60
   

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:33 pm
@spendius,
If you truly believe the "pride parade" is their way of laughing at heterosexuals, you have more hangups than just sex.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:45 pm
And btw Rex--don't talk about me insulting people, which I haven't done as another poster recognised, and then go on to call me a rapist and a terrorist for no other reason than you being rattled in an argument.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I've seen film of them ci. They are triumphalist.
dyslexia
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:50 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

And btw Rex--don't talk about me insulting people, which I haven't done as another poster recognised, and then go on to call me a rapist and a terrorist for no other reason than you being rattled in an argument.
Rex wouldn't do that, actually it sounds more like something I would do.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:56 pm
@dyslexia,
Well dys--he did do it and it would surprise me if you did.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:57 pm
@reasoning logic,
Spendius It sure would be nice to hear your reply on this matter
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 04:57 pm
@spendius,
Your ability to interpret film is below zero. Do you understand what pride means?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 05:06 pm
@spendius,
well spendi I realize Mr Red has some problems but I have no information that he does now or has ever fucked a chicken.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 05:10 pm
@dyslexia,
If he did, I bet it was Henny Penny.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 05:30 pm
I'm going to bed. There's some beasts to muck and fodder in the morning.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 06:44 pm
@spendius,
And the local pub in the afternoon.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 06:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I thought that he may have got an early start on things
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 03:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
And the local pub in the afternoon.


ci. knows very well, having been informed often enough, that I go to the pub for the last hour of its opening time ( 10pm- 11 pm Sundays, 10.30 pm- 11.30 pm Monday through Thursday, 11 pm -12 pm Friday and Saturday, and I consume two pints of 3.5% beer and socialise with some of my neighbours. I never drink alcohol at any other time. I wouldn't like to say whether he has been informed of those facts ten times or fifty times. It is a sufficient number for him to know considering that once should have been enough.

Why he persists in his slanderous calumnies to the contrary I can only think must be something to do with his own devious nature. Possibly he believes that his asserting, regularly, and despite his having been told so often, that I drink all day will cause others to think I'm an alcoholic and thus that my posts have no value.

Even if I am as pissed as a fart the whole day through it would be no reason for anyone to view my posts in any different light to what appears on the screen. They stand on the words alone. It makes not the slightest difference to any arguments I present what state I'm in.

If ci. thinks that remarks such as the above are answers to those arguments then not only is he completely stupid but he thinks that those who read such tripe are equally stupid.

It is but a short leap of the imagination to arrive at the conclusion that all those who adhere to the positions ci. takes are as devious and underhanded as he has proved to be. That is why I am surprised that scientists and homosexuals have not appeared on this forum to beg him to get off their case. If scientists and homosexuals can be assumed to be of the same type he is they should not wonder about any discrimination coming their way.





0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 04:10 am
Quote:
A 2008 UCLA study concluded that allowing non-resident same-sex couples to marry would boost the Massachusetts economy by a total of $111 million over a three year period. In addition, state and local tax revenues will increase by $5.1 million over three years including $4 million in sales and occupancy tax revenues and $1.1 million in marriage license fees.


Imagine what a state like California could make what with the additional benefits of sunshine, legalised marijuana and glamour.

Why would anybody, especially a minority group, campaign to have $111 million shifted from their purses for the very dubious privilege of being "married" when same-sex unions are for free.

What's in a name? Well---$111 million actually.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 04:18 am
Does all this talk of "benefits" and "rights" have anything to do with this sort of thing--

Quote:

Barbara Hollingsworth: Maryland keeps orphans' Social Security benefits
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
May 25, 2010

Public officials in Maryland often justify their excessive spending of other people's money by pretending to be champions of the poor and downtrodden. Don't fall for it. Maryland is just one of many states that apply for -- and keep -- Social Security benefits that legally belong to children in foster care.

This is happening to tens of thousands of foster kids nationwide, says Dr. Daniel Hatcher, associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore. Child welfare agencies regularly file for Social Security benefits that should go to orphaned or disabled foster kids, then pocket the money in their budgets, leaving their young charges with no financial resources when they leave the system at age 18.

Since Social Security benefits legally belong to the minor child, whoever receives the money has a fiduciary responsibility to spend it in the child's best interest. This is a broad standard, but padding bureaucratic budgets doesn't even come close.

Ninety percent of the Social Security Administration's "representative payees" are government agencies, even though they're supposed to be the least preferred custodians of foster children's benefits.

The SSA even set up an automated "kiddie loop" to expedite the transfer of funds so bureaucrats don't have to work so hard to get at the dough. "Picking the state agency is the easiest choice," Hatcher points out, adding that there's nothing in SSA regulations that allows for this practice.

Not only do foster children get no benefit from their own benefits, they often have no idea that child welfare agencies are keeping their money. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this despicable practice in Washington State Department of Social and Health Services v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, Hatcher says.

But, he notes, the Court did not address the breach of fiduciary duty or the violation of foster children's property and equal protection rights without due process.

So in 2008, he filed a lawsuit on behalf of then-21-year-old Alex Myers of Dundalk, Maryland, who was 11 when his mother died in 1999. While in foster care, Myers was moved to at least 20 homes, none permanent.

In 2001 when his father died, he became eligible for Social Security survivor benefits. Unbeknownst to him, the Baltimore County Department of Social Services applied for -- and kept --$16,000 that should have gone to him. He only found out when he aged out of foster care at age 18, penniless and on his own.

The motion to dismiss submitted by Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler's office sums up the state's attitude. Assistant attorney general Julia Bernhardt argued in court that Myers' complaint should be thrown out because of his "failure to file ... within the applicable period."

In other words, the State of Maryland thinks that a teenaged orphan should have figured it out all by himself that the adults in charge of taking care of him were secretly stealing his Social Security checks, and then found a lawyer to assert his rights in court before the statute of limitations ran out. He didn't, so too bad for him.

Bernhardt did not return a call from The Examiner asking whether she thought it was right or appropriate for bureaucrats to divert Social Security benefits away from orphans to government.

Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Mickey J. Norman accepted this legalistic nonsense and dismissed the case, thus allowing Maryland's soulless bureaucrats to use the same foster children forced by a cruel fate to depend on them for their sustenance as a revenue stream.

Dr. Hatcher expects his appeal to be heard this summer. But should anybody be surprised that a government so devoid of common decency has no problem fleecing taxpayers as well?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Maryland-keeps-orphans_-Social-Security-benefits-94779074.html#ixzz0y5BvSosZ


Are orphans being discriminated against by the USSC, judges and the fat cat bureaucrats? We know for absolute sure that orphans can't help their condition and are in no state to shift for themselves.

I think orphans should be higher up our list of priorities than adult, well-paid homosexuals. I assume there are some homosexuals in the bureaucracies in Maryland. Maryland sure is a nice name for a state being arraigned on matters of that nature.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 08:42 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Does all this talk of "benefits" and "rights" have anything to do with this sort of thing--

Quote:

Barbara Hollingsworth: Maryland keeps orphans' Social Security benefits
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
May 25, 2010

Public officials in Maryland often justify their excessive spending of other people's money by pretending to be champions of the poor and downtrodden. Don't fall for it. Maryland is just one of many states that apply for -- and keep -- Social Security benefits that legally belong to children in foster care.

This is happening to tens of thousands of foster kids nationwide, says Dr. Daniel Hatcher, associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore. Child welfare agencies regularly file for Social Security benefits that should go to orphaned or disabled foster kids, then pocket the money in their budgets, leaving their young charges with no financial resources when they leave the system at age 18.

Since Social Security benefits legally belong to the minor child, whoever receives the money has a fiduciary responsibility to spend it in the child's best interest. This is a broad standard, but padding bureaucratic budgets doesn't even come close.

Ninety percent of the Social Security Administration's "representative payees" are government agencies, even though they're supposed to be the least preferred custodians of foster children's benefits.

The SSA even set up an automated "kiddie loop" to expedite the transfer of funds so bureaucrats don't have to work so hard to get at the dough. "Picking the state agency is the easiest choice," Hatcher points out, adding that there's nothing in SSA regulations that allows for this practice.

Not only do foster children get no benefit from their own benefits, they often have no idea that child welfare agencies are keeping their money. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this despicable practice in Washington State Department of Social and Health Services v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, Hatcher says.

But, he notes, the Court did not address the breach of fiduciary duty or the violation of foster children's property and equal protection rights without due process.

So in 2008, he filed a lawsuit on behalf of then-21-year-old Alex Myers of Dundalk, Maryland, who was 11 when his mother died in 1999. While in foster care, Myers was moved to at least 20 homes, none permanent.

In 2001 when his father died, he became eligible for Social Security survivor benefits. Unbeknownst to him, the Baltimore County Department of Social Services applied for -- and kept --$16,000 that should have gone to him. He only found out when he aged out of foster care at age 18, penniless and on his own.

The motion to dismiss submitted by Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler's office sums up the state's attitude. Assistant attorney general Julia Bernhardt argued in court that Myers' complaint should be thrown out because of his "failure to file ... within the applicable period."

In other words, the State of Maryland thinks that a teenaged orphan should have figured it out all by himself that the adults in charge of taking care of him were secretly stealing his Social Security checks, and then found a lawyer to assert his rights in court before the statute of limitations ran out. He didn't, so too bad for him.

Bernhardt did not return a call from The Examiner asking whether she thought it was right or appropriate for bureaucrats to divert Social Security benefits away from orphans to government.

Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Mickey J. Norman accepted this legalistic nonsense and dismissed the case, thus allowing Maryland's soulless bureaucrats to use the same foster children forced by a cruel fate to depend on them for their sustenance as a revenue stream.

Dr. Hatcher expects his appeal to be heard this summer. But should anybody be surprised that a government so devoid of common decency has no problem fleecing taxpayers as well?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Maryland-keeps-orphans_-Social-Security-benefits-94779074.html#ixzz0y5BvSosZ


Are orphans being discriminated against by the USSC, judges and the fat cat bureaucrats? We know for absolute sure that orphans can't help their condition and are in no state to shift for themselves.

I think orphans should be higher up our list of priorities than adult, well-paid homosexuals. I assume there are some homosexuals in the bureaucracies in Maryland. Maryland sure is a nice name for a state being arraigned on matters of that nature.



Well, your Lord Baltimore bought the land so Catholics could live in America.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 11:35 am
@Foofie,
"Leave your stepping stones behind, something calls for you.
Leave the dead you left, they will not follow you."

Bob Dylan.. It's All Over Now Baby Blue.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:41 pm
@spendius,
How about some laymen terms to your responce to foofie instead of sarcasm?
Not that I agree with foofie, I would just like to hear what a rational responce would sound like.
Not that I am saying that you are being completely irrational, for some reason I think that you have it in you to respond more indepth about what he has said!
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 01:04 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uonLKdof_ho

well if you would like to watch this well sorry it is banned from, you. Banned worldwide.

a bridge to nowhere.

sorry you are inadequate. not worthy.. bye, especially Americans... x cut out! red
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 03:50 am
@reasoning logic,
What sarcasm?

I was using poetic shorthand to say that what happened in the late 17th century when Lord Baltimore and Willian Penn were drawing lines on maps is neither here nor there today. There was a large number of transported convicts and slaves in the area at that time and not long after the Catholic sway was officially reversed. Today, Maryland is a centre for biological research and can be expected to contain a high number of influential evolutionists. It has the highest mean household income (>$80,000) of any state.

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why Foofie chose to make that comment about the article I quoted concerning victimised orphans. My intention in quoting it was to align sympathy in an orderly fashion so that we don't get carried away by hand-wringing over the use of a word by people who are well off enough and old enough to look after themselves. There are lots of groups getting a raw deal much worse than that homosexuals see themselves as getting. Vets for example. Single mothers. Immigrant fruit pickers. Even the prison population which can't help having a criminal gene or conditioning if some of the arguments used on here are valid. I seem to remember that Charles Manson mounted his defence on that issue and it was rebutted.

Some people want to argue as if no world exists outside their own bubble.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.75 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 11:46:28