Gays are coming out of the closet whether they like it or not - Page 7

6SpeedTA95 · 10-12-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

They are going to lower middle class taxes, not raise.

I've not seen a single democrat talk about lowering anyones taxes. They always tlak about rolling back the bush tax cuts or rolling back the cuts for the "wealthiest among us" or rolling back the cuts for "those with a household
income of 100 thousand a year or more"

100k/yr is far from wealthy and in many economics books its considered upper MIDDLE class.

CrackSeed · 10-12-2006, 04:06 PM

Stylerod · 10-12-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by CrackSeed

First episode I ever saw. I almost pissed myself.

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I've not seen a single democrat talk about lowering anyones taxes. They always tlak about rolling back the bush tax cuts or rolling back the cuts for the "wealthiest among us" or rolling back the cuts for "those with a household
income of 100 thousand a year or more"

100k/yr is far from wealthy and in many economics books its considered upper MIDDLE class.

Payroll tax cut

and the 100k a year has been moved up to 150-200k, depending on how inflation is looking

6SpeedTA95 · 10-12-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Payroll tax cut

and the 100k a year has been moved up to 150-200k, depending on how inflation is looking

So they doubled it because of "inflation" since 2004?

Payroll tax cut? Again how are they going to give a payroll tax cut when at the least they talk about keeping taxes the same for those making less than 70k/yr while raising them on everyone else? Thats the most generous proposal I've heard...I've heard nothing about a tax cut and a payroll tax cut IS a tax cut.

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So they doubled it because of "inflation" since 2004?

Payroll tax cut? Again how are they going to give a payroll tax cut when at the least they talk about keeping taxes the same for those making less than 70k/yr while raising them on everyone else? Thats the most generous proposal I've heard...I've heard nothing about a tax cut and a payroll tax cut IS a tax cut.

Rome wasn't built in a day

6SpeedTA95 · 10-12-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Rome wasn't built in a day

What the crap does that have to do with our conversation?

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What the crap does that have to do with our conversation?

They've been out of power for 12 years not 60, thats long enough that they need a new direction but not long enough to have some super-huge plan ready to solve everything for America

6SpeedTA95 · 10-12-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They've been out of power for 12 years not 60, thats long enough that they need a new direction but not long enough to have some super-huge plan ready to solve everything for America

So you admit the democrats dont have a plan? They should have a plan ready we dont need to head in drastically different directions especially on the economic front. Things are humming along nicely. A little tweaking is really all it needs...

What payroll taxcut are you talking about?

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So you admit the democrats dont have a plan? They should have a plan ready we dont need to head in drastically different directions especially on the economic front. Things are humming along nicely. A little tweaking is really all it needs...

What payroll taxcut are you talking about?

Losing the House does != a dramatic new direction
I anticipate gridlock, but there will finally be oversight

The Democrats had the Senate in 2002...the world did not collapse

6SpeedTA95 · 10-12-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Losing the House does != a dramatic new direction
I anticipate gridlock, but there will finally be oversight

The Democrats had the Senate in 2002...the world did not collapse

Again you're avoiding the question, for the third or fourth time what is this tax cut you speak of?

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Again you're avoiding the question, for the third or fourth time what is this tax cut you speak of?

I just hear Harold Ford and Claire McCaskill talk about it in town hall debates, and I'm pretty sure Pelosi has brought it up, but I don't have transcripts or anything

6SpeedTA95 · 10-12-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I just hear Harold Ford and Claire McCaskill talk about it in town hall debates, and I'm pretty sure Pelosi has brought it up, but I don't have transcripts or anything

Yeah I could see Ford he's a moderate and his party is not going pay attention to his tax cut desires.

nbiggershaft · 10-12-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's the liberals ostracizing the individuals now

You really have to stop with the generalizing. Especially with the overuse of the word liberal. Gay people feel victimized by the GOP. So they are exposing gay members in the GOP out of spite and a personal sense of justice. I don't like it, but I don't really blame them of the way they feel on the issue. I disagree with the practice in general. I believe people deserve privacy. I am a liberal.

Are you afraid to blame gays for this or do you just insist on pointing the finger at this organized beast you think is the great liberal monster.

Should I blame you for everything Charlton Heston says or does?

ballz2wallz · 10-12-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Gay people feel victimized by the GOP. So they are exposing gay members in the GOP out of spite and a personal sense of justice.

So you admit they're targeting gays in the GOP!

That fact that it's out of spite makes it even worse.

avsp · 10-12-2006, 05:38 PM

Not read the thread, ..., SHOULDNTBEALLOWED!, ..., obviously
but just in case

Peter Tatchell, gay right activist, gobby so-&-so, media whore & 'usual suspect' fronted such an effort a while back in the UK

Increasingly Tatchell took part in gay rights campaigning over issues such as Section 28. Following the murder of actor Michael Boothe on 10 May 1990, Tatchell became one of thirty founding members of the radical gay-rights group OutRage! and has remained a leading member. The group fuses theatrical performance styles with queer political protest. As the most prominent OutRage! member, Tatchell is frequently taken to be the leader of the group, but the few histories of it published demonstrate that this was not an accurate picture during the era they cover.[10]
In 1991, a group of members of OutRage! announced that they were to form a separate group to engage in a campaign of 'outing' people who were homophobic in public but homosexual in private. The group took the name 'FROCS' (Faggots Rooting Out Closeted Sexuality) and Tatchell agreed to act as the group's spokesman. Considerable publicity and public debate followed this announcement. Embarrassingly for Tatchell, the members of FROCS eventually called their own press conference (without him) to tell the world that their campaign was a hoax intended to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those newspapers which had condemned the campaign despite publishing stories which had the same effect.[11]
Some of the activities of OutRage! have been highly controversial. In 1994 [/b]it unveiled placards inviting ten Church of England bishops to "tell the truth" about their homosexuality. Shortly afterwards the group wrote to twenty UK MPs, urging them to reveal their homosexuality. Sir James Kilfedder, who had received one of the letters, died two months later of a sudden heart attack on the day one of the Belfast newspapers ran a story about him. Although no definite connection could be proved, Tatchell was widely denounced in the press for having caused the death. In a comment in The Independent in October 2003, Tatchell identified the action with the Bishops as his greatest mistake because it allowed a relevant campaign against the Anglican Church's opposition to homosexual relations to be derailed by putting the focus on OutRage!'s actions.[/b]

Peter Tatchell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{obvious 'blowback' joke deleted}

nbiggershaft · 10-12-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So you admit they're targeting gays in the GOP!

That fact that it's out of spite makes it even worse.

I don't remember questioning the targeting of gays in the GOP. I did however question your use of they, them and liberals. You are taking the actions of a group of people who are justifiably pissed and acting on it, and using them to condemn all liberals as if we all got together and decided to screw over GOP gays.

Diamond Cross · 10-12-2006, 06:27 PM

But that is what you're doing, screwing over GOP homosexuals on the just because. There is no real morality to it at all.

Diesel66 · 10-12-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Let me put this as simply as I can. When you pretend to be something you are not, you are a hypocrit. Why the hell would he have to lie to be a member of a certain party? Hypocrit, Hypocrit, Hypocrit. I think he should be a Republican if he wants to, it is the Repuplicans who have a problem with gays.

Since when is your private sexual life something that everyone needs to know ?

And since when is the main Republican policy, anti gay ? There are a lot of economic and political reasons to join the Republican party.

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

If they have no problem with gays, then why in the world do they fight against not only marriage but any civil union that would grant them spousal rights under the law?

Why should we change the laws to support a minority that hasnt shown to give any benefit to us ? Civil unions are the same bullshit with a different name, it is not a compromise.

Originally Posted by CrackSeed

If their religion doesn't allow it, they don't have to get married or a civil union. Would their religion require them to deny these rights to others?

We are still accepting and supporting those releationships, so yes.