Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!

[stephanie]

By Michelle Malkin • January 14, 2009 04:43 AM It’s baaaack. Remember S-CHIP? The Democrats are racing their universal health care Trojan Horse through the House today and in the Senate by Friday. Yesterday evening after I filed my syndicated column (printed below) on Obama and the Democrats’ first massive tax increase of 2009, the 285-page text of the proposed S-CHIP expansion went online. It’s H.R. 2 and you can read the PDF in its entirety here — something a significant number of congressional members will not do before voting for the behemoth bill. The tax portion of the bill is broken out here (thanks to the Stogie Guys). Pelosi’s press release is here.

Every legal tobacco product from premanufactured cigarettes and cigarette papers to cigars to roll-your-cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco will be taxed out the wazoo. Take roll-your-own tobacco. It’s currently taxed at $1.0969/lb. The Obama/Democrat S-CHIP plan would hike that to $24.62/lb. Cigarette taxes would rise from $19.50 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for small cigarettes and from $40.95 per thousand to $105.00 per thousand for large cigarettes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to have an open debate on the bill. House GOP leaders lodged a protest. (But remember that 42 Republicans sided with Pelosi last January in a failed attempt to override President Bush’s veto.)


read the rest..
http://michellemalkin.com/

[red states rule]

The first thing I thought of when reading this, what will Dems do if people STOP smoking and they do not get the tax revenue they are expecting?

Guess what, they will tax something else

People will get their smokes from online duty free shops, and the local black market

It happens everytime they use the tax code to make people live their lives the way the intellectually superior left thinks they should live

[PostmodernProphet]

??....what's a "large" cigarette?.....

[red states rule]

??....what's a "large" cigarette?.....

120's is what they were talking about

MORE is one of those brands

[Noir]

it's good if people stop smoking, if folk are too stupid to do it from the health reasons then maybe money is a better tact. Tis a sad state when people care more about money than their health, but that's just how fucked up we all are nowadays.

[red states rule]

it's good if people stop smoking, if folk are too stupid to do it from the health reasons then maybe money is a better tact. Tis a sad state when people care more about money than their health, but that's just how fucked up we all are nowadays.

and how would the government ever go without the tax money

The money is the only thing that matters to them

[Noir]

I don't care what they would do without the money, there are much more important things in life than money, like life itself.

Also you would, in the long-run, money would be save from tv lack of health problems caused by smoking.

[red states rule]

I don't care what they would do without the money, there are much more important things in life than money, like life itself.

Also you would, in the long-run, money would be save from tv lack of health problems caused by smoking.

Noir, the point is the government does not give a damn about your health. If everyone stopped smoking, the tax revenue loss to the governemnt would be massive

Taxes on the product, taxes the workers pay, corporate taxes, ect

The governemnt would then come after YOU and your money

Do you have any idea what the money the tobacco companies have already paid to the Federal and state government in the huge Tobacco Settlement are actually using the money for?

It is NOT to offset the costs of smokers or their medical care

NO, the money has been used for golf courses, horse racing, buying new garbage trucks - everything but what we were told the oney would be used for

I for one am fed up with libs telling me how I should live my life, and how libs use the tax code to try and force people to live their lives how libs deem

[Noir]

Ofciurse the goverment doesn't give a damn about your health, why should they when the people won't look after hemselves.

Like I said, people care more about money than their health, hit their pocekts hard and maybe they'll live long enough to thank you for it.

[red states rule]

Ofciurse the goverment doesn't give a damn about your health, why should they when the people won't look after hemselves.

Like I said, people care more about money than their health, hit their pocekts hard and maybe they'll live long enough to thank you for it.

amd you know who you are hitting Noir - the poor

The very people you liberals claim you care so much about

Typical of libs - screw the poor as long as we get their money and keep them poor. It helps to keep their vote at election time

[stephanie]

amd you know who you are hitting For - the poor

The very people you liberals claim you care so much about

Typical of libs - screw the poor as long as we get their money and keep them poor. It helps to keep their vote at election time

I wonder how long it takes to brainwash a person into thinking the government is the end to all their worries, and that taxing something they don't care about is a good thing..sheesh

[red states rule]

I wonder how long it takes to brainwash a person into thinking the government is the end to all their worries, and that taxing something they don't care about is a good thing..sheesh

It looks like the Obamabots are about to wake up from their dream and enter the world of reality

They will not like what awaits them Steph

[red states rule]

Here is how the government is spending the cash from the tobacco setlement

Screw the poor, screw the smokers - we lied and got the cash


http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2008/1129/20081129_113708_tobacco1_200.jpg

[Noir]

Hitting the poor? I don't care how hard it hits them, hopefully it will be hard enough to make them stop.

[red states rule]

Hitting the poor? I don't care how hard it hits them, hopefully it will be hard enough to make them stop.

It is refreshing to see an honsest liberal who says he does not give a dman about the people his party claimes to care about

What is next Noir? Taxes on food you libs deem unhealthy?

Hell to a liberal has to be being unable to stick their nose in other people lives and telling them how to live their lives

[Noir]

Food is a nessesity, a drug that ruins your life and those around you is not.

Sometimes you gotta be creul to be kind,

Also don't go on about my party, I don't even know what party I am going to vote for in our up and coming ellections, so I don't know how you know what my parties princables are.

[red states rule]

Food is a nessesity, a drug that ruins your life and those around you is not.

Sometimes you gotta be creul to be kind,

Also don't go on about my party, I don't even know what party I am going to vote for in our up and coming ellections, so I don't know how you know what my parties princables are.

Noir, you are a liberal - and you have shwon your know it all attitude in this thread

All my life, I have seen libs thump their chest and tell us how we need to live our lives. And in most cases, those same libs do the opposite in their own lives

Libs went after the "evil" tobacco companies for money they said they needed to offset the meidcal costs of smokers

Well, I showed you what the government has done with the money

Liberals like you think you know what is best for the rest of us. All we really wnat is for you libs to live your own lives and stay the hell out of ours

Is that asking to much?

[Little-Acorn]

maybe money is a better tact.

May I suggest that maybe freedom is a better tactic? Leaving people alone to decide how to run their own lives, what to do, what they will buy, whether they want to smoke or not? Even the freedom to be wrong, without having the government come down on you like a ton of bricks?

Smokers know the health issues. (Or do you actually believe the people suing Philip Morris, who claim that the company deceived them into thinking the cigarettes they bought were safe?) And there are plenty of support groups, kick-the-habit products, patches, substitutes, twelve-step programs, the works.

My brother has smoked since his 20s, he's in his 50s now and still trying to quit. It's VERY difficult. Doesn't mean that quitting isn't worthwhile. Just means that, for some situations, stress levels, and personalities, it may not be possible.

Did I miss the proclamation that said it was government's responsibility to save people from their own mistakes?

People, including smokers, have all the "help" they need. That's all any society can, or should, do. They're on their own beyond that. If they choose to keep smoking, they're responsible for the consequences. Society should do all it can to help...short of violating their freedom.

Today's government should quit going so far beyond that stricture.

People who use government coercion to cure every ill, are directly responsible for government taking control of more and more of our lives. They apparently feel that maintaining freedom for everyone, is less important than forcibly improving the health of a few without their consent.

Ben Franklin disagreed with that idea. So did Patrick Henry.

Those Framers were right, as they were about so many other things concerning government.

[Noir]

Noir, you are a liberal - and you have shwon your know it all attitude in this thread

All my life, I have seen libs thump their chest and tell us how we need to live our lives. And in most cases, those same libs do the opposite in their own lives

Libs went after the "evil" tobacco companies for money they said they needed to offset the meidcal costs of smokers

Well, I showed you what the government has done with the money

Liberals like you think you know what is best for the rest of us. All we really wnat is for you libs to live your own lives and stay the hell out of ours

Is that asking to much?

Yes that is too much to ask.

Do you also Wana legalize other drugs? As long as I 'stay out of your life'

I understand you are going through cancer treatment at the moment, I'm sure apon hearing that you had contacted cancer you and your family were extremly upset and shocked, and I wish you all the best with your recovery, but do you not reel in horror when you go down the street and see folk in their 20's smoking away, knowing that they are increasing their risks of many forms of cancer, and though they may feel invincible now, who knows how smoking will impact on their future lives and those who love them. But I seems I'm a bad bad man for caring.

[red states rule]

Yes that is too much to ask.

Do you also Wana legalize other drugs? As long as I 'stay out of your life'

I understand you are going through cancer treatment at the moment, I'm sure apon hearing that you had contacted cancer you and your family were extremly upset and shocked, and I wish you all the best with your recovery, but do you not reel in horror when you go down the street and see folk in their 20's smoking away, knowing that they are increasing their risks of many forms of cancer, and though they may feel invincible now, who knows how smoking will impact on their future lives and those who love them. But I seems I'm a bad bad man for caring.

I find it fitting to liberal standards that they want to make pot legal - but ban tobacco

Noir, when I was told I had Stage 3 Colon cancer, I was not "horrified" I took a breath and asked what is next. No dramatics. No blaming others. I simply moved one

I do not give a damn that people smoke. I smoke

But I escape the increasing taxes by getting them online. Once the libs jacked the tax to high I found another avenue to get them - so now the government gets ZERO taxes from me

If they are so bad - ban them

Of course libs tried that with Prohibition. The only ones who benefited was the mob

Plus, the libs would never allow the tax revenue to be lost

[Noir]

@LA

Nope, I do t think there should be a choice

And I conch that it is hard to give up but it can be done. I memo when I meet my now girlfriend, she was a heavy smoker, drinker and cannabis user, yet with my help she has now gone 18 months without any of them, but her friends are still going, and have now desensed into harder drugs like MBMA, they all say it's too difficult to stop, and this they will go untill they crash, but I ever try to say anything to them I am shuned, but I expect that, cue it's easier to live in ignorence, than face hard facts and face your problems.

[red states rule]

@LA

Nope, I do t think there should be a choice

And I conch that it is hard to give up but it can be done. I memo when I meet my now girlfriend, she was a heavy smoker, drinker and cannabis user, yet with my help she has now gone 18 months without any of them, but her friends are still going, and have now desensed into harder drugs like MBMA, they all say it's too difficult to stop, and this they will go untill they crash, but I ever try to say anything to them I am shuned, but I expect that, cue it's easier to live in ignorence, than face hard facts and face your problems.

and remember, Obama and his army of liberal do gooders will cure all your ills and restore peace and health to the world :laugh2:

Just do what we tell you - or else

[stephanie]

Yes that is too much to ask.

Do you also Want legalize other drugs? As long as I 'stay out of your life'

I understand you are going through cancer treatment at the moment, I'm sure upon hearing that you had contacted cancer you and your family were extremely upset and shocked, and I wish you all the best with your recovery, but do you not reel in horror when you go down the street and see folk in their 20's smoking away, knowing that they are increasing their risks of many forms of cancer, and though they may feel invincible now, who knows how smoking will impact on their future lives and those who love them. But I seems I'm a bad bad man for caring.

Noir, you can care, or the better thing would be(it's none of your business) if these people want to smoke.. but it is very uncaring to wish people be TAXED, hoping that will force them to quit..

you don't see the difference?

[Noir]

RSR- I am against all drugs, not just tobacco.

I know a ban will never be put in place, and If it did it would never work, two reasons; people are too selfish and selfserving and there is too much money to be made, money out of missey.

I guess people react to things in different ways, but am amazed to hear that having cancer has not stopped you smoking.

[red states rule]

Noir, you can care, or the better thing would be(it's none of your business) if these people want to smoke.. but it is very uncaring to wish people be TAXED, hoping that will force them to quit..

you don't see the difference?

Liberals are turning the US into a welfare state - while using thre tax code (which was designed to fund only the Constitutional duties of the government) to shape America into how they deem it should be

[red states rule]

RSR- I am against all drugs, not just tobacco.

I know a ban will never be put in place, and If it did it would never work, two reasons; people are too selfish and selfserving and there is too much money to be made, money out of missey.

I guess people react to things in different ways, but am amazed to hear that having cancer has not stopped you smoking.

My smoking has NOTHING to do with the colon cancer Noir

Thank you for your concern however

It amazes me how libs bever stop wanting to stick their nose intomother peoples business. Libs think they should be able to tell people what type of car they can drive, what temp they haet/cool their home. what they should eat and drink; how much they can drive their car; ho0w mcuh water their toilet uses when it flushes

I have yet to see any area of life libs do not want to control

It is sickening and sometimes scary

[Noir]

Noir, you can care, or the better thing would be(it's none of your business) if these people want to smoke.. but it is very uncaring to wish people be TAXED, hoping that will force them to quit..

you don't see the difference?

I care more about peoples health than their money, it seems most people care more about their money than their health.

If tax is what it take then tax is what it takes.

[red states rule]

I care more about peoples health than their money, it seems most people care more about their money than their health.

If tax is what it take then tax is what it takes.

Noir, would you PLEASE stop worrying about my health?

Not only are you making me sick - it would be less expensive for me as well

[stephanie]

I care more about peoples health than their money, it seems most people care more about their money than their health.

If tax is what it take then tax is what it takes.


so you don't care for the people who smoke, only the people you feel is worth your caring about..?

not very caring of you..

[Noir]

My smoking has NOTHING to do with the colon cancer Noir

Thank you for your concern however

It amazes me how libs bever stop wanting to stick their nose intomother peoples business. Libs think they should be able to tell people what type of car they can drive, what temp they haet/cool their home. what they should eat and drink; how much they can drive their car; ho0w mcuh water their toilet uses when it flushes

I have yet to see any area of life libs do not want to control

It is sickening and somethimes scary

I did not say your smoking had anything to do with the cancer, but it does increase your risk in the future.

And that's the cud of it, who wants to pay to shorten their life, make their breath & clothes smell, waste £5 every day, ruin you sense of taste, get yourself irritated if you are not able to have a fig to a while I.e when on plane flights, and be unsocail, deminish your fitness levels amoung many other things that go with smoking, to get what? A calming effect that turns into an addiction

Sorry for being rude but you'd have to be a real idiot to take up smoking.

[Noir]

@RSR no I won't stop worrying, sorry I just can't bring myself to no care

@steph: I'm sati g I care about all smokers, and what fools they are being.

[red states rule]

I did not say your smoking had anything to do with the cancer, but it does increase your risk in the future.

And that's the cud of it, who wants to pay to shorten their life, make their breath & clothes smell, waste £5 every day, ruin you sense of taste, get yourself irritated if you are not able to have a fig to a while I.e when on plane flights, and be unsocail, deminish your fitness levels amoung many other things that go with smoking, to get what? A calming effect that turns into an addiction

Sorry for being rude but you'd have to be a real idiot to take up smoking.

and leave it to another libral do gooder who wants to make me live my life according to HIS standards

One thing about you Noir, you are the classic liberal do gooder. If someone will not conform to your standards, have a nice fit on your file card on living standards - you will seek to impose and force your standards on me via the government

Are you pissed because instead of my spending my money on smokes - it is "lost" revenue for your beloved government?

Sorry to be rude, but you are a typical arrogant and condescending liberal

You are still young, so you might grow out of it. There is still hope for you

[stephanie]

I did not say your smoking had anything to do with the cancer, but it does increase your risk in the future.

And that's the cud of it, who wants to pay to shorten their life, make their breath & clothes smell, waste £5 every day, ruin you sense of taste, get yourself irritated if you are not able to have a fig to a while I.e when on plane flights, and be unsocail, deminish your fitness levels amoung many other things that go with smoking, to get what? A calming effect that turns into an addiction

Sorry for being rude but you'd have to be a real idiot to take up smoking.

dear me, life is sooooooooos unpleasant..
I commend you for not smoking, don't ever start, but it is not YOUR BUSINESS if others want to smoke..

what don't you get with that?

and not caring that your GOVERMENT will tax these certain people is even worse in my eyes..

[red states rule]

@RSR no I won't stop worrying, sorry I just can't bring myself to no care

@steph: I'm sati g I care about all smokers, and what fools they are being.

Sorry Noir, but you really do not care about my health. You care only about the money in my pocket that you want - and are out to get

[Noir]

Right guys, I honestly couldn't be fucked, go smoke youselfs into an early grave, hopefully your families will all understand what free sprits y'all were.

[red states rule]

Right guys, I honestly couldn't be fucked, go smoke youselfs into an early grave, hopefully your families will all understand what free sprits y'all were.

Noir, as a liberal you should be happy we smoke. According to you we will die early so we will not collect our Social Secuirty money

[stephanie]

Right guys, I honestly couldn't be fucked, go smoke youselfs into an early grave, hopefully your families will all understand what free sprits y'all were.

nothing to get upset about,...we were only trying to show you the difference with your thinking.
between saying you care for smokers, yet not caring if they are taxed into oblivion, because you don't care for cigarettes..

Peace dear..

[PostmodernProphet]

I find it amusing that the same people who criticize the government's attempt at prohibition in the 20s are all in favor of eliminating smoking......

[Noir]

@RSR & Stephi, sarry I got a lil carried away lastnight, I'll blame it on the teenage hormones, and the fact that I really hate drugs, thus blinding my site to issues such as tax, which pale in comparison to the issue of drugs.

[red states rule]

@RSR & Stephi, sarry I got a lil carried away lastnight, I'll blame it on the teenage hormones, and the fact that I really hate drugs, thus blinding my site to issues such as tax, which pale in comparison to the issue of drugs.

Noir, no reason to apologize. You are still young, and in time (like I did) you will grow up, smarten up, and become conservative

Remember what Winston Churchill said

"If you're 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart,

If you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain"

[stephanie]

@RSR & Stephi, sorry I got a lil carried away lastnight, I'll blame it on the teenage hormones, and the fact that I really hate drugs, thus blinding my site to issues such as tax, which pale in comparison to the issue of drugs.

no need to apologize, glad you took a look at what we were trying to say..

you are a sweetie, keep up the good work..

[DragonStryk72]

Food is a nessesity, a drug that ruins your life and those around you is not.

Sometimes you gotta be creul to be kind,

Also don't go on about my party, I don't even know what party I am going to vote for in our up and coming ellections, so I don't know how you know what my parties princables are.

Oreos are a necessity? You should let the WIC offices know this, along with twinkies, ding-dongs, ring dings, cupcakes, donuts, and every other shade of junk food on the market.

You're honest in you belief, and I'm not saying any different than that, but plenty of things, done for the "collective good" have been taken to extremes, because the government cannot legislate morality, it just can't, and that is all that this is. They talk about health, but really, if you don't like cigarette smoke, you can just depart the area of its occurence, that is your free choice, or you can ask people to put theirs out, again your choice. Taking that choice away is just plain wrong.

We are far too dependent these days on government intervention, where simple practical solutions would work better, and vastly more efficiently.

[red states rule]

The fact a liberal knows someone is smoking is enough to piss them off. Soon libs will try to prevent you from smoking in your own hime, or in your own backyard

Oh, they already have in some places

[Trigg]

Noir, the point is the government does not give a damn about your health. If everyone stopped smoking, the tax revenue loss to the governemnt would be massive
Taxes on the product, taxes the workers pay, corporate taxes, ect

The governemnt would then come after YOU and your money

Do you have any idea what the money the tobacco companies have already paid to the Federal and state government in the huge Tobacco Settlement are actually using the money for?

It is NOT to offset the costs of smokers or their medical care

NO, the money has been used for golf courses, horse racing, buying new garbage trucks - everything but what we were told the oney would be used for

I for one am fed up with libs telling me how I should live my life, and how libs use the tax code to try and force people to live their lives how libs deem

The bolded part is incredibly true. The gov. SAYS it wants people to stop smoking and that's the reason for the increased taxes, but if everyone did listen they would bitch and moan about the loss of tax dollars.

Consider the fact that the gov. for YEARS moaned about how much people drove and our HUGE gas consumption. Prices went up.......people stopped driving.....gas consumption went down.........and low and behold the gov. started moaning that they were loosing tax revenue. They even.....for a while, considered a bump in the fed gas tax.


The media and gov. don't want us to stop our bad habits. They simply give lip service to it while gleefully raising taxes and raking in the money in the back room.

[red states rule]

The bolded part is incredibly true. The gov. SAYS it wants people to stop smoking and that's the reason for the increased taxes, but if everyone did listen they would bitch and moan about the loss of tax dollars.

Consider the fact that the gov. for YEARS moaned about how much people drove and our HUGE gas consumption. Prices went up.......people stopped driving.....gas consumption went down.........and low and behold the gov. started moaning that they were loosing tax revenue. They even.....for a while, considered a bump in the fed gas tax.


The media and gov. don't want us to stop our bad habits. They simply give lip service to it while gleefully raising taxes and raking in the money in the back room.

Check this out - it tells you all about government compassion and what they really care about


22 Million New Smokers Needed: Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax
by Michelle C. Bucci and William W. Beach
WebMemo #1548
Members of Congress seeking to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover children from wealthier families are exploring new ways to pay for it. The Senate Finance Committee generally has agreed to reauthorize SCHIP for five years with a $35 billion expansion funded by an increase in the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents per pack.[1]

While a tobacco tax is a politically popular funding source, it has several significant shortcomings:

A tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others.

With the number of smokers already declining, a tobacco tax would further reduce the number of smokers, thereby eroding the funding source.

To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.

Rather than making SCHIP dependent on increasing the number of smokers, Congress should refrain from narrow government program expansions and work on a broader strategy for improving access to affordable, private health insurance for all Americans--including children.

Who Would Pay?

Increasing the tobacco tax is an inequitable way to fund SCHIP, because a large portion of the burden would fall on poor and low-income families and the relatively young. Around half of smokers are in families earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), so increasing the tobacco tax would burden the families in the income class that SCHIP and Medicaid are trying to help.[2] Furthermore, smokers are more likely to be poor or low-income than wealthy.[3] (See Chart 1.) With an expanded tobacco tax, SCHIP expansion to higher income levels would largely be funded by lower income persons, those who can least afford it.


http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1548.cfm

[DannyR]

You're honest in you belief, and I'm not saying any different than that, but plenty of things, done for the "collective good" have been taken to extremes, because the government cannot legislate morality, it just can't, and that is all that this is.What I've found is most conservatives agree with this argument fine when it is talking about something they enjoy thats regulated such as smoking, but suddenly do a 180 when the topic turns to something like legalizing drugs or gay marriage. ;-)

My own opinion is legalize everything and tax if if you wish. Government shouldn't be a nanny state and people should have responsibility for their own actions. Tax it somewhat to fund treatment centers for those who can't handle their addictions.

[red states rule]

What I've found is most conservatives agree with this argument fine when it is talking about something they enjoy thats regulated such as smoking, but suddenly do a 180 when the topic turns to something like legalizing drugs or gay marriage. ;-)

My own opinion is legalize everything and tax if if you wish. Government shouldn't be a nanny state and people should have responsibility for their own actions. Tax it somewhat to fund treatment centers for those who can't handle their addictions.

tobacco is a legal product and is already taxed to hell

Drugs are illegal - if you want it changed take it to Reid and Pelosi

as far as gay marriage it is up to the states. So far, except for one time, it has been voted down

But do not worry, everytime libs take it to a Judge who tosses out the vote

[Trigg]

What I've found is most conservatives agree with this argument fine when it is talking about something they enjoy thats regulated such as smoking, but suddenly do a 180 when the topic turns to something like legalizing drugs or gay marriage. ;-)

My own opinion is legalize everything and tax if if you wish. Government shouldn't be a nanny state and people should have responsibility for their own actions. Tax it somewhat to fund treatment centers for those who can't handle their addictions.

Actually I think you'll find...if you spend enough time here....that most are all for legalizing drugs and prostitution even.

As far as gay marriage. Again, I believe most are find with civil partnerships in which gays are afforded the same rights as marriage couples. The problems comes with using the term "marriage". Even the new Vice President has a problem with gays using the term married. Maybe you missed that debate???

[red states rule]

Actually I think you'll find...if you spend enough time here....that most are all for legalizing drugs and prostitution even.

As far as gay marriage. Again, I believe most are find with civil partnerships in which gays are afforded the same rights as marriage couples. The problems comes with using the term "marriage". Even the new Vice President has a problem with gays using the term married. Maybe you missed that debate???

and the new Presidnet is opposed to gay marriage

Well, at least he was during the campaign. Now that he is in, he may "refine" that position like he has done many others

[DannyR]

The problems comes with using the term "marriage". Even the new Vice President has a problem with gays using the term married. Maybe you missed that debate???Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2. Rose by any other name...

I've never understood this argument. Hate to break it to folks, but gays already call themselves married, legally or not. This smacks way too much of "separate but equal." and if a civil union is exactly the same as a marriage in anything but name, then its exactly the same.

[Trigg]

and the new Presidnet is opposed to gay marriage

Well, at least he was during the campaign. Now that he is in, he may "refine" that position like he has done many others

Well hell he's flopped on every other campain promise if he flips on this on it'll be no surprise.

Biden was pretty convincing though, in the debate.

[red states rule]

Well hell he's flopped on every other campain promise if he flips on this on it'll be no surprise.

Biden was pretty convincing though, in the debate.

Obama is the flip flopper

Biden is the human gaffe machine

[Trigg]

Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2. Rose by any other name...

I've never understood this argument. Hate to break it to folks, but gays already call themselves married, legally or not. This smacks way too much of "separate but equal." and if a civil union is exactly the same as a marriage in anything but name, then its exactly the same.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period

A civil union is what a gay couple is.

Maybe it's just a word to you, but this isn't a republican thing. The New President and Vice President are also against gays calling what they have "Marriage".

What I don't understand is why gays want to call what they are Marriage. Why do they insist upon hijacking the term????????????

[DannyR]

What I don't understand is why gays want to call what they are Marriage. Why do they insist upon hijacking the term?
Because two people pledging to be with each other is a marriage. Its not hijacked, its just what it is. You might want to limit the term, but I'm quite fine with it the way it is and certainly don't see anything as hijacked. I see a ceremony, and its a marriage to me.

More importantly, why does it bother you? This country has too many people who put their nose in other people's business. What two gays do shouldn't impact you in the least. You somehow love your spouse less because someone else calls themselves married?

Why do they want it? Because marriage is proven to be a more lasting relationship than just "shacking up". Sure civil union is fine for legal reasons, but that sounds like you just went to the judge at the courthouse to get a license, not had a ceremony.

[Trigg]

Because two people pledging to be with each other is a marriage. Its not hijacked, its just what it is. You might want to limit the term, but I'm quite fine with it the way it is and certainly don't see anything as hijacked. I see a ceremony, and its a marriage to me.

More importantly, why does it bother you? This country has too many people who put their nose in other people's business. What two gays do shouldn't impact you in the least. You somehow love your spouse less because someone else calls themselves married?

Why do they want it? Because marriage is proven to be a more lasting relationship than just "shacking up". Sure civil union is fine for legal reasons, but that sounds like you just went to the judge at the courthouse to get a license, not had a ceremony.


What I"m saying is this isn't a republican thing. They voted it down in the most liberal state in the union, Obama and Biden are also against it.

Gays want to be called married so they can be looked upon as "normal". They arn't and never will be. Homosexuality isn't normal, men evolved to be attracted to women and women evolved to be attracted to men, plain and simple.

[red states rule]

What I"m saying is this isn't a republican thing. They voted it down in the most liberal state in the union, Obama and Biden are also against it.

Gays want to be called married so they can be looked upon as "normal". They arn't and never will be. Homosexuality isn't normal, men evolved to be attracted to women and women evolved to be attracted to men, plain and simple.

75% of blacks in CA voted against it

A majority of Latinos in CA voted against it

At the same time those groups also voted for Obama

[Trigg]

75% of blacks in CA voted against it

A majority of Latinos in CA voted against it

At the same time those groups also voted for Obama

Exactly, it wasn't the white republicans that voted against this proposal.

It's very unpopular with democrate/minority voters also.

[DragonStryk72]

What I've found is most conservatives agree with this argument fine when it is talking about something they enjoy thats regulated such as smoking, but suddenly do a 180 when the topic turns to something like legalizing drugs or gay marriage. ;-)

My own opinion is legalize everything and tax if if you wish. Government shouldn't be a nanny state and people should have responsibility for their own actions. Tax it somewhat to fund treatment centers for those who can't handle their addictions.

Not me, I'm fine with gay marriage, and pot's fine, but same as cigarettes, I don't use any of those, so their legality effect me not one bit. It isn't about me though, and that's really the key.

There are plenty enough taxes on cigs and alcohol as is, but if you increase the taxes to such point that they are unaffordable, then it is the same thing essentially as outlawing them.

[red states rule]

Exactly, it wasn't the white republicans that voted against this proposal.

It's very unpopular with democrate/minority voters also.

The fact a Mega Blue state like CA voted against gay marriage sent shock waves through the gay activist community

They have to look for an escape goat, and white Republicnas are who they decided on

To bad the facts tell a different story

[DannyR]

Gays want to be called married so they can be looked upon as "normal". They arn't and never will be. Homosexuality isn't normal, men evolved to be attracted to women and women evolved to be attracted to men, plain and simple.

I think you have absolutely no idea why gays want to get married. They want to do it because they found the person they want to live with and want the same level of commitment that most of the rest of society enjoys. It has absolutely nothing to do with being considered "normal" or not. They are already living together. How in the world does anyone know if their neighbors are married or not?

And ff you are going to put evolution into the picture, then you are quite wrong about homosexuality. There are proven advantages of it in the grand scheme of things and evolutionary benefits.

Apes for instance use it to ensure that only the dominant male is the breeding partner. Those who aren't dominant are still sexual beings though, they are just barred form access to the females, and thus have to be homosexual.

Likewise evolution isn't about an individual's ability to reproduce, but the species as a whole's ability to survive. As such, its also quite possible homosexual is nature's own safety mechanism to insure that certain individuals aren't as likely to breed.

But frankly I find it silly to put this entirely about breeding or not. Otherwise you are advocating that people who don't want kids can't get married, sterile individuals aren't fit to be married. Elderly can't remarry, etc.



The fact a Mega Blue state like CA voted against gay marriage sent shock waves through the gay activist community

Shock waves? It was pretty much a 50:50 shot at BEST. And I thought the blame was being put on blacks, not white republicans. But fact of the matter is that gays are a minority. Minorities are always easy to pick on. In one generation most of these amendments will be overturned. 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable for any state to have nearly as many people voting for gay rights as have in recent years. 20 years from now those who opposed these measures will be looked upon the same as the racists of old.

[red states rule]

I think you have absolutely no idea why gays want to get married. They want to do it because they found the person they want to live with and want the same level of commitment that most of the rest of society enjoys. It has absolutely nothing to do with being considered "normal" or not. They are already living together. How in the world does anyone know if their neighbors are married or not?

And ff you are going to put evolution into the picture, then you are quite wrong about homosexuality. There are proven advantages of it in the grand scheme of things and evolutionary benefits.

Apes for instance use it to ensure that only the dominant male is the breeding partner. Those who aren't dominant are still sexual beings though, they are just barred form access to the females, and thus have to be homosexual.

Likewise evolution isn't about an individual's ability to reproduce, but the species as a whole's ability to survive. As such, its also quite possible homosexual is nature's own safety mechanism to insure that certain individuals aren't as likely to breed.

But frankly I find it silly to put this entirely about breeding or not. Otherwise you are advocating that people who don't want kids can't get married, sterile individuals aren't fit to be married. Elderly can't remarry, etc.

To me, gays are demanding marriage simply to force the rest of socieity to OK their agenda

I remember well when gays were demanding civil unions they said "it is not like we are wanting to be married"

Like most liberal agendas, the more they get - the more they want. It keeps expanding out like a spiders web

[DannyR]

To me, gays are demanding marriage simply to force the rest of socieity to OK their agenda

Shame on them for wanting equal treatment under the law. ;)

Who cares if they have an "agenda". Again, how does anything gays do in the privacy of their own home impact your life at all? You going to dump your wife because two dudes down the street are married?

[red states rule]

To me, gays are demanding marriage simply to force the rest of socieity to OK their agenda

Shame on them for wanting equal treatment under the law. ;)

Who cares if they have an "agenda". Again, how does anything gays do in the privacy of their own home impact your life at all? You going to dump your wife because two dudes down the street are married?

They can have them without marriage. Tax laws can be rewritten. Ins companies now offer domestic partner coverage.

There is no reason to change marriage to appease the gay agenda

[DannyR]

There is no reason to change marriage to appease the gay agenda

Why waste billions of dollars rewriting thousands of laws, when all it takes is recognition of a single word? That in and of itself is reason enough for me. Nevermind that treating people equally under the law is just the right thing to do.

[Nukeman]

Shame on them for wanting equal treatment under the law. ;)

Last time I checked they have the EXACT same rights/equal treatment as a hetero couple!!! If two women/men want to live together that is fine. If they want to extend the insurance and health benefits to them they can not. So your point is not valid they have the EXACT same rights a heterosexual couple of same sex would have. Or are YOU advocating for SPECIAL rights for gays over a heterosexual couple????


Who cares if they have an "agenda". Again, how does anything gays do in the privacy of their own home impact your life at all? You going to dump your wife because two dudes down the street are married

This is the point MOST on here would make, WHY does someone NEED special treatment in life for what they do in their bedroom??? What will be next the local pedophile or "animal lover" want to be able to marry their "little" friends???

You are confusing the fact that gays already have equal rights the same as straight people. They want SPECIAL rights based solely on what they do in their bedrooms.....

[DannyR]

Last time I checked they have the EXACT same rights/equal treatment as a hetero couple!!! If two women/men want to live together that is fine. If they want to extend the insurance and health benefits to them they can not. So your point is not valid they have the EXACT same rights a heterosexual couple of same sex would have. Or are YOU advocating for SPECIAL rights for gays over a heterosexual couple????

This is the same argument used to justify interracial marriage bans. It wasn't considered illegal because blacks could still marry blacks, and whites whites. Why was allowing interracial marriage needed. That was a "special" right.

Sorry, don't buy that argument at all. Equal treatment isn't a special right.


WHY does someone NEED special treatment in life for what they do in their bedroom???

Why do hetersexuals NEED to get married at all either? Because they want to have a family. Because they want the same rights and protections under the law as any other family. Nuf said.



What will be next the local pedophile or "animal lover" want to be able to marry their "little" friends???

A contract in our country is between two consenting ADULTS, so pedophilia is a totally different topic. There are far greater social reasons why that is banned (as are other actions with children) that simply don't apply to gay marriage, which is an action between two consenting adults that impacts nobody.

And when fido the dog can sign a contract and swear under oath why his rights are being infringed upon then we can discuss bestiality and marriage to animals. If you are going to argue the slippery slope theme, then feel free to outlaw marriage between people and animals. They can fight for their rights when they can file a legal suit on their own.

[Trigg]

There is no reason to change marriage to appease the gay agenda

Why waste billions of dollars rewriting thousands of laws, when all it takes is recognition of a single word? That in and of itself is reason enough for me. Nevermind that treating people equally under the law is just the right thing to do.

They are already treated equally under the law. Why change the meaning of a word when it won't change the outcome????????

Gays simply want it changed so they can become "mainstream" and be considered normal.

Being gay is not natural, even if gays want it to be.


And ff you are going to put evolution into the picture, then you are quite wrong about homosexuality. There are proven advantages of it in the grand scheme of things and evolutionary benefits.

Apes for instance use it to ensure that only the dominant male is the breeding partner. Those who aren't dominant are still sexual beings though, they are just barred form access to the females, and thus have to be homosexual.

Likewise evolution isn't about an individual's ability to reproduce, but the species as a whole's ability to survive. As such, its also quite possible homosexual is nature's own safety mechanism to insure that certain individuals aren't as likely to breed.

Care to back this up with some proof??? In nature the strong survive, the females pick the strongest males to continue their bloodlines. The weaker males bid their time until they can take over themselves. If there are homosexual apes running around that switched because they weren't the dominant ones, I need to see an article or two.....sorry, but your word doesn't do it for me.

[DannyR]

If there are homosexual apes running around that switched because they weren't the dominant ones, I need to see an article or two.....sorry, but your word doesn't do it for me.

Here is a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521864461
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2476959

Evolution isn't about individuals, its about species. Just because two individuals who may be gay can't breed means nothing. There are thousands of species out there that use non-breeding members to benefit the species as a whole.

I think it quite likely that homosexuality is a natural brake on human reproductive activity. Its not coincidental in my opinion that we generally see more social acceptance of gays at times when human population is growing and health and fitness are at their peaks and life expectancy is generally higher.