“Yep. Especially children, who are nothing but freeloaders. If their minimum wage earning parents who currently have no health insurance are stupid enough to get pregnant and have children, it is really important that the children suffer to teach their parents a lesson.”
“How is this piggybacking anything? The idea is to have COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform. Part of comprehensive reform is addressing the situation faced by tens of thousands of bi-national same-sex couples who are not now able to sponsor their long-term same-sex partners for permanent residency. This is an immigration issue, directly related to what the bill is supposed to address. It is not as if this is some amendment intended to address subject matter not related to the main purpose of the bill. If the bill is going to provide some people who admittedly entered the country in a way not originally intended to lead to legal permanent residence status a way to achieve that status, why should it not also provide a means for gay people who are here with proper visas, who can show a long-term commitment to a U.S. resident and meet the other proposed requirements, to stay achieve the same status?”
“Yes. It is very important to make certain that those who are most likely to be able to take care of their own needs after retirement, and who are most likely to be able to take advantage of multiple tax deductions (e.g., mortgage interest deduction) over the course of their working lives, not have to kick in a little bit more to SS to make sure that their fellow hard-working but less well-compensated Americans are able to feed and house themselves after they retire. Raising the cap (if not eliminating it) or taking a different percentage after the current cap has been reached are things that we dare not even discuss because they could be characterized as a tax increase.”
ziggysledz on Apr 22, 2013 at 12:28:42
“What you mean "could", it is a tax increase, call it such and then defend it but don't hide behind a label. You are asking people to contribute with no additional return, that is not how retirement plans work.”
“Funny -- I must have missed all of Clemons' tweets about how horrible it is that Tom Brady allows himself to be photographed with Gisele Bunchen at every possible opportunity because Brady is just trying to make himself bigger than his team, and his relationship with his wife is something to be left at home.”
“That is not how you negotiate. Let's say you put an ad in the paper to sell your car for a certain amount. A prospective buyer comes to you and says "I'm not willing to pay that amount, I think the price should be lower." Anyone who knows how to negotiate would make the prospective buyer make a counter-offer. The seller has already proposed a price. For the seller to propose another price without first hearing from the prospective buyer would just be the seller negotiating against himself.
Why should the White House propose both the tax increases and all the spending cuts and then just have the Republicans react? The White House has made a specific proposal on tax increases. Boehner has said "It's very clear what kind of spending cuts need to occur," . . . "But we have no idea what the White House is willing to do." You know how Republicans can find out what the White House is willing to do -- make a proposal and get a reaction. If they were willing to make a reasonable proposal, maybe they would get a reasonable reaction. The fact that they are not willing to make a proposal, just shows that this is just a negotiating strategy, and that they are not willing to make a reasonable proposal that will be embraced by the American public, who don't want to want to subsidize low tax rates for the wealthy with severe cuts to social programs.”
steveinohio on Nov 29, 2012 at 15:59:31
“Very well put. Without a counter-offer, you aren't negotiating in good faith.”
john262 on Nov 29, 2012 at 15:53:06
“"Why should the White House propose both the tax increases and all the spending cuts and then just have the Republicans react?" Let me answer that.
It's the job of the president to lead. He is the only elected official who along with the VP was elected by all of the people. And during the recent campaign he said that he would lead. The buck stops in the Oval Office.”
“Can someone explain to me where all of the MS v. Apple vitriol comes from? Products from each have pros and cons, and no product from either is perfect. If what Apple offers suits your needs and you find Apple products to your liking, fine, but that doesn't then necessarily mean that all MS products must be garbage. And the same is true of Apple if your preference is for MS products. Personally, when I am spending my own money, I prefer Apple products, but am able to understand why some people have a preference for MS products. I spend all day at the office using MS products and the vast majority of time they do what they are supposed to do without a problem. I am quite happy with my iPad 2, but can see that the Surface might be a superior product for some needs, and will certainly go take a look at one once they are released. So, back to my original question -- why does liking one company's products necessarily mean the other company's products must be garbage?”
Dnietz on Jun 21, 2012 at 11:24:26
“You are just not old enough. This dates back to the early 80's. If you weren't a computer enthusiast back in the early 80's, you wont' get it.
Don't worry about the vitriol. It is important to some and irrelevant to others. It seems to be irrelevant to you.”
bryanzth on Jun 21, 2012 at 11:19:28
“Correct. These are all tools. You use the tool that suits the purpose. If you use an iPad or iPod or iPhone properly, you should not have to dress them up with all kinds of peripherals. If you use a Galazy something or other properly, you should only need OEM. If you need to use a Laptop, simply get an MS-Surfer, which will be available soon.
Put the tool to use that you need. Don't use a screwdriver as a hammer. Don't try to use a tablet as a laptop. ;o)
Unrepentant on Jun 21, 2012 at 10:50:31
“I don't think you have correctly characterized how I feel about Apple VS Microsoft. I detest both Apple AND Microsoft BUT I refuse to buy any Apple product because of their insistence that everything about their product is proprietary e.g., connectors, software etc. For instance try to connect your ipod to a computer; you need a special cable. I want to save my music files in an open source lossless compression scheme, FLAC; it is not supported. These are just two examples of a corporate policy that I detest. PC hardware is open source and there are a huge number of programs that compete with the Microsoft programs. That is the way it should be. I will never buy another Apple product.”
“I'm very happy that you consider yourself well adjusted. And you are entitled to your beliefs. But they are no basis on which to make a public policy decision. And, by the way, of course your mother is a woman. A mother couldn't be anything else. You seem to think that in a two male same-sex relationship, one parent is the father and the other assumes the role of the mother. That is not how it works. You may consider yourself well-educated, but don't seem to be too well educated on this particular subject.”
“Property taxes and virtually all sales taxes are state taxes, not federal taxes. If you happen to live in a state that has high sales and property taxes, and as a result pay close to 50% of your income in taxes, Obama is not to blame. And, has been shown time and time again, the truly "rich" don't pay the highest marginal rate on most of their income (which is also not subject to payroll taxes) because it comes from investments and not wages.”
“With respect to what goes on in church, I would agree, that no churches or congregations should be forced within the church itself to change their core beliefs. And Rev. White no doubt struggled long and hard to reach the conclusion he did as a matter of his own conscience, likely knowing what the result would be. If groups within churches have different views, they will have to struggle to resolve them for themselves.
But notwithstanding the lies the NOM, FRC and the Catholic Church would have you believe, the problem is really not anyone from outside the churches trying to force their "agenda" (as you put it) on the churches. It is that the churches believe that they have the right to force their beliefs on the whole of civil society, and that any adherent to a particular religion, even when serving a purely civil function, should not have to adhere to the civil laws if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.”
“I've got news for you. It is not necessarily the Republican influence that is going to be the problem. As we saw in D.C., many of the church groups that are mobilizing against this are comprised of constituents who are traditionally heavily Democratic. Unfortunately, there may be a repeat of the Prop 8 voting dichotomy from California. There is a segment of voters who are likely to come out heavily for Obama, but also much more likely to vote against marriage equality.”
Psychpro on Mar 2, 2012 at 05:06:14
“It is also quite possible that many of the mistakes made by supporters of SSM rights won't be repeated in Maryland. You know, a hard lesson learned on such things as writing a referendum that is the opposite of what the average voter might expect. We can only assume a number of California voters misunderstood that they wanted to AGAINST Prop 8, but voted for it, thinking it was a vote for equal rights.”
“That is not right. The bill becomes effective unless overturned by a voter referendum. There is nothing in the text of the bill itself requiring that it be affirmed by voters before it takes place. The article clearly states "Opponents will need to collect nearly 56,000 valid voter signatures, equivalent to 3 percent of the people who cast ballots in the 2010 gubernatorial election, to put the measure on the November ballot." And, even though everyone fully expects enough signatures to place it on the ballot, it is not automatically subject to a vote.”
MrStat1 on Mar 1, 2012 at 18:55:48
“Yes it is. Maryland law, similar to Ca. law, says when a notice of a referendum is filed the law is stayed until the signatures are verified and then the vote held. You cannot legally have gays marry in Maryland until Jan. 2013. If there are enough signatures for a referendum, the law is stayed until after the vote.”
“This is a really ill-informed comment. You can keep any Apple product just as long as you can keep any PC/Wintel product, but each will have a decreasing amount of utility as time passes and "improvements" and upgrades in software require more powerful hardware and more memory. Microsoft -- which is a software company not a PC company -- has done just as much to "force" you into regular OS and software upgrades.
Do you have a four year old PC? Can you effectively run on it the most recent versions of Windows and Microsoft Office? No, you can't. If what you are saying is that you could totally replace the hard drive, upgrade memory, and swap out the motherboard in a way that might enable you to meet the minimum specs to run the current versions of MS OS and software, then you are right. But so what? Most people have no interest in doing so and, in fact, do not do so.
As far as the upgrading of Apple products, many people just skip what the consider the incremental upgrades and do not bother to upgrade until there is some new feature or functionality not supported by their current hardware that they feel is important enough to justify the expense of an upgrade.”
Errant on Feb 28, 2012 at 17:28:45
“Short answer? Yes.
Long answer? Yes. I can maintain a computer for more than four years with cost effective upgrading.
For half the cost I can build an extremely powerful computer now that can last for many years and after those many years I won't have to put too much work into it to remain capable of operating the latest software and high end video games.
Meanwhile Apple just makes the next big overpriced product that is slightly bigger, slightly more powerful, and might have one extra camera to replace your previous model. Which will be replaced in under a year.
“All of this information had been thoroughly briefed for the Court, and is readily available to the Justices and their clerks. The attorneys arguing the case were smart enough to know that aside from finding a way to have Jesus himself, and all of the framers of the Constitution, appear in person to tell Scalia that they are all in favor of marriage equality, nothing is going to change his mind. Thus, it would have been an ineffective waste of time to challenge him on this point. In addition, Scalia was not really asking the attorneys to respond when he made this comment, and Supreme Court arguments are not structured so that the attorneys can just jump in and respond when one of the Justices makes a comment, however inane, misguided, or demonstrably incorrect.”
“Polygamous marriages are not recognized in any state, so there is no question of the federal government denying benefits to those in polygamous relationships. The unequal treatment here arises from the fact that the federal government treats legally married gay couples different from legally married straight couples.”
“Perhaps the Daily Show'w writers have studied the points made by the opposition, and come to the conclusion that they are just a bunch of unsupported, religion-based, anti-gay claptrap. Preventing gay people from getting married does nothing to encourage straight people to marry or to stay married. There is no demonstrable harm to anyone from allowing gay people to get married. Children of gay parents are not deprived of anything or harmed in any way -- any scientifically valid studies have shown that gay two parent homes are equivalent to (or better than) straight two parent homes and such children are not "deprived" of a mother and a father. Either they are adopted, in which case their biological parents are the ones who have decided to deprive them of a mother and a father, or if conceived through a surrogate or one of the parents, they only exist because someone gay brought them to life (hard to say they are deprived of anything if they would not have even existed but for the gay parents).
“There is no reason to be tolerant of intolerance. It is one thing to respect different points of view where they are not fundamentally demeaning to one's humanity, such as regarding whether the deficit needs to be addressed through a combination of revenue increases and budget cuts or budget cuts only. But when you have a politician who is effectively saying that gay people should be permanently relegated to second class citizenship, and comparing their committed, loving relationships to bestiality, that is not just "another point of view." If Santorum were out proposing that the Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, and that black people actually should be slaves, would that be something to be treated as "just having another point of view." No. And people would be rightly outraged and intolerant of any such expression.”
frankiebarbella on Jan 6, 2012 at 13:08:16
“Perhaps this gay black man who worked for the former senator knows differently than you do. Perhaps this gay black man has a different and more informed view of the senator than do you. Once again, thank you for proving the point that Progressive Democrats are in fact intolerant of those who do not share the same world view as them.”
Aug 29, 2011 at 15:44:33
“It is not just that it is a civil rights issue. It is the concept known as judicial review, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In general, regardless of whether is it passed by a majority of voters, or a majority of legislators, all laws can be challenged and brought before the courts to see whether they are acceptable under the U.S. Constitution, which overrides states laws if state laws are in conflict. In this case, the majority of Californians who voted (not the majority of Californians, by the way) voted to amend their Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples. The plaintiffs brought a case claiming that this amendment violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection . The court sided with the plaintiffs, and found the amendment to the California Constitution violated the U.S. Constitution.
Where the U.S. Constitution absolutely prohibits something, states cannot take it upon themselves to prohibit it. This is why, as others have pointed out, state legislators or voters cannot amend their states constitutions in a way that would turn back the clock to allow certain types of discrimination that have been firmly established as in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
“Maybe you should do a little more reading before you make totally unsupported statements. There are any number of studies that show that the sexual orientation of the parents does not have any effect on the quality of the parenting. This was discussed a year ago in the New York Times, http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/an-end-to-gay-adoption-bans/ and subsequent studies have continued to find the same. You are speaking from nothing other than your own prejudices. As is so often the case when someone makes statements like "the evidence is obvious" it means that they have no evidence at all”
cellardweller on Jul 25, 2011 at 12:29:26
“I've done plenty of reading, including studies that show what deprivation of the father in the household does. Also, studies that suggest that same-sex couples are just as efficacious as hetero couples.
The latter are sparse, lacking much data, and have serious deficiencies in methodology.
I don't rely on NYT articles, but rather research articles, so your reference doesn't impress me.
Also, the fact that the present traditional model - extant around the globe and for many generations - is a testament to its efficacy. It is a proven model, and it is simply the best we can give kids. The best thing in general is for kids to be raised by their loving biological parents from birth.
I will absolutely oppose any efforts at surrogate parenting, single-parent adoptions and births, and same-sex "marriage" because all of them short change our precious kids.”
May 25, 2011 at 11:41:54
“You really do not know what you are talking about. No hour long primetime drama (daytime soaps are a different creature), with lots of location shoots, films a full 22 episode season in the space of 8 weeks. Just give a tiny bit of thought to what you are saying. They would have to be shooting at a rate of almost three episodes per week. How could the writers possibly crank everything out that fast, the actors learn their lines, and the whole production crew do everything that is needed to film this show in that amount of time?
Yes, the actors are well paid (although Hargity and Meloni do not make the crazy money that some half-hour comedy stars make), but why should they not be compensated on a level equivalent to their peers, or share in the profits they help to generate for the production company and the network. Some people will always make more money than other people, for doing what you perceive as less work, but why does that mean that they should not be trying to get as much for their labor as they can?”
“But why should your religious beliefs govern my actions in civil society? I understand you think my entering into a marriage with my same sex partner would be a sin -- but I don't care about your definition of sin, and eternal damnation is a risk I am willing to take. My being able to get married would not prevent you from living your life as you see fit, nor would it prevent churches from continuing to preach that, even though same-sex marriage is legal, it is still not acceptable in the eyes of God. Your church continues to preach against divorce and abortion, even though both are legal. The mere fact that the civil law permits it does not mean that the Church is compelled to agree with that view. And, as the article points out, the CC is entirely selective in what sins it seeks to prevent. If the Church is so concerned with preventing actions it views as sinful, why is it not out demanding that adultery be criminalized? Adultery is surely a far greater threat to marriage, and has the immediate potential to harm more people, especially where both involved are married and have children, than is any same-sex marriage of two single childless people. Feel free to believe and preach as you want, but don't expect the laws to restrict my ability to be a full participant in civil society because you see my actions as sin.”
“You have made no reasoned counter-arguments to any of the points I have raised, other than to tell me that I lack imagination. If you give a fetus constitutional rights, who is authorized to protect them? When? How? If a mother chooses to smoke or drink during pregnancy and risks harming the fetus what is your proposed remedy to protect the newly granted constitutional rights of that fetus? You have no answers, you just want the result you want. If you are speaking in favor of a position, you ought to be able to come up with valid, legally sustainable arguments to support them.”
“You really do not have a good grasp of legal concepts, what the current law actually is, or the practical effects of what you propose. The S.Ct could overturn Roe v. Wade by holding that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion. This is does not require, and is completely different, from holding that a fetus has constitutional rights, which has absurd legal implications. How do you propose protecting the constitutional rights of a fetus? If a fetus is to be treated as a person under the law, does this mean that every time a woman has a miscarriage her doctor will have to confirm the causes and report to the authorities? How about if a women is pregnant when she leaves the country and is not pregnant when she comes back -- is this grounds for a murder investigation? Since a fetus obviously could not sue if it is being maltreated in utero, do we assign someone to constantly monitor all medical reports of pregnant women and sue them if they are mistreating the fetus. You clearly have give no real thought the actual implications of what you propose. If you want Roe v. Wade overturned, and believe that women should not have the right to control their bodies, fine. I wholeheartedly disagree, but at least your position is rational. The grounds you propose for overturning Roe v. Wade simply don't make sense.”
pattio66 on Mar 3, 2011 at 12:16:43
VKoval on Mar 3, 2011 at 00:47:09
“just because you dont understand it or cant imagine it doesnt mean it cant happen. and those are not the grounds i would overturn roe v wade. i am seperately arguing that fetus's should have constitutional protection. i dont care how roe v wade gets overturned.”
“Please. Webb is from Virginia, so no one should delude themselves that he is going to vote in any way, shape or form that could be perceived as being in favor of "the gays." Just look at the extreme levels of overly anti-gay activity centered in Virginia these days. A governor who almost immediately after being sworn in signs an executive order which rescinds an existing anti-discrimination policy and removes the term “sexual orientation” from state policy. An attorney general who has advised the state's public colleges that they don't have the authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unfortunately, he is just looking at what is going on at home and taking the safer course ("who among my constituents is going to vote against me for voting against the gays?") Short of an LBJ-like dressing down from Obama (not gonna happen) and a clear indication from other Democratic party leadership that with a "no" vote here will have negative repercussions for any party support he is looking for in the future (also ain't going to happen), it is hard to see what is going to move him into the "yes"column.”
jcwtts1 on May 25, 2010 at 18:06:55
“I disagree with you. Webb has some typical conservative views but he also has some progressive ones. Has anyone heard what his objection is?”