|
|
| Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) (101800) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
|
| (102119) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:37:22 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:34:38 2006. Thanks again for butting into a discussion that had nothing to do with you! |
|
|
| (102120) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:38:53 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:37:22 2006. What discussion? You were being a troll. |
|
|
| (102121) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:39:14 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:38:53 2006. Pot calling kettle black. |
|
|
| (102122) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:40:00 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:39:14 2006. You got there first . . . troll. Hope BIE smacks ya one . . . |
|
|
| (102124) | |
Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:42:01 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:40:00 2006. If he does, I will find it in the reef, tomorrow. I'm going to sleep because I have to go TO WORK tomorrow, unlike a ton of SubChatters. |
|
|
| (102125) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 22:47:33 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Feb 27 22:30:47 2006. You are FUN to mess with. |
|
|
| (102127) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 22:51:37 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:31:53 2006. My job was sold out to China by a big "defense" contractor. |
|
|
| (102129) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:53:03 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 22:51:37 2006. How secure is outsourced defense? Answer: not secure whatsoever.You heard about the Chinese military ]-[4XXing into our military computers . . . ? |
|
|
| (102132) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Feb 27 23:00:26 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 22:47:33 2006. Brooklyn IND: Against.ok, so I'm fun to mess around with, LOL |
|
|
| (102133) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 23:12:05 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:53:03 2006. I can deal with OUR government running our health insurance. and understand that SOME functions are better off government run. but I can't see for the fucking life of me what the fuck right a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT has running ANY commercial enterprise in the United States. Is this FUCKING BIZARRO WORLD OR WHAT. and the Republicans are SUCKING IT RIGHT UP. HILLARY, SAVE US FROM THESE LOSERS. |
|
|
| (102135) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 23:38:16 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 23:12:05 2006. They may be sucking it up right now, but it's ready to bite them (and us) in the rear ends. If the dollar stops being a reserve currency, where will that leave the country . . . ? Enough putting the USA in hock. |
|
|
| (102136) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Kirschner on Mon Feb 27 23:47:25 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Mon Feb 27 15:40:08 2006. But Clinton's "surplus" was also likely a deficit when you net out the Social Security intake.I'm sorry, but you're going to have to qualify that. Do you mean the requirements of social security would have cancelled out the surplus. Doubtful. But even if it's true, it would have been no less true under Shrub than under Bubba. But Shrub went and pissed the whole surplus away on tax cuts. So the debt can only be worse. BTW -- was "Clinton's surplus" actually "Newt's surplus"? After all, the budget didn't move towards being balanced until after 1994. Clinton did begin the process pre-1994 with his tax reform bill, extrememly unpopular at the time, but clearly the responsible thing to. (Bush Sr, ie "41", also got the ball rolling a few years earlier with his rollback of Reagan's giveaways, though it would contribute to his loss in 1992.) However, I do seriously doubt he would have gotten all the way there without some kind of contentious presence in Congresss. The fairest thing to say is that the surplus of 1998-2000 was the work of BOTH Bubba and Newt. It took the compettion of partisan politcs, with neither owning a monopoly on power, to force both sides to act responsibly. That's not to say it had to be quite so volitile, what with Newt's GOP determined to bring down the Democrat who had the gumption to win. At any rate, I doubt the phenomenon would have occured if wither party had had a monopoly on power. It sure ain't happenning with the GOP monopoly of today, what with Shrub spending like there's no tomorrow and congressional Republicans tripping over themselves to aggree with him. |
|
|
| (102137) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:00:49 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Andrew Kirschner on Mon Feb 27 23:47:25 2006. AIR, that's what a lot of Republicans wanted to do as soon as the budget got balanced—start cutting taxes, that is. |
|
|
| (102138) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:01:57 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 12:52:09 2006. |
|
|
| (102139) | |
Re: Bklyn IND, the king of trolling |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:02:44 2006, in response to Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:42:01 2006. b7 |
|
|
| (102140) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:03:44 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 17:08:18 2006. At this point, I don't care if he gets a shemale . . . |
|
|
| (102141) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:06:03 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 21:50:37 2006. You're anti-American then? |
|
|
| (102142) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:08:35 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Booge on Mon Feb 27 15:28:13 2006. I'm sure his kollege has a GLBT klub . . . |
|
|
| (102143) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Tue Feb 28 00:10:04 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 22:47:33 2006. I second that. |
|
|
| (102144) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:12:02 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Mon Feb 27 15:40:08 2006. But but but . . . TWTTIN.US korporations started making thousand-plus-percent profits when they went overseas with manufacturing. Nike was selling $100 pairs of sneakers that cost $6.95 to make, parts and labor, years ago—if I were president, I would have executed Nike's CEO for treason, slavery and exploitation. |
|
|
| (102145) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Kirschner on Tue Feb 28 00:16:18 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Feb 27 22:30:47 2006. Uh...OK so I guess I'm for it unless you are. And as Fiona Apple sings, "if you're right you'll aggree."Figure THAT one out! ;-D Andrew |
|
|
| (102147) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Feb 28 00:40:19 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:34:12 2006. (Not stated here means agreement.)Gun Control: FOR, so long as the law is written so that criminals can't get their hands on it. HOWEVER, that is a huge slippery slope if you ask me. However, the problem is that police need to be given more power in getting guns off the street through a reduction in the threshold of weapons needed to land a maximum sentence. We do not need more Andrewses and Nemorins, good guys cut down by thugs. Abortion Choice (convenience): AGAINST, assuming that contraception works. If not, then during the first 19 weeks only. Stem Cell Research (Embryonic): Another question I pose. If an embryo is aborted (prior to differentiation and compaction---look up embryonic development if I am confusing you, my apologies), should the woman be given the option of donating the embryo to science? As for the port sale, I am leaning against, but only slightly, partially because of a conflict of interest in who approved it---John W. Snow. (Snow approved a sale of parts of his former company, CSX, to Dubai Ports World last year.) Have the AG and solicitor general (or ombudsman, if there is one) looked at this sale to ensure that everything is on the up-and-up? Patriot Act: FOR, so long as sneaky legislation isn't attached to it. Social Security: The system is broke. But again, Congress needs to listen to the GAO and fight special interests to get the RIGHT formula. Creation in Schools: STRONGLY AGAINST!!! We do not need to be teaching religion in the public schools. Private schools can do what they please. (I myself am a product of the parochial schools.) ADD: Independent ombudsman panel, four judges, one each to be appointed by the Majority and Minority leader of the House and Senate, subject to full Senate approval. This, I would strongly be for. (Such a bipartisan panel would require at least 3 of 4 votes to approve ALL government contracts, and would only be allowed to examine the contract based on possibilities of abuses for waste, and not show a partisan tilt, and to ensure that all contractors strictly abide by laws. In addition, eliminate no-bid contracts. (If Halliburton is the low bidder for a contract, then they get the contract, provided all terms are fulfilled. However, all contractors would be on an even playing field.)) Said panel should also have the authority to issue fines for noncompliance, again, 3 of 4 or all must concur. (3 of 4 ensures that any move is nonpartisan.) |
|
|
| (102148) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Feb 28 00:57:58 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Feb 28 00:40:19 2006. Everything you said I agree with except for gun control. I strongly believe in the right of citizens to keep arms for protection. I have always been amazed that the very liberals who want gun control so very badly are the very ones who coddle criminals and want to put blinders on the police. However, you have given this subject some thought and I find almost all of what you said to be a breath of fresh air. Good work. |
|
|
| (102157) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Feb 28 01:19:40 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by New Brunswick Station on Mon Feb 27 23:00:26 2006. OK, so I haven't been around for awhile. Is that any reason to not at least put me on your list? |
|
|
| (102162) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Tue Feb 28 01:45:40 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006. Stem Cell-proGun Control-anti Abortion Choice-pro Federal Healthcare-anti Port Sale-pro Soc. Sec. Reform-pro Morning After-pro Gay Marriage-pro Public Smoking Ban-anti Patriot Act-anti Creation in Schools-anti Motorcycle Helmet-anti |
|
|
| (102163) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Booge on Tue Feb 28 01:48:01 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:08:35 2006. GLBT? |
|
|
| (102164) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 01:49:38 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Booge on Tue Feb 28 01:48:01 2006. OK, I'll spell it out: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered . . . seems like every kollege has a klub for them nowadays . . . |
|
|
| (102167) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 02:12:21 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 23:38:16 2006. Which is why the IRS has to get it all back from the bastards. If they don't like it, they can leave with nothing. |
|
|
| (102169) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 02:19:01 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Dand124 on Tue Feb 28 01:45:40 2006. Sell our PORTS to a foreign GOVERNMENT!!! |
|
|
| (102183) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Tue Feb 28 07:08:51 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006. Without getting everybody's BVDs into a bunch, and not really caring anymore what anybody thinks of what I say, here is my latest contribution to the ankle-biter brigade's jihad against me:Stem Cell Research: For it. Until God starts creating cures for the ailments He hath wrought upon us, we only have ourselves and our intellect to work with. Gun Control: This should read "Gun ELIMINATION laws," and for that I would be Against. Outlaws don't follow existing gun control laws when procuring their weapons, leaving the law-abiding public nigh defenseless except for a thin blue line that may or may not be there in time when you call them. Guns should be "controlled" the same way the DMV "controls" the privilege of driving; and the Buildings Department and other departments "control" their jurisdictions through permits and fitness statutes. Anybody operating outside gun "control" statutes thus promulgated should face definite felony charges with guaranteed prison time if found guilty. Abortion Choice: For. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions as everybody would have the discipline, self-respect, and value for life to think twice and three times before engaging in wanton sex; and then to take many levels of precaution against pregnancy so that life won't be sacrificed unnecessarily. But I concede that this is not a perfect world, and am not pro-choice for womens' rights reasons as much as for pragmatic reasons: I am not someone who is pro-life until the baby squirts out of the womb and then abandons the baby and the mother to the vagaries of governmental social services or the families' own inability to care for it. The baby would likely lead a miserable life; its chances for adoption are less than certain (moreso if it was disabled); and will in turn burden society. Better for the mother to live with her choice alone than for society to live with it in perpetuity. Federal[ized] Healthcare: Against. The Government can't be trusted to run anything without massive inefficiency, waste, corruption, and bureaucracy. Health staff will be hired by affirmative action quota instead of overall competence. Nobody will be able to be fired without (literally) a Federal case being made out of it. I hazard that jokes will be made, such as, "Did you hear about the American abortion clinic? There's a year-long waiting list, haw haw haw." Is that the kind of Rube-Goldberg healthcare you want? Port Sale [To any Muslim or Arab nation]: Against. Hell, why don't we outsource the Pentagon, or the Pentagon's loading docks, or whatever portion of the Pentagon that would be synonymous with this selling of our sovereignty? And as for any aspect of our ports to be handled by any foreign company as did the British until this latest contract, well shame on our Government for allowing it. Now is the time for it to contract only to American companies. Rational? Probably not. Prudent? Moreso than the present arrangement. Social Security Reform: For. At present, our FICA taxes are NOT being used to fund Social Security, for Social Security monies were never segregated from the General Fund of the Government. This allows the Government to raid the SocSec Trust Fund at whim, replacing it with Government "paper" that must be repaid with interest at some point in the future. In essence, we are paying two income taxes for much the same purposes, and at the same time, increasing our Federal deficit, without helping the aged one whit with our "contributions" to the Federal system. And what does SocSec pay as a "pension" to retirees? Enough to live on? Think again. Although retirees are probably getting out twice as much (or more) as they've paid into the system, their benefits do not allow them to live anywhere near comfortably. If the money were not plundered to "reduce" (when in fact it is contributing to) the Federal deficit, there would be enough of a surplus to comfortably accommodate the retiring Boomers now coming online to the system without raising the [mandatory] "contribution" levels. Instead, we will probably endlessly raise the ceiling on FICA-eligible income, increase the "contribution" percentage and not call it a "tax hike," which in fact it is, and continue to provide a marginal existence to the elderly as "thanks" for their contributions when they were younger. [Source: Martin L. Gross, The Tax Racket, and The Government Racket: Washington Waste from A to Z] Hitler called the aged, "Useless Eaters," and had a "solution" for them. I guess our Government is implying the same by the insult of a "pension" they receive, since they are receiving one in the first place. Should SocSec have even been created . . . well, that's another debate beyond the scope of the question, and one with deep philosophical implications. And no, Mr. BIE, reforming SocSec doesn't necessarily mean having to let Wall Street in to fix it. It just needs our elected representatives to respect our money as they would respect their own. But investing in Fannie Maes or other governmental securities to help propagate the income derived from FICA taxes instead of just letting it languish would require Wall Street's intercession only minimally, and produce a better return on our contributions than we are now getting, with nary a risk to the principal [Ibid.]. Morning After: Very much in favor. It seems harmless, and acts before the egg is even fertilized, much less mitosis and other actions take place to form the fetus. If not abortion, then definitely this, in order to keep our sexual sanity. Gay Marriage Ambivalent. Something tells me that this is not the Nation's most pressing issue at the moment. But there are some problems I have with the concept: It starts a slippery slope as to what else can be considered eligible for "marriage." What about incest? What about pedophilia? What about bestiality? What about any number of other less-politically-correct perversions that will, probably within our lifetimes at the rate we are going, belly up to the Federal bar for recognition, and even legitimacy? I feel that homosexuals are co-opting the issue as a front for the legitimization of the "lifestyle." Although I couldn't care less what they do in the privacy of their own domiciles and would never condone assaulting or other bias crimes against them, I do not feel that homosexuality is a "legitimate" "alternative lifestyle" worthy of mainstreaming. Simple as that. Nobody will change my mind on it. I subscribe to the Chris R16/R2730 argument that there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is inborn, or at the very least, cannot be controlled or treated as any other mental or hormonal deficiency. In the end (pardon the pun), I feel that if they love each other, and apparently most of them do, it won't do any more damage to the fabric of marriage as a 50% divorce rate among straight couples is already doing. If forced to give an opinion, my mind would be 51% against, 49% in favor, for the reasons I have stated above. It isn't as cut-and-dried as many would think, given my sociopolitical track record on here. Public Smoking Ban: Against. Although I think that smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit for the most part (although a cigar every few months is a civil pleasure I take), it goes too far when my choice to engage in a legal activity is artificially being limited for no good reason except some nebulous "greater good," or because some have considered me too stupid to make my mind up for myself what is good for me. Patriot Act: For. I might be naive, but when the going gets tough, the tough have to rein in their population a bit. Terrorism prevention is still a nascent science, and until its methods can be refined and standardized, we have to start somewhere. This doesn't mean that the Act's tenets shouldn't be questioned or constantly discussed; or reviewed for currency every so often. We should all participate in formulating a Constitutional and functional Act to protect us all. Creation in Schools: Against. I don't want to start disrespecting the Believers among us. Motorcycle Helmet [Laws]: Against. For the same reasons I am against the smoking ban and seat belt laws. But there should be increased insurance rates if it can be conclusively proven that un-belted or un-helmeted people face greater risk in a majority of common accident situations than the more conservative in the insurance pool. You wanna play, you should pay. In the end, the choice should be yours. |
|
|
| (102184) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 07:40:43 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SilverFox on Tue Feb 28 07:08:51 2006. The most well thought out response to this thread yet. No talking points, just legitimate opinions which were formed through your frames of reference. Besides, where we do agree, you give well articulated defenses of our shared beliefs. I will leave it to others to attack your opinions. |
|
|
| (102185) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 08:08:05 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 20:26:11 2006. For BIE: you were a teenager in the 70's. |
|
|
| (102186) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 08:12:39 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 08:08:05 2006. I was a preteen in the 70's, does tyhat count? |
|
|
| (102187) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 08:13:56 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 08:12:39 2006. Pre-teen: Fifth Grader. |
|
|
| (102188) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 08:19:08 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 08:08:05 2006. Yes, I was. I also followed current events and witnessed the formation of today's republican ideology and tactics by nixon The USSR was there, but you could deal with them just by building bigger and better bomes (MAD). The loonies that the republicans have been stirring up for the last 40 years are too whacked out to respond to MAD. This is why from the town hall to the White House, the republicans are enemies to be removed from power by any legal means possible. |
|
|
| (102191) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 08:28:34 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SilverFox on Tue Feb 28 07:08:51 2006. Excellent reasoning, and pretty well the way I feel about the subjects Alex Lu came up with.The only one I feel different about is Gay Marriage. NOBODY knows what causes sexual identity. Anybody who says "it's a choice" is blowing smoke. Enough said. My viewpoint is that it's a Civil Rights issue. The "several States" should all allow gay couples to marry civilly . The various religions can do what they want. |
|
|
| (102196) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 09:27:12 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 08:28:34 2006. I don't believe gay people have any choice in the matter. It's not a choice. I don't think they can control being attracted to men, any more than we are attracted to women (and visa-vera for lesbians).That being said though, I don't think "marriage" is appropriate. I do however think there should be some sort of common law arrangement they can make legally, to allow for health benefits, pension sharing, etc. But it's not "marriage". |
|
|
| (102198) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 09:39:54 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 09:27:12 2006. I think it is entirely a choice. |
|
|
| (102199) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Feb 28 09:40:38 2006, in response to Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 22:42:01 2006. I'm going to sleep because I have to go TO WORK tomorrow, unlike a ton of SubChatters.Ha ha, EXCELLENT comeback line! My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (102200) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:13:43 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 09:39:54 2006. I think you are entirely wrong. |
|
|
| (102201) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:14:54 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 09:27:12 2006. I think that ANYONE, gay or straight, who wants to get married is crazy. |
|
|
| (102202) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 10:21:05 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 09:39:54 2006. I think you are a retard, hit the road, scum. |
|
|
| (102203) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:24:06 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:13:43 2006. Of course, because you are gay, |
|
|
| (102205) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:34:33 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Feb 28 09:40:38 2006. Thanks, Peter. |
|
|
| (102206) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:37:32 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:24:06 2006. DO you honestly think that a person chooses to be ridiculed, have to hide his/her lifestyle, get beaten up, etc.? If you do you're the one with the problem. |
|
|
| (102208) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:42:34 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:37:32 2006. Sadist's do. I do not thing all gay people are Sadists. I think we are all born to have natural desires and impulses. Attractiont to the opposite sex is one of these desires. |
|
|
| (102209) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:42:56 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:42:34 2006. think, not thing. |
|
|
| (102210) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:46:37 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 10:21:05 2006. lol |
|
|
| (102213) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 10:50:10 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 09:39:54 2006. PROFF, please.I can assure you, NOBODY knows what causes sexual orientation. It's not evident until puberty, and there are a number of cases of brothers and sisters who differ. One is "straight" and one is gay. Both were raised by the same parents. As I posted before, ANYONE who believes otherwise is "blowing smoke". The various religions are wrong about the "cause", and the Supreme Being has kept quiet on the issue. |
|
|
| (102216) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:53:08 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 10:21:05 2006. >>>>Or at the very least a homophobe, and you can find them waaayy in the back of the closet. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||