NorthSideSox72 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Less households and urban sprawl? Is the chair against the wall? Does John have a long mustache? What are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 MONKEY PICKED OOLONG TEA Price reflects 2oz (25-30 teaspoons per 2oz) $25.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) Edited December 8, 2011 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) 1) How exactly does society benefit from two people being married instead of single? 2) With the divorce rate what it is, if there really is a societal benefit to being married, the tax breaks don't seem to be enough of an incentive. Married workers tend to take less sick days, invest more, own homes, have higher incomes, are more involved in their communities, commit less crimes, to name just a few. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) The theory that I have read is along this line: gays are saying, if we can't marry, then no one can marry. Eliminate the institute of marriage. Just trying to add some clarity. There is a segment of the gay population that does in fact support this concept. I may or may not be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) There is a segment of the gay population that does in fact support this concept. I may or may not be one of them. There is a segment of the straight population that does in fact support this concept. I may or may not be one of them. I tend to prefer it to what we have today in most states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 libertarians are big on removing the government from marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) libertarians are big on removing the government from marriage. I support equality. Either all consenting adults should be allowed to marry, or no consenting adults should be allowed to marry. I think I'm ok with both options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 this thread is a disgrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 03:53 PM) I support equality. Either all consenting adults should be allowed to marry, or no consenting adults should be allowed to marry. I think I'm ok with both options. If you would agree that people could participate in a non government sanctioned marriage ceremony or similar event to mark their union, I'll join you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 04:21 AM) If you would agree that people could participate in a non government sanctioned marriage ceremony or similar event to mark their union, I'll join you. I don't see what would stop them. A wedding is just a particular kind of social gathering/party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 09:21 PM) If you would agree that people could participate in a non government sanctioned marriage ceremony or similar event to mark their union, I'll join you. No one can stop that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:21 PM) If you would agree that people could participate in a non government sanctioned marriage ceremony or similar event to mark their union, I'll join you. Oh absolutely. After all anyone can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 So, it's Mitt vs. another Non-Mitt in a Repub. debate tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 02:57 PM) So, it's Mitt vs. another Non-Mitt in a Repub. debate tonight. who will win?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 04:12 PM) who will win?! America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 03:16 PM) America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Newt is crushing Romney in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Anyone want to place a $10k bet about whether or not that's a good debate strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2011 Author Share Posted December 11, 2011 Really though, how often will a President have to debate? I'm wondering if it is that good of a tool to use in evaluating candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Really though, how often will a President have to debate? I'm wondering if it is that good of a tool to use in evaluating candidates. What in the nominating process is a good tool to evaluate candidates? Does a candidate who visits every county in Iowa have an advantage in deciding whether to launch a risky military venture to kill public enemy number 1? Does the guy who raises the most money have an advantage on handling the economy, or is he or she just more likely to sell out in order to raise funds for the next campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) Anyone want to place a $10k bet about whether or not that's a good debate strategy? oh man, that was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2011 Author Share Posted December 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) What in the nominating process is a good tool to evaluate candidates? What indeed? I'll toss this out there. The candidates vision for America the world and the likelihood they have the tools to get somewhere down that road. No candidate will accomplish all they want to as President. If they can get three or four middle level policies going, that's a pretty good term. So look at what the campaign puts out, decide if you share that vision. I'm just tossing that out as a start. My idea was to focus not on any one candidate. I understand there are some holes in the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) What indeed? I'll toss this out there. The candidates vision for America the world and the likelihood they have the tools to get somewhere down that road. No candidate will accomplish all they want to as President. If they can get three or four middle level policies going, that's a pretty good term. So look at what the campaign puts out, decide if you share that vision. I'm just tossing that out as a start. My idea was to focus not on any one candidate. I understand there are some holes in the idea. The wierd thing is, that doesn't necessarily tell you anything. Give you an example. The Obama campaign came down hard on the fact that Hillary Clinton's health care plan concept included an individual mandate. That was probably the biggest difference between their 2 campaign concepts. Once in office, we saw how that worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) oh man, that was bad. What10kbuys is now trending on the Twitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts