Who are you voting for President?? - Page 5

Desert_Seg · 12-25-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

...If Bill were to die, right now, I'd have to pay taxes on our home as if I had just purchased it; I would not be entitled to the money we have in the bank without paying inheritance taxes. His pension vanishes, as does his Social Security, and my medical insurance stops at the moment of his death.

Sorry to disagree with you again:

- Put the house in BOTH your names and you don't have to pay any new taxes on it.

- Make them JOINT bank accounts / financial accounts and you would have no inheritance taxes on those monies

- If medical insurance is job related it would stop being paid for regardless of your civil status.

- His pension, depends on his company's pension plan (some do allow for civil unions to continue to receive benefits)

- SS, yes, you are right, that would go away.

Steven

KSagal · 12-25-2007, 02:34 PM

Where do you draw the line in any judgement call?

When I was dating my wife, we had a relationship.

When I met her family, and I did not run away screaming, we had a union.

When she met my family, and she did not run away screaming, we had a union that defied all odds.

When we got married, we had a union that was recognised by the government as a single entity. My wife and I were now one thing, in the eyes of the law.

When she got pregnant, all views of 'life' or 'choice' were answered for me. My first pictures of my son, and many friends and co-workers will remember, was the sonogram of him at about 12 weeks old, and smaller than my thumb.

With the birth of my child, my relationship became a marriage in the traditional sense. My relationship with my wife was no longer about us, it was about the kids. That is how I see it.

I believe the roots of marriage go back very far, and in those days, the consumation of a marriage included the attempt to make the bride pregnant. THat was the marriage, not any cerimony or government decree. I believe that is still the core, and it is all about the next generation, not the people in the relationship...

I believe that two people can be in love, and can have a legal partnership and not be married. I also believe that gender is not part of this last statement. I personally do not believe that the word marriage has much bearing on a relationship, regarding if the two are in love or not. I have seen relationships with no marriage and lots of love, and others with marriage and no love...

I believe that the government should have little place in deciding about moral things, as it is not it's place. Morality is a judgement of right and wrong, and that is a religious catagory. Defend the citizens from threats foreign and domestic, and fix the roads. Leave religion out of it, that is for spiritual leaders.

Any two people who desire to be one legal entity in the eyes of the law, should have that ability, and they do. That is not the same as saying they are married, as they would not be.

I believe that the Catholic church says that women cannot be priests, and Reform Judiasm allows for female Rabbis. These are questions of faith, and the government has no place here either, as in the term 'marriage', which has different meanings, depending on how it is used and where...

This, at least, is how I see it.

12-25-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Sorry to disagree with you again:

- Put the house in BOTH your names and you don't have to pay any new taxes on it.

- Make them JOINT bank accounts / financial accounts and you would have no inheritance taxes on those monies

- If medical insurance is job related it would stop being paid for regardless of your civil status.

- His pension, depends on his company's pension plan (some do allow for civil unions to continue to receive benefits)

- SS, yes, you are right, that would go away.

Yes, Steven, that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work, but over 90% of the time, doesn't, because it's all up to an individual judge.

When "blood" relatives have contested in court those documents that are in place, in 93% of the cases, judges have held for the blood relative, and invalidated all those "paper protections" same-gender couples have attempted to put in place.

As part of it's "Protect Marriage" law, the State of Virginia SPECIFICALLY negates any and all contracts between two members of the same gender in which that contract could be seen as providing a "benefit of marriage."

And, no, medical benefits and pensions are no longer limited solely to the employer deciding to provide those benefits; if the company for which one is employed does ANY business with the state, and the state has a "Protect Marriage" constitutional amendment... that business MAY NOT provide those benefits, as same-gender couples in Michigan, Virginia, Alabama, etc., have found out.

Suzined · 12-26-2007, 01:19 AM

Don't expect any president to pass a law. That is the job of Congress...like passing a budget by October 1st and other mundane things. I gained a tremendous respect for all our past presidents after I'd been a mayor for a few months. I only had to put up with five councilmen--Presidents get 425 representatives and a hundred senators. God help the Republic!

12-26-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzined

Don't expect any president to pass a law. That is the job of Congress...

Uh huh... except in the last two presidential elections, a candidate for the office of the Presidency CREATED a "crisis" that would require a Constitutional Amendment, as well as a "war" on an ideology - though a sick and twisted one, in my estimation, it is still a "war" declared on ideas - and an "us v. them" mentality that permeates our dealings, not just with foreign nationals and countries, but within our own populace, as well.

So I will not be voting for any candidate who advocates the continuance of any of those practices.

So far, the only candidate to take that stand has been Ron Paul. He's not perfect, and I'm a registered Democrat, but... so far... it looks like Ron Paul is going to be this year's Ralph Nader, with the exception that I didn't vote for Nader.

Desert_Seg · 12-26-2007, 07:30 AM

I guess I take a different perspective on voting. If labeled, I'd likely be called a Republican but I'm very much an Independent. I vote for the person who I believe will do the best for the country, not the best for his or her party.

I worked on John Anderson's campaign in 1980, I supported Ross Perot in 1992, and this year we need a change....a big change. That is why I support Unity08.

In my opinion, none of the current candidates are worth the money spent on an absentee ballot. We need a change and we need it as soon as possible so, if forced (that is, if there is no other option) I will vote for the person I think will do the least harm...and that sure isn't the way to be picking a President!

Steven

ryanj0 · 12-26-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Yes, Steven, that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work, but over 90% of the time, doesn't, because it's all up to an individual judge.

When "blood" relatives have contested in court those documents that are in place, in 93% of the cases, judges have held for the blood relative, and invalidated all those "paper protections" same-gender couples have attempted to put in place.

As part of it's "Protect Marriage" law, the State of Virginia SPECIFICALLY negates any and all contracts between two members of the same gender in which that contract could be seen as providing a "benefit of marriage."

And, no, medical benefits and pensions are no longer limited solely to the employer deciding to provide those benefits; if the company for which one is employed does ANY business with the state, and the state has a "Protect Marriage" constitutional amendment... that business MAY NOT provide those benefits, as same-gender couples in Michigan, Virginia, Alabama, etc., have found out.

Eric is right on the money here I must say. My mother is a lesbian and openly so. As such I have heard all of the horror stories. If my mom's partner were to die it wouldn't really matter what she had done to help mom get access to her stuff in the untimely event of her death there are still arrogant people who will deny her access. What I find funny is that it is so much easier for a sister or mother or even just a friend to obtain access than it is the person who loved her and took care of her. This to me makes no sense. What is basically being said here (meaning the laws) is that homosexuals somehow have less love than straight couples. I can tell you from actually being exposed to this lifestyle through my mom that is not true. Eric is on the dot when he implies the system needs to change. For now, however my mom and her partner got married to a gay couple that way both sides would be protected. It shouldn't have to be that way.

Jeremy Ryan

P.S. It's amazing you even got on Bill's health insurance policy. Many companies do not honor domestic partnerships I should know I work for an insurance company!

KSagal · 12-26-2007, 12:48 PM

I am with Steven on this one. For many years now, I have been in a position where I do not vote for someone. I usually find myself voting against someone else...

I have said for a while now that the last person I voted for was Ronald Reagan. Since then, I pretty much have opted for the lesser of evils, not someone I believed was good for the country.

I did try to support Ross Perot, the first time. My vote went to giving the presidency to Bill Clinton, as most of the votes for Perot came from would be Bush voters, not would be Clinton voters, or so I have been told. So, to support a third party is a big gamble. It gives a real advantage to the party furthest from the third, not closest to it.

I have gotten to the point where it is tough to tell the difference between Reps and Dems, by policy. They all talk weak, and I recall a book title that says it all...but I'll corrupt it hear to suit my needs...
"Loosers to the left of me, and wimps to the right!"

It seems to me that very few left in this culture have the intestinal fortitude to make a hard decision, and stand by it. If you are going to do a thing, it must be committed to 100% to be successful. Even the good ideas are usually so watered down that they become more of the Beaurocracy, and less of the solution...

THere is an old saying, you cannot make a cake without breaking some eggs! It seems that no one is willing to work hard for a good outcome. It always gets worse before it gets better. The very process of making it better involves making it worse first, and no one seems to want to take that into account.

If you have a forest, and want to make a home, you must first cut down some trees. THen you must set up a mill, to make wood boards for your home, then you must do many other things. If a person were to come upon the disturbed forest, and say it is now worse than it was last year, then the builder should say wait... you will see the improvement... but instead gets forces to plant trees and try to build around them, and the whole thing gets hinky...

I would like to have the oportunity to vote for a leader, with a vision that I can understand, based on the country having the strenght to be left alone militarily, the economic strength to prosper, and the foresight to have the government back out of affairs of morality, where it is ill-equipt to lead by example.

jryan · 01-03-2008, 10:19 AM

I am looking forward to seeing what happens in Iowa today! I did find only one thing in which I share in common with Huckabee. I was reading the paper and it seems as though he has 3 dogs on his campaign bus. I am a dog lover so I must say I do like this about him. Other than that I find him a worthless candidate. Too bad for him I am educated enough to make my decision based on politics rather than number of dogs. But I do have to give him props for being a dog lover! On a more serious note I'm pushing for Obama today!

Jeremy Ryan

David Long · 01-03-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drolsinatas

I asked you guys because I assume there is a smart bunch of free thinkers here . . .

Many people with lazy minds just thoughtlessly spout off what their Marxist professors indoctrinated them with in college, but I haven't seen a lot of that here.

12-25-2007, 02:34 PM	#42
KSagal Glides a lot, talks more... Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Pelham, NH, USA. Posts: 10,356	Where do you draw the line in any judgement call? When I was dating my wife, we had a relationship. When I met her family, and I did not run away screaming, we had a union. When she met my family, and she did not run away screaming, we had a union that defied all odds. When we got married, we had a union that was recognised by the government as a single entity. My wife and I were now one thing, in the eyes of the law. When she got pregnant, all views of 'life' or 'choice' were answered for me. My first pictures of my son, and many friends and co-workers will remember, was the sonogram of him at about 12 weeks old, and smaller than my thumb. With the birth of my child, my relationship became a marriage in the traditional sense. My relationship with my wife was no longer about us, it was about the kids. That is how I see it. I believe the roots of marriage go back very far, and in those days, the consumation of a marriage included the attempt to make the bride pregnant. THat was the marriage, not any cerimony or government decree. I believe that is still the core, and it is all about the next generation, not the people in the relationship... I believe that two people can be in love, and can have a legal partnership and not be married. I also believe that gender is not part of this last statement. I personally do not believe that the word marriage has much bearing on a relationship, regarding if the two are in love or not. I have seen relationships with no marriage and lots of love, and others with marriage and no love... I believe that the government should have little place in deciding about moral things, as it is not it's place. Morality is a judgement of right and wrong, and that is a religious catagory. Defend the citizens from threats foreign and domestic, and fix the roads. Leave religion out of it, that is for spiritual leaders. Any two people who desire to be one legal entity in the eyes of the law, should have that ability, and they do. That is not the same as saying they are married, as they would not be. I believe that the Catholic church says that women cannot be priests, and Reform Judiasm allows for female Rabbis. These are questions of faith, and the government has no place here either, as in the term 'marriage', which has different meanings, depending on how it is used and where... This, at least, is how I see it. __________________ Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.

12-26-2007, 01:19 AM	#44
Suzined Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: At the corner of Columbia and Pacific Posts: 448	High School Civics Don't expect any president to pass a law. That is the job of Congress...like passing a budget by October 1st and other mundane things. I gained a tremendous respect for all our past presidents after I'd been a mayor for a few months. I only had to put up with five councilmen--Presidents get 425 representatives and a hundred senators. God help the Republic! __________________ Suzined Ilwaco, Washington

12-26-2007, 12:48 PM	#48
KSagal Glides a lot, talks more... Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Pelham, NH, USA. Posts: 10,356	I am with Steven on this one. For many years now, I have been in a position where I do not vote for someone. I usually find myself voting against someone else... I have said for a while now that the last person I voted for was Ronald Reagan. Since then, I pretty much have opted for the lesser of evils, not someone I believed was good for the country. I did try to support Ross Perot, the first time. My vote went to giving the presidency to Bill Clinton, as most of the votes for Perot came from would be Bush voters, not would be Clinton voters, or so I have been told. So, to support a third party is a big gamble. It gives a real advantage to the party furthest from the third, not closest to it. I have gotten to the point where it is tough to tell the difference between Reps and Dems, by policy. They all talk weak, and I recall a book title that says it all...but I'll corrupt it hear to suit my needs... "Loosers to the left of me, and wimps to the right!" It seems to me that very few left in this culture have the intestinal fortitude to make a hard decision, and stand by it. If you are going to do a thing, it must be committed to 100% to be successful. Even the good ideas are usually so watered down that they become more of the Beaurocracy, and less of the solution... THere is an old saying, you cannot make a cake without breaking some eggs! It seems that no one is willing to work hard for a good outcome. It always gets worse before it gets better. The very process of making it better involves making it worse first, and no one seems to want to take that into account. If you have a forest, and want to make a home, you must first cut down some trees. THen you must set up a mill, to make wood boards for your home, then you must do many other things. If a person were to come upon the disturbed forest, and say it is now worse than it was last year, then the builder should say wait... you will see the improvement... but instead gets forces to plant trees and try to build around them, and the whole thing gets hinky... I would like to have the oportunity to vote for a leader, with a vision that I can understand, based on the country having the strenght to be left alone militarily, the economic strength to prosper, and the foresight to have the government back out of affairs of morality, where it is ill-equipt to lead by example. __________________ Karl Ian Sagal To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin) Bene factum melior bene dictum Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.

01-03-2008, 10:19 AM	#49
jryan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Where Boris runs free and so do !!! Posts: 782	Huckabee I am looking forward to seeing what happens in Iowa today! I did find only one thing in which I share in common with Huckabee. I was reading the paper and it seems as though he has 3 dogs on his campaign bus. I am a dog lover so I must say I do like this about him. Other than that I find him a worthless candidate. Too bad for him I am educated enough to make my decision based on politics rather than number of dogs. But I do have to give him props for being a dog lover! On a more serious note I'm pushing for Obama today! Jeremy Ryan

12-26-2007, 07:30 AM	#46
Desert_Seg Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Posts: 2,533	I guess I take a different perspective on voting. If labeled, I'd likely be called a Republican but I'm very much an Independent. I vote for the person who I believe will do the best for the country, not the best for his or her party. I worked on John Anderson's campaign in 1980, I supported Ross Perot in 1992, and this year we need a change....a big change. That is why I support Unity08. In my opinion, none of the current candidates are worth the money spent on an absentee ballot. We need a change and we need it as soon as possible so, if forced (that is, if there is no other option) I will vote for the person I think will do the least harm...and that sure isn't the way to be picking a President! Steven

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)