or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle - Page 19

post #721 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"

They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."

I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!

This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.

Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!

A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself .
Psst, there's a war in Darfur...
Reply
Psst, there's a war in Darfur...
Reply
post #722 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJD2112 View Post

A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself .

really? I guess you two deserve each other then...
post #723 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.

What do governments have to do with this?

This is a discussion on an international Apple related forum about Apple donating money to a worthwhile cause.
As an Apple user and a registered member of this forum I am fully entitled to contribute to the discussion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.

I didn't say it gave me a right to choose how their profits were spent, (although my bank does exactly that ), but I feel that I am entitled to enter into a debate about those choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more.

Not strictly true. I can also reward a company for it's policies by praising it, buying more of it's products and encouraging others to do likewise.

As I mentioned earlier, I and other members of my bank have a direct say in how the profits from that bank are invested. This is also true for their insurance and retail business.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.

You could indeed demand that, but it wouldn't get you very far.

If, however you wished to enter into a debate on a 'Tower of London Visitors' website, discussing the contribution they had made to the UK's methadone clinics you would be entitled to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?

Once again, I did not say I had the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, but I do have the right to comment on how it is spent, as any Apple customer has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world.

Did I say that this was what I was hoping for? No, I simply pointed out the irony of a US citizen telling foreigners to 'mind their own business'.

An irony compounded when said citizen admitted that he too was not registered to vote in California.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.

Most analysts link the current credit crisis to the sub-prime mortgage business, in which US banks give high-risk loans to people with poor credit histories.
These and other loans, bonds or assets are bundled into portfolios - or Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) - and sold on to investors globally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7521250.stm


Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)

And isn't it equally splendid that you are able to do likewise, and not have to do so in French?

I would be grateful if you could use your English to point out where I have expressed any 'feelings of loathing for the bad old USA', as I am unable to recall any such instances.
post #724 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"

They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."

I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!

This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.

Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!

I pretty much have to agree, he has a very nineteenth century outlook on things (with a nice dose of anti-Communism for the sake of modernity). All you have to do is say Socialism and he gets all riled up. He probably has no idea that most western nations, the U.S. included, are based on a system of socio-capitalism.

He can't be entirely to blame, though, he sounds like the typical American that really bought into Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" philosophy. He's very much the type of person that makes you sad to be a citizen of this country. I don't get where we left behind the idea of the greater good and veered wildly into extreme greed. It's people like him that put us in this economic crisis. After all, the "invisible hand" of the market will guide us and if the government tries to instill regulation, it's becoming socialist. Adam Smith was talking about Agrarian economies, not highly complex multi-national infrastructures (please get over yourselves).

Thank g-d it seems like after eight years of this guy's philosophy running our government, the era of Reagan is finally coming to a bitter end.
post #725 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

What do governments have to do with this?

This is a discussion on an international Apple related forum about Apple donating money to a worthwhile cause.
As an Apple user and a registered member of this forum I am fully entitled to contribute to the discussion.

Damn right. What is it with these people that don't want to hear what other people have to offer. Just like my five year old - hands covering ears - blah, blah, blah, blah...

Quote:
If, however you wished to enter into a debate on a 'Tower of London Visitors' website, discussing the contribution they had made to the UK's methadone clinics you would be entitled to do so.

Oh, yes please! I fear it would be less charged than this debate however, even though I am against methadone clinics and for complete legalization of all drugs. Sure to rile a few people here and there.
post #726 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

WTF is gay marriage? i mean if you wanna be with someone of your same sex for the rest of your live so be it, but why would they even want to get marry on top of that. Apple please stop flushing shareholders money down the toilet and let People do what ever the heck they wanna do as long as it doesn't affect the company

WHY? Gee what a great question. Let me help you out, since I guess by asking that question you also don't feel heterosexuals should get married either because maybe we all want and need the following benefits and protections a legal marriage affords:

Marriage, as far as the govnt is concerned, is a legal institution and determines things such as property, tax reporting as a couple, inheritance, survivorship rights, as well as family visitation and medical decision rights. THAT'S WHY

post #727 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

I would be grateful if you could use your English to point out where I have expressed any 'feelings of loathing for the bad old USA', as I am unable to recall any such instances.

Don't get your hopes up. His view of non-americans is that they are un-american by default.
post #728 of 1350
[QUOTE=Fotek2001;1329582]I take it you just went straight to the comments to post your flame without reading this bit:

Yeah and I take it you believe everything you hear too:
Prop 8 does not infact have language that say's it will be taught in schools..thats the hidden lie....BUT...it will have to be taught it schools because there is California Education code that currently exists and if this prop is opposed, then married will then be defined to include same sex marrige. Thus a change in its definition. If so than the following code pulled directly from the California Education requirements will in fact require teachers to instruct on marrige...as re-defined by this prop. See Section "D" below:

"If same sex marriage and traditional marriage are seen as equal by the state constitution, then same sex marriage will fall under the same instructional category as traditional marriage in the following excerpt from CA Education Code 51890

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood


Since learning about the responsibilities of marriage is part of the Ed Code, it will automatically include learning about all “types” of marriage that will, by necessity, be presented as equal to each other."

If the issue was just about handing a marrige cert to same sex couples to get the same rights as heterosexual couples.....WHO CARES...go for it....its just a piece of PAPER with legal rights that is recognized by the state . Fine..but this effects my right to teach my children sound moral values.

Do your research people. This is the future of our country here!
post #729 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.



WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.

As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more. Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.

Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?



You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world. The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.





You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)

Well said!
post #730 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

And yet, many Americans living near the Canadian border cross over into Canada to get medical treatment because they know Canadian doctors/hospitals won't turn them away. What about the Americans who come up for our cheaper medication?

The situations you refer to are rare and only make the news because we don't think it is acceptable that our medical system lets down even ONE of our citizens. Can you say the same about your system?

QUOTE=zinfella;1330762]I prefer to be self reliant, and maintain my freedom, not to mention all of those extra tax dollars that Europeans are forced to pay. As for free health care under socialism, ask the Canadians why they come here for care when they're able. Why is it that people are trying to sneak into the US, if socialism is so good?

[/QUOTE]

You are either ignorant of the facts, or you are lying. We get tons of Canadians here to take advantage of our health care just to avoid the ridiculous long waits for some procedures under your "wonderful" system of socialized medicine. Here, we don't have those silly restrictions caused by a government run enterprise trying to be all things to all people, and failing miserably.
post #731 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Actually you misunderstand. Born-again Christians have very internalized morals, given that God's Holy Spirit dwells within a believer. You can't get much more internal morality than that. And best yet, it's determined by God, not by man, not by 'religion'.

Since god DNE, it's a null pointer.

KRR
post #732 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

I pretty much have to agree, he has a very nineteenth century outlook on things (with a nice dose of anti-Communism for the sake of modernity). All you have to do is say Socialism and he gets all riled up. He probably has no idea that most western nations, the U.S. included, are based on a system of socio-capitalism.

He can't be entirely to blame, though, he sounds like the typical American that really bought into Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" philosophy. He's very much the type of person that makes you sad to be a citizen of this country. I don't get where we left behind the idea of the greater good and veered wildly into extreme greed. It's people like him that put us in this economic crisis. After all, the "invisible hand" of the market will guide us and if the government tries to instill regulation, it's becoming socialist. Adam Smith was talking about Agrarian economies, not highly complex multi-national infrastructures (please get over yourselves).

Thank g-d it seems like after eight years of this guy's philosophy running our government, the era of Reagan is finally coming to a bitter end.

Please don't associate Reagan with Bush! They are far different in their approaches. The term Cowboy capitalism has bee used to describe Bush economics (unfettered/wild-west capitalism). Reagan's approach we much more reasonable (and it actually worked!) in it's approach! Reagan finally freed us from the stagnation of the 70's and his policies put the USSR 6-feet-under. As for your complaints of trickle-down economics, that is how _all_ capitalism works! From the top down.
Before you get you panties in a wad. I am a social-Liberal with les-liberal fiscal tenancies as I believe neither the Liberals or Conservatives are 100% correct.

KRR
post #733 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

This is not a political issue. It is one of human rights. Americans like to say they stand up for human rights around the world and yet when it comes to gay rights in their own country (or even rights for African Americans, for that matter), so many of them would deny two loving people from making a life-long commitment to each other. Yet, people like Brittany Spears can get married on a whim. Pure hypocrisy.

You can't be serious?!!! Why does Brittany end up in the news, because everyone just likes to talk about here wild life. Duhhh, anyone can get married on a whim whether you are Brittany or not! come on! Gay marriage is a hot topic because some of us believe in the biblical bible that says it shouldn't be. Just because someone is so liberal does not make it right due to the fact that you say so. What if I said murder should be legalized? Oh, well that hurts someone so of course not you say. But the real question is, who is really right versus wrong. One liberals idea is not always the same as someone else's. That is why we have the Bible to teach us what is right. Whether people choose to believe in it or follow it is something totally different.
post #734 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJD2112 View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"

They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."

I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!

This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.

Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!

A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself .

99% of this diarrhetic diatribe spews incoherent trains of thought to nowhere, other than a world of stark contrast and no varying levels in-between. Besides the mentally stunted uneducable the Cliff Notes on the Civil War was also particularly myopic.

I hope you can speak more independently than the keyboardist ranting about the fear mongers propping up Socialism and up with Tyranny mantras. The man writes as if he's got a Plantation to maintain but no sharecroppers to help make it possible.

Anyone who thinks that any one political party has a patent on Greed is a toothless Neanderthal. The same person who is proclaiming these Greed mongers as cave dwelling Neanderthals wreaks of being an envious Curmudgeon longing for their own solitary, hermitic lifestyle to become the norm. Abuse of language is too common in this world. The fact that even most English speaking individuals don't know the nuances of their own language may be to blame.

It really is sad that the historical attention spans of each generation's citizenry doesn't extend more than roughly 50 years prior to their birthing, if that. Greed knows no political party affiliation. It twists the arms of both sides, equally.
post #735 of 1350
Actually, you are ignorant of the facts.

It is rare for Canadians to go to the US for medical procedures. The ridiculous long waits you refer to are uncommon. A few years ago, I tore my pec major right off my humerus while weight lifting. The next day, I was in to see one of the top 3 shoulder specialists in the province. Within a week, I was in surgery to have it reattached... Oh, and I didn't pay a cent for this outside of my monthly $55 contribution to our "socialist medical system".

Recently, my dad was experiencing heart problems. After a diagnosis that indicated he needed 6 bypasses for his heart (his life wasn't in immediate danger), he was in the hospital and got his surgery within a month. Again, he didn't pay an extra cent outside of his regular contributions.

What good is it to have a great health care system with immediate service when you can't afford to pay for it? That's is a serious question. You may be lucky to have health care coverage through work or be wealthy enough to pay for your services but too large a percentage of Americans don't and would NEVER get the care they need.

Our system is not perfect by any means. However, we ALL have coverage, even if it means we sometimes have to wait a bit longer. Yes, there are those who don't want to wait and have the money to pay for their services. They go to the US not because we don't have the ability to treat these people here in Canada. It's because we don't allow it... because here in Canada, we try to consider that a poor person's life is just as valuable as a wealthy person's life. When it comes to the health of our citizens, everyone has to get in line and just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you get to leap-frog those who are not. So to get around our rules, these people choose to go to the US where the rules don't apply.

We Canadians sometime say our medical system is broken. That is because there are people who slip through the cracks and do not get the help they need. However, these incidents are rare in the whole scheme of things. If the percentage of Canadians who slip through the cracks is equal to the percentage of Americans who don't have coverage and can't pay for care, then we'd consider our medical system a total an utter failure. It's all relative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


You are either ignorant of the facts, or you are lying. We get tons of Canadians here to take advantage of our health care just to avoid the ridiculous long waits for some procedures under your "wonderful" system of socialized medicine. Here, we don't have those silly restrictions caused by a government run enterprise trying to be all things to all people, and failing miserably.
post #736 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

Actually, you are ignorant of the facts.

It is rare for Canadians to go to the US for medical procedures. The ridiculous long waits you refer to are uncommon. A few years ago, I tore my pec major right off my humerus while weight lifting. The next day, I was in to see one of the top 3 shoulder specialists in the province. Within a week, I was in surgery to have it reattached... Oh, and I didn't pay a cent for this outside of my monthly $55 contribution to our "socialist medical system".

Recently, my dad was experiencing heart problems. After a diagnosis that indicated he needed 6 bypasses for his heart (his life wasn't in immediate danger), he was in the hospital and got his surgery within a month. Again, he didn't pay an extra cent outside of his regular contributions.

What good is it to have a great health care system with immediate service when you can't afford to pay for it? That's is a serious question. You may be lucky to have health care coverage through work or be wealthy enough to pay for your services but too large a percentage of Americans don't and would NEVER get the care they need.

Our system is not perfect by any means. However, we ALL have coverage, even if it means we sometimes have to wait a bit longer. Yes, there are those who don't want to wait and have the money to pay for their services. They go to the US not because we don't have the ability to treat these people here in Canada. It's because we don't allow it... because here in Canada, we try to consider that a poor person's life is just as valuable as a wealthy person's life. When it comes to the health of our citizens, everyone has to get in line and just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you get to leap-frog those who are not. So to get around our rules, these people choose to go to the US where the rules don't apply.

Only had to wait a month............

It's obvious that the concept of going in for the surgery immediately, is totally foreign to you. BTW, we get thousands of Canadians here every winter, and they tell a a different story than you do. They would love to be able to pat]y for needed care, but as you pointed out, your government, in their infinite wisdom has forbidden that. So much for freedom, eh.
post #737 of 1350
I'm not saying a month is fast, but at least he got the care he needed. Under rare situations, people can still pay for immediate care if they don't want to wait... by paying for it in the US just like Americans do. The difference is, the vast majority of us don't have to. I think it's a good thing that our government doesn't allow people with more money pay for faster care. It sets a dangerous precedent and could end up making our system like that in the US. You forget that for the vast majority of Canadians, our system works, albeit not without flaws. However, in a country with a population of over 33 million, not everyone's going to be happy with waiting a bit longer. The "thousands" you refer to is a drop in the bucket, and as I said, they can still pay for their care... in the US like you Americans do.

Of those thousands, what percentage HAD NO CHOICE but to go to the US for treatment and what percent just didn't want to wait? And for your information, if it's a proven procedure that had to be done immediately and for some reason, couldn't be done in Canada, OUR HEALTH CARE STILL PAYS FOR IT, flight and all!

Ask any Canadian if they spend any time worrying that one day, they will be seriously ill or injured and will have to choose between going bankrupt versus keeping his/her life. As much as we like to complain that our system is flawed, I challenge you to find a Canadian who would choose to have the American system over the Canadian system.

So you're still not answering my question. What good is immediate care when you can't afford to pay for it?

Americans like you love to use the word freedom, as if only Americans have true freedom. Freedom where only the people who can afford it isn't freedom... not for everyone anyway. I challenge you to show how you as an American is TRULY more free than I am as a Canadian. I'm all for being patriotic but blind patriotism is frightening. The difference between you and me is that I love my country but accept and question its flaws. The way you talk, it's as if you don't believe flaws in the US even exist. I suspect that's how you guys ended up in the mess you're in now.

... and since we're in this thread about gay marriage. I, as a gay Canadian have the freedom to marry another man (when I meet him) one day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Only had to wait a month............

It's obvious that the concept of going in for the surgery immediately, is totally foreign to you. BTW, we get thousands of Canadians here every winter, and they tell a a different story than you do. They would love to be able to pat]y for needed care, but as you pointed out, your government, in their infinite wisdom has forbidden that. So much for freedom, eh.
post #738 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

99% of this diarrhetic diatribe spews incoherent trains of thought to nowhere, other than a world of stark contrast and no varying levels in-between. Besides the mentally stunted uneducable the Cliff Notes on the Civil War was also particularly myopic.

I hope you can speak more independently than the keyboardist ranting about the fear mongers propping up Socialism and up with Tyranny mantras. The man writes as if he's got a Plantation to maintain but no sharecroppers to help make it possible.

Anyone who thinks that any one political party has a patent on Greed is a toothless Neanderthal. The same person who is proclaiming these Greed mongers as cave dwelling Neanderthals wreaks of being an envious Curmudgeon longing for their own solitary, hermitic lifestyle to become the norm. Abuse of language is too common in this world. The fact that even most English speaking individuals don't know the nuances of their own language may be to blame.

It really is sad that the historical attention spans of each generation's citizenry doesn't extend more than roughly 50 years prior to their birthing, if that. Greed knows no political party affiliation. It twists the arms of both sides, equally.

I accept your compliments.

My "Cliff Notes" assessment of the Civil War was accurate. The existence in perpetuity of slavery in the existing slave states was handed to them on a silver platter by the original 13th amendment, but that wasn't good enough: nothing but extension of slavery by "the vote of the people" in each new state would do. Then, after the war, they dreamed up all this Jeffersonian crap about "states' rights" and "no taxation for internal improvements" to make their Lost Cause sound a little better.

You are the one arguing for a "solitary, hermitic lifestyle." I believe we, as social animals, live in a society, where the welfare of all is (or should be) the concern of all. The Aryan Nations compound society you favor, where whoever has the most guns rules, while anybody who doesn't want to suck their dick can just go and live in a hollow tree and eat bark, is the logical extension of the Republican economic philosophy.

Individual greed may know no party affiliation, but the consistent platform plank that the rich should and deserve to get richer, while the poor deserve to get poorer, because, after all, they're not rich, and therefore beneath notice, does.

I'm waiting for someone who keeps arguing for "democracy" when it comes to limiting someone else's freedoms, to explain how it is "democratic" that a Democratic presidential candidate could get a unanimous vote in all the blue states, and 50% minus one in all the red states (that is, about 83/17) and still lose the election! I would like to read any reasonable arguments on that. Of course, I'd like to see a unicorn, too--and one's about as likely as the other.
post #739 of 1350
Just a couple of quotes I stumbled across since we've seemed to wander off from same-sex marriage to socialism.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.
post #740 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

I'm not saying a month is fast, but at least he got the care he needed. Under rare situations, people can still pay for immediate care if they don't want to wait... by paying for it in the US just like Americans do.

How much do you have to pay for immediate care? On my health plan I pay an extra $30 to go to the ER rather than schedule a Dr's appointment and I have one of the cheapest plans my company offers. Also, once I've paid that extra $30 that's the end of it. If I need surgery or any other kind of immediate treatment it's covered the same as it would be otherwise.

As for your dad with the sextuple bypass - I'm glad he's doing well (or so your post made it seem) but my godfather was in a very similar situation and had a quadruple bypass done in a matter of a couple of days. Personally, life threatening or not, if you're talking about bypass surgery on your heart it's a pretty big deal to me.

Basically, I wouldn't trade my health care system for yours.
post #741 of 1350
I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.

You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?

My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?

It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.

What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

How much do you have to pay for immediate care? On my health plan I pay an extra $30 to go to the ER rather than schedule a Dr's appointment and I have one of the cheapest plans my company offers. Also, once I've paid that extra $30 that's the end of it. If I need surgery or any other kind of immediate treatment it's covered the same as it would be otherwise.

As for your dad with the sextuple bypass - I'm glad he's doing well (or so your post made it seem) but my godfather was in a very similar situation and had a quadruple bypass done in a matter of a couple of days. Personally, life threatening or not, if you're talking about bypass surgery on your heart it's a pretty big deal to me.

Basically, I wouldn't trade my health care system for yours.
post #742 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Just a couple of quotes I stumbled across since we've seemed to wander off from same-sex marriage to socialism.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.

Yeah, the then-leader of the American Communist Party had an audience with Lenin once, and Lenin noticed him shuffling and writing on a stack of 3 x 5 cards, and asked him what he was doing.

"Well, I know your time is valuable, and I've only got so much of it, so I wrote the points I wanted to discuss with you on one card apiece, and now I'm writing the result of our discussions on the backs."

Lenin was so taken by this that he said Russians would only achieve true Communism when they learned to use 3 x 5 cards. (Kind of reminds me of "the Internet will bring true democracy.")

I guess my point is: people say stupid things--film at 11!
post #743 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.

You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?

My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?

It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.

What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?

One of the biggest problems with the American health-care "system" is that an unconscionable proportion of its time and resources are wasted on treatments that can only charitably be described as experimental. (Charitable because if they were truly experimental, they would have been abandoned as failures long ago, but when you can continue charging patients or their insurance companies millions of dollars to have these "atrocious experiments" performed on them, they never will be.)

I speak as someone who has seen several family members murdered by cancer "treatments" that had been demonstrated to be ineffective years before, but were extremely lucrative. I understand doctors' reluctance to admit that there is nothing they can do for a given condition, but wasting billions of dollars annually and inflicting immeasurable suffering on their patients with failed experiments is not the answer.

P.S.: Every time I post to this thread, I have to re-unsubscribe from it, and then when I do, it dumps me back at page one. Is anybody else experiencing these grotesque glitches?
post #744 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear1az View Post

One liberals idea is not always the same as someone else's. That is why we have the Bible to teach us what is right.

I've got a newsflash for you: not all Christians agree either. There's a whole load of them who aren't Creationist, for instance. And there's plenty who don't have a problem with homosexuality, and a subset of them who don't mind homosexual marriage.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #745 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Yeah, the then-leader of the American Communist Party had an audience with Lenin once, and Lenin noticed him shuffling and writing on a stack of 3 x 5 cards, and asked him what he was doing.

"Well, I know your time is valuable, and I've only got so much of it, so I wrote the points I wanted to discuss with you on one card apiece, and now I'm writing the result of our discussions on the backs."

Lenin was so taken by this that he said Russians would only achieve true Communism when they learned to use 3 x 5 cards. (Kind of reminds me of "the Internet will bring true democracy.")

I guess my point is: people say stupid things--film at 11!

You think either of those is stupid? They seem quite spot on to me and do reflect what Kruschev was hoping for. And Norman Thomas had it 100% right, Americans will never accept socialism branded as socialiasm but when you throw out words like liberalism or "change" (without bothering to say exactly what kind of change you're talking about) people are far more likely to jump on that bandwagon.

Also, before I get some people going crazy, George W. Bush ran on a platform of "change" in 2000 so running on the platform of "change" is anything but a new concept.
post #746 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

One of the biggest problems with the American health-care "system" is that an unconscionable proportion of its time and resources are wasted on treatments that can only charitably be described as experimental. (Charitable because if they were truly experimental, they would have been abandoned as failures long ago, but when you can continue charging patients or their insurance companies millions of dollars to have these "atrocious experiments" performed on them, they never will be.)

I speak as someone who has seen several family members murdered by cancer "treatments" that had been demonstrated to be ineffective years before, but were extremely lucrative. I understand doctors' reluctance to admit that there is nothing they can do for a given condition, but wasting billions of dollars annually and inflicting immeasurable suffering on their patients with failed experiments is not the answer.

P.S.: Every time I post to this thread, I have to re-unsubscribe from it, and then when I do, it dumps me back at page one. Is anybody else experiencing these grotesque glitches?

So you'd rather they just not bother to try something, anything that might possibly help? I've lost family members to cancer as well so I'm not just being callous here I'm being serious. Those clinical trials often times have very, very low success rates and I do truly feel for those that had hope and that hope didn't come to fruition but if the doctors learned something from one of my relatives passing away that can eventually save hundreds (if not thousands +) then I'm ok with that. They did the best they could (and yes, I say that with a very heavy heart).
post #747 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

I appreciate what you're saying but you kinda make my point.

You're one of the people lucky enough to be with a company that offers good coverage. My point is that there are millions of Americans who are not so lucky. So no wonder you'd choose your system. What if you didn't work for the company that you work for? What if you were self employed?

My point is that despite it's flaws, the Canadian system covers 100% of Canadians. It may be a bit slower but, for the most part, we all are taken care of and we don't worry about it. Can you say that about 100% of Americans? You are right, YOU don't have to worry about it (assuming you remain at your current company). God forbid you get laid off and find that you have cancer or something. What would you do then? What do the Americans who are not so fortunate do?

It can't always be "my situation is great so who cares about the rest". I'm not saying that you feel this way but this is the difference between the American system and the Canadian one. It is also the attitude I see when it comes to the gay marriage debate here. As I said in an earlier post, yes, majority rules in a democracy. But if that's all that matters, then who would ever speak up for the minority? This is, I believe, the foundation of Canadian society. This is why we have global health care and why we have gay marriage.

What's the point of living in a society, a community, if all you care about is yourself?

Actually, if you don't have a dime you can walk into any hospital and they will cover you and give you whatever treatment is needed. By law no hospital is allowed to refuse a patient regardless of their state of insurance. Does being unemployed and not having health insurance suck? Well of course it does, I don't think you'd find anyone who thinks otherwise. I'd also like to find some way to get everyone health insurance but at the same time there are 10's of millions of Americans that CHOOSE not to have health insurance, they have enough money to have health insurance they just choose not to (I think that's crazy as well!). I don't think you're going to find any sane person that doesn't want all to be covered but there are much, much better ways to go about that than mandating gov't sponsored health insurance.

I don't like McCain's plan all that well either as it would tax whatever my company is paying for my insurance but with 5k you can easily get insurance and I think allowing the people to decide what's best for them is better than a "one plan fits all" premise.
post #748 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

So you'd rather they just not bother to try something, anything that might possibly help? I've lost family memebers to cancer as well so I'm not just being callous here I'm being serious. Those clinical trials often times have very, very low success rates and I do truly feel for those that had hope and that hope didn't come to fruition but if the doctors learned something from one of my relatives passing away that can eventually save hundreds (if not thousands +) then I'm ok with that. They did the best they could (and yes, I say that with a very heavy heart).

Perhaps cancer wasn't the best example (although I know from observation that there's a lot of beating of dead horses going on there.) My main point is, let's stop people dying from treatable illnesses because they don't have medical insurance before we spend millions and millions of dollars doing multiple organ transplants that might keep some 75-year-old alive a year longer.
post #749 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Perhaps cancer wasn't the best example (although I know from observation that there's a lot of beating of dead horses going on there.) My main point is, let's stop people dying from treatable illnesses because they don't have medical insurance before we spend millions and millions of dollars doing multiple organ transplants that might keep some 75-year-old alive a year longer.

well yeah, I'm with ya 100% on that one. I think they should be dumping massive money into the top killers and stop wasting so much freakin money on crap like Viagra. Yeah, great, it helps some old people enjoy their lives more then they are 70+. Great, that's awesome that some old dude can get a hard on and we have hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people dying from Malaria every single year since we decided to, effectively, ban DDT...
post #750 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Actually, if you don't have a dime you can walk into any hospital and they will cover you and give you whatever treatment is needed. By law no hospital is allowed to refuse a patient regardless of their state of insurance.

Actually this isn't remotely true. Leaving aside the fact that by the time somebody goes into the ER to try and get some help, it's often too late, all that means is that they will be shuffled around until they reach the one hospital in the area that is "required" to treat everyone.

I used to work at Seattle's example of the latter: Harborview. Everything was loaded into that one antique facility, and they did incredible, cutting-edge work: the Northwest Trauma Center, the Northwest Burn Center, Medic One (EMTs in vans on call 24/7? They invented that!) Heaven help you, though, if you went in there for a routine appendectomy!

On a somewhat related note, people would be helicoptered in from five states, landed at the helipad, and then had to be driven around the corner in a very expensive ambulance. Capitalism in action! Then when Reagan got in, they added a new wrinkle: if some lumberjack got injured far enough up in the mountains that Airlift's Agustas couldn't get to them, they'd be lifted out by an Army Huey from Fort Lewis, dropped in a schoolyard somewhere so Airlift could pick them up, and then airlifted to Harborview. Why? Because if the Army took them the whole way, they'd be interfering with the "right" of private enterprise to make a profit even though they couldn't actually perform the service needed!

If you can come up with an abuse of "Socialized Medicine" that can compare with this example of "Capitalized (?) Medicine" I'd like to hear it.
post #751 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

really? I guess you two deserve each other then...

...based on the current polls, more people agree with those statements than not. Hate to burst your bubble. The Republican party has used fear, ignorance and hatred to drive voters. Their failed policies have left America broke, desperate and divided. As a political pundit and corresponder with CNN, I have witnessed more division and emotional discourse than any other election. Just this afternoon the Federal Gov't broke up a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill 102 African-Americans. Found during the raid of dozens of skinheads were not just illegals fire-arms, but McCain pamphlets as well as anti-Semitic and anti-African-American and homophobic paraphernalia. Nice. This is Anti-American. Keep the hate and ignorance alive. America has become a politically divided nation, and a divided nation is a conquered nation. It would behoove some on AppleInsider to focus that anger towards better, positive outlets. Work in a soup kitchen, build homes for Habitats for Humanity, work in the Peace Corps. It's easy to hate, and that hatred will simply tear you apart.
Psst, there's a war in Darfur...
Reply
Psst, there's a war in Darfur...
Reply
post #752 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJD2112 View Post

...based on the current polls, more people agree with those statements than not. Hate to burst your bubble. The Republican party has used fear, ignorance and hatred to drive voters. Their failed policies have left America broke, desperate and divided. As a political pundit and corresponder with CNN, I have witnessed more division and emotional discourse than any other election. Just this afternoon the Federal Gov't broke up a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill 102 African-Americans. Found during the raid of dozens of skinheads were not just illegals fire-arms, but McCain pamphlets as well as anti-Semitic and anti-African-American and homophobic paraphernalia. Nice. This is Anti-American. Keep the hate and ignorance alive. America has become a politically divided nation, and a divided nation is a conquered nation. It would behoove some on AppleInsider to focus that anger towards better, positive outlets. Work in a soup kitchen, build homes for Habitats for Humanity, work in the Peace Corps. It's easy to hate, and that hatred will simply tear you apart.

And you know what started this whole division? Time had a pretty interesting piece a little while ago about how Bill Clinton and Newt Gengrich were about to fix Social Security and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing came about, ever since then America has been divided. Also, since I'm sure you didn't bother to watch it, 60 minutes opened with a pretty lengthy piece on how we got into this financial crisis and, shock of shocks, it started with Clinton's administration.

And no, you're just totally making up crap to say the polls support you. Please, please point me to a poll that asks people if they are ok with America adopting socialist practices. I will guarantee you most do not agree with that and they never will.

As far as those 2 dumbasses wanting to kill BO - yeah, umm, you do know we've had bat-shit-crazy people in this country for a long time right? In fact there's been just as many instances of people on the other side wanting to kill white people so stop acting like crazy people are all on one side of the aisle or belong to only one race (that would, in fact, make you a racist...).

And, while you're at it, take your own advice and stop hating, it "will simply tear you apart."
post #753 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Actually this isn't remotely true.

Actually it's 100% true. That's part of the reason premiums are so high in America is because the uninsured walk into hospitals and, again, by law they have to be treated and then somebody has to foot the bill and it's not going to be the uninsured poor person with no job...
post #754 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

really? I guess you two deserve each other then...

Sheesh...
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #755 of 1350
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts

It's far worse than most people realize

by Brian Camenker


Anyone who thinks that same-sex marriage is a benign eccentricity which wont affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. Its become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex marriage. Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools

The homosexual marriage onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex marriage in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be marrying their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage how it is now a normal part of society was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,' she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA a parent of a kindergartner strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, King and King, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is legal, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now different kinds of families. School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered inappropriate behavior.

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled Courting Equality into every school library in the state.

Its become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex spouses and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are married to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

Gay days in schools are considered necessary to fight intolerance which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days. They celebrate homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating homophobia is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health

The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is married to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that its wonderful being gay and he wants to make sure theres enough HIV testing available for all of them.

Since homosexual marriage became legal the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.

Citing the right to marry as one of the important challenges in a place where its a great time to be gay, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives tips to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to safely have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence

Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business

All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex married couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.

Businesses must recognize same-sex married couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

Businesses are often tested for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient equality now that homosexual marriage is legal. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession

The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.

Issues regarding homosexual families are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual married couples

Homosexual married couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men married to each other as their Parents of the Year. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the babys birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates

In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.

Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have Party A and Party B instead of husband and wife. Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)

Since homosexual relationships are now officially normal, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual married couples in the coverage.
The public square

Since gay marriage, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane Dyke March through downtown Boston, and recently a transgender parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could become men. Governor Patrick even marched with his out lesbian 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a leather group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media

Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual married couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Its equal, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.

A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly married homosexuals who march in the gay pride parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?

Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex marriage is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to take such action as it may deem appropriate. Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans judicial review a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion

Homosexual marriage hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And its only just begun.

Its pretty clear that the homosexual movements obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and marriage as we know it isnt something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globes marriage section hasnt had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/m...ts_of_ssm.html
post #756 of 1350
If a conservative activist writes an article about it, it must be true.

Wikipedia:

In November 2005, Carmenker appeared on a Daily Show piece by reporter Ed Helms. It was rebroadcast on the February 7, 2008 episode.[3] In the interview, Camenker was asked if Massachusetts was worse off after the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

Ed Helms: So the quality of life has decreased?
Brian Camenker: Yeah.
Ed Helms: Homelessness gone up?
Brian Camenker: I could, you know...
Ed Helms: Crime rates?
Brian Camenker: Crime rates?
Ed Helms: Air quality?
Brian Camenker: I mean, let me put it this way, I could, if, I could sit here, and I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage, to all of these, if I had enough time, and I did some research.
Ed Helms (voice-over): Yeah! Why take time to do the research, when saying it is so much faster!
post #757 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

And you know what started this whole division? Time had a pretty interesting piece a little while ago about how Bill Clinton and Newt Gengrich were about to fix Social Security and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing came about, ever since then America has been divided. Also, since I'm sure you didn't bother to watch it, 60 minutes opened with a pretty lengthy piece on how we got into this financial crisis and, shock of shocks, it started with Clinton's administration.

And no, you're just totally making up crap to say the polls support you. Please, please point me to a poll that asks people if they are ok with America adopting socialist practices. I will guarantee you most do not agree with that and they never will.

As far as those 2 dumbasses wanting to kill BO - yeah, umm, you do know we've had bat-shit-crazy people in this country for a long time right? In fact there's been just as many instances of people on the other side wanting to kill white people so stop acting like crazy people are all on one side of the aisle or belong to only one race (that would, in fact, make you a racist...).

And, while you're at it, take your own advice and stop hating, it "will simply tear you apart."

Wow... just... wow. You have some serious anger issues. I wouldn't even know where to begin with you other than I wish you well.
Psst, there's a war in Darfur...
Reply
Psst, there's a war in Darfur...
Reply
post #758 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerned Mom View Post

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts

It's far worse than most people realize

by Brian Camenker etc etc etc etc etc etc ...

What a load of over dramatic sensationalist fear mongering codswallop! In the words of Ernest Gaines: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
post #759 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

What a load of over dramatic sensationalist fear mongering codswallop! In the words of Ernest Gaines: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"


She is correct, what you gays really want in an in your face way to annoy the rest of us. Self serving perverts, we do not want your sexuality on public display.
post #760 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

She is correct, what you gays really want in an in your face way to annoy the rest of us. Self serving perverts, we do not want your sexuality on public display.

Are you gay?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle