People actually voted for this piece of crap? Wow....Just the way he conducts himself (political stance aside) is disturbing.
Children of the Sanitorium
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
His son was a fetus. A baby, child, brother, a human, cannot be framed by an adult hand. It was the beginnings of these concepts, not their full realization. This says nothing about his right to mourn the situation which I fully support.
So no, it's not tough. It's kind of creepy. The fact that someone else brought it up in this thread is proof that I'm not the only one who thinks so. He's a freak, with freak ideas that he tries to legislate over others who don't share and should not be subjected to his mania. It's unfortunate that this particular one is of the most mild variety in light of some of his other beliefs. (see homosexuality and it's ties to beastiality and incest)
So yes, because of who he is and the manner in which he expresses his views, I gladly criticize him when his twisted views show themselves in somewhat sick ways.
You would not believe the number of people here in Western PA that have not taken down their Santorum for Senate signs that were they placed in their yards.
i bet i can find something much creepier done by a liberal canidate. would the disgust still be the same?
how much?I highly doubt you can find anything more creepy than that from either party...
yes. creepy
N8: simpleton..........I don't choose whether something is creepy etc because of a party affiliation. That's not what I said in my last post either bright boy. Creepy is creepy. Especially when it's an offshoot of some wacked out religious BS.
You forget that N8 sees everything in terms of party affiliation. It makes things easier for simple minds. Republican good, democrat bad.
Hah.....you saved the post before I edited it. stinky's links had a bunch of "songs about" and "cindy says"........after reading deeper she actually did plant it there.
But no......I never forget the forum short busser.
almost forgot about this, too: tomcat to eat placenta; maybe he could get a good kimshee recipe from this.
I have to know what political affiliation those two are before passing judgement on creepy. I ran it through the spreadsheet I've got and the result was "tom cruise?-------fag"
It has nothing to do with politics. The first point made was the Santorum children look weird, which they do.
Do you think bringing home a fetus is a partisan issue? I think it is just weird, and I am sure some voters in Penn thought the same way.
Hey, a lot of people hate Clinton for his personal acts, although I think coercing a young woman for a bj is perfectly normal.
And this post points out how shallow, and spineless you freaks are. If Rick was standing in front of you hoes you wouldn't speak a word of what you will post. Pvssies. (yeah, I'd say it to you personally) No hard feelings though right you buttirate2:
Actually, I'll say every word, and a hell of a lot more. Rick and his ilk should crawl back under their rocks and stop trying to impose his values on my family, in my house. I don't worship his god, and neither did the founding fathers, and I don't want my daughter growing up in his perverted vison of America.
Honest and sincere question... didn't the Republicans promote and believe in smaller, less intrusive govt? Or did I misunderstand something back in history class all those years ago?
Not the current incarnation of the Republican party.
Yeah. The latest incarnation has found that appealing to social issues (gay hating, anti-abortion, etc.) is a much more efficient way of bringing the rubes to the polls and voting for anyone with an (R) next to their name.You mean real republicans like Goldwater. Most of those went extinct years ago
The current republician party is all about vote pandering and enriching themselves. Their main skill is doublespeak. Their version of fiscal responsibility is doubling the national debt. Their version of a less intrusive government is to lock you up if you don't conform.
The gay marriage bans are a perfect example. Either marriage is a religious sacrament or a civil contract. If it's a holy "sacrament" then it's up to each religion to decide what it means, and who can marry. If it's a civil contract, then the state has no business in applying one religion's values to it. Personally I think the term "marriied" should stricken from the tax code and replaced with household. A household would be defined as one or more income earning adults AND one or more dependents.
The modern republican party wants more regulation of people and less of business. That's what smaller government means to them.
exactly.
if i found out my wife got a hold of some gay monkey sperm & her lover turkey basted her, & she got ectopically pregnant, i'd so be honor killing her.
that's how we roll up in the 719, yo.
I agree that "married" should be stricken, but your definition of "household" leaves out couples who either don't have kids or both work and are not dependents of each other.
Are you denying that the Reps. have tried to hammer social issues down our throat for votes in the last umpteen elections?
phrased like so, i tend towards agreeance.
phrased like previous, not so much.
What's the dif?
it's the standard conservative resistance to gay rights, as they are presented as special rights.
perhaps with a wink & a nod, but not as a plank in the platform. most of what you see is ingnorance, which breeds fear, which can (unfortunately) breed hate.
seems to be a well-played political stand-by wrt:
- our country's becoming a theocracy
- if we don't bomb the browns, we'll have suicide bombers in all our sbarro's inside 2 weeks.
- social security will be bankrupt by 2015
- your gun rights are eroding
- the atheists are going to burn all the bibles
The exact wording would have to be discussed. The "married" tax status was supposed to give adults raising the next generation a break on taxes. I'm not sure if Dual Incone No Kids couples should qualify for that for household status, regardless of their sexual orentation or marital status. On the other hand the aging of the country has left a lot of adults having to care for their elderly parents. Which makes them a household with dependents, which should get a pretty sizable tax break in my book.
Not sure about the intentions of the married tax status, but for most families, there is a marriage penalty, not a benefit.
Perhaps the tax code is really written to punish those stupid enough to get married. Heck,
too.
Perhaps the tax code is really written to punish those stupid enough to get married. Heck,
too.
I don't understand the marriage penalty thing. If a couple files individually doesn't the tax code just consider them as individuals? Are people bitching because they both can't file individually and claim the same deductions?
it's to offset all the sex we marrieds have. it's rather amazing i have so much time to post here.
Taxes aren't the only concern, however. There's also spousal privilege, inheritance, visitation rights, power of attorney, etc.
Edit: Don't want to sound like I'm arguing, because I'm not. I just wanted to point out that there's more to things than dependents and tax status.
Yeah... I'm sure that is it.
My johnson hurts from gettin' so much.I was forced to do some research and the Marriage Penalty for US Income tax actually ended in 2003. In 2002, a couple making 40k and 44k each would have paid $16,483 on their combined 84k income if they were married, but only $15,386 if they were not married... an $1,100 difference. In 2005, marrieds in the same financial situation will actually save $7 (woohoo!).
These tax rate savings are due to sunset in 2010, and will come back to the full penalty rates unless Congress does something to stop it. With the Democrats now controlling Congress, what do you think will happen?
oster_oops:
I don't take it as arguing.
I think there are a of of implications of "married" status in various federal laws that simply aren't true anymore. There would have to be a lot of discussion, and some haggling over wording.