the income tax in fears of having outrageous property taxes to make up for the difference. Their attitude was the goverment is going to get it one way or another.
Click to expand...

Yah that was a lot of fear mongering going on. #1 each town would have to vote for it.. and that give people a hell of a lot more voice. #2 tons of waste would be eliminated so it would not be trying to make up 100% of lost income tax. Afterall we still have sales and other taxes. #3 lots of towns dont get jack shit from the state as it is. #4Im sorry but there is absolutly no chance in hell that someone making 100grand paying 5k would see his prop taxes go from like 5.000 to 10,000.

It was all fear mongering bullshit paid for by our own taxes.
 
Watermark said:
Which part of the government did you want to get rid of Chap?

I think getting rid of the police department might begin to make up the 70% shortfall that getting rid of the income tax would create in the areas that Mass. is constitutionally able to cut.

Maybe they just had common fucking sense, instead of leaving in this fairytaleland guys you anti-tax freaks live in where everything is free and easy?
Click to expand...

Like we really need 2 separate transportation departments in MA. This state is estimated to have over 40% govt waste. That my friend is one of the highest levels in the country.
 
Watermark said:
It doesn't matter what the majority says. They can't vote to take away our freedoms just because they're ignorant fucks.
Click to expand...

curious this opinion so many of the left have. Reminds me of other forms of government thinking around the globe.
 
Watermark said:
You are ignoring reality grind. It's easy to say "Gee, we waste money so it would be just fine to get rid of our income tax" without looking at the figures, which is what you never do. You just spout anti-tax ignorance and platitudes. The fact is, that "waste" you are talking about probably makes up an insignificant portion of the budget that doesn't barely begin to account with the massive shortfall abolishing the income tax would create.

You need to cut 70% of the spending in areas that the constitution allows you to. That would be not only stupid, but irresponsible beyond belief. They would raise the sales or property tax to make up for it because it would be so irresponsible - just like in New Hampshire, which has by far the highest property tax in the nation. Local government WOULD raise property taxes to make up for the massive amount state government would have to cut in aid. It would be a massive fail for Massachusettes.
Click to expand...

Your facts suck. You need to research Massachusetts more before defending the tax.
 
Chapdog said:
Majority has spoken. doenst matter if you agree with it or not. That's the way it works. BTW had to turn it off because it was so annoying listening to his crying over it and id vote for gay marriage.

hes like the legislature in MA saying: well the voters voted to decriminalize pot but its not right.. they dont know what they are voting for.. we should ignore it and do what we want.
Click to expand...

So, if the majority voted and said that we should bring back slavery for black people, it would not matter if you agreed with it or not? Is that the way it works?
 
Grind said:
With civil unions, gays can have all the same legal rights, and they can still live together, be together and love each other.

Black people weren't giving civil unions. I'm sorry I know many people have their hearts in the right place but it is NOT an apt analogy to compare gay people TODAY to black people 40 years ago. IT'S NOT THE SAME.

I want to make it very clear - I would not have voted for prop 8. I would have voted against it. I have no problem with gay marriage.

But at least in this circumstance - Did they lose anything more than the ability to legally call themselves married? Who the fuck cares about a word? Ok the state doesn't call you married . .. call yourself married. I just don't get why it's worth crying over if you simply aren't CALLED something.

If you lost rights, that's a different issue, and I'm with you all the way.

But both sides - if it's just a word we are talking about.. who the fuck cares. seriously.
Click to expand...


So it would have been okay if Black people were allowed civil unions, to deny them marriage?

Maybe you have not been educated on the subject, but the supreme has spoken and they said... Seperate is not equal.
 
Jarod said:
So, if the majority voted and said that we should bring back slavery for black people, it would not matter if you agreed with it or not? Is that the way it works?
Click to expand...

So let it go to the supreme court. The voters spoke in CA. unless the Supream court overrules the will of the people the law must be followed like it or not. Again i don't agree with the outcome but that's the way this works.
 
Chapdog said:
So let it go to the supreme court. The voters spoke in CA. unless the Supream court overrules the will of the people the law must be followed like it or not. Again i don't agree with the outcome but that's the way this works.
Click to expand...

THats the way it works, I hope it gets to the supreme court after we have appointed a few non-natzi's.

The will of the majority is not always okay. Slavery proved that!
 
Jarod said:
THats the way it works, I hope it gets to the supreme court after we have appointed a few non-natzi's.

The will of the majority is not always okay. Slavery proved that!
Click to expand...

well for some state slavery was ok. But thats the purpose of the federal govt. And the govt should rule based on the will of the majority of the states peoples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top