I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

1153615371539154115421828

Comments

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013
  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013

    Well just off the top of my head.....this man THINKS ( means to me he hasn't investigated it fully ) that his wife won't get the care she needs  with Obamacare.  Second....technically he didn't say HE was going to shoot Pres. Obama, but putting totally inflamatory comments on the Internet or anywhere else for that matter such as he made are just asking for trouble.

    And last but not least.....the page is now gone.  Is he not standing behind what he wrote.........if not, then perhaps before he said such cruel, deragotory, inflamatory remarks....perhaps he should have done some investigation and found out just where things REALLY stand.  We all get mad, upset, frustrated....but to put such hateful, disgusting remarks out there for the world to see,ones which dirrectly reference the President.......he should hang his head in shame.  Compelety un-called for imho.

    Jackie

  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013

    I think FB took it down.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited August 2013

    YEAH GG - and the effect is CUMULATIVE  - you'll keep feeling better & better.

    This comes under the heading of IT'S ABOUT TIME

    I.R.S. to Recognize All Gay Marriages, Regardless of State  New York Times


    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    A supporter of same sex-marriage outside the Supreme Court in Washington in 2012.  The Treasury Department's ruling applies to all legal marriages made in the United States or foreign countries.

    By ANNIE LOWREY

    Published: August 29, 2013

    WASHINGTON — All legally married same-sex couples will be recognized for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether the state where they live recognizes the marriage, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday.

    The federal rules change is one of many stemming from the landmark Supreme Court decision in June that struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. That ruling found that same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits, but left open the question of how the federal government would actually administer those benefits.

    “Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote at the time of the decision. “May they file a joint federal income tax return? Does the answer turn on where they were married or where they live?”

    As of the 2013 tax year, same-sex spouses cannot file federal tax returns as if they were single. Instead, they will have to opt for filing as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately.” The location of their marriage — as long as it is legal — or residence does not matter: a same-sex couple who marry in Albany and move to Alabama will be treated the same as a same-sex couple who marry and live in Massachusetts.

    “Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax-filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide,” Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said in a statement. “This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”

    The Treasury said that the ruling applies to “all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an I.R.A., and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.”

    The ruling applies to all legal marriages made in the United States or foreign countries. But it does not extend to civil unions, registered domestic partnerships or other legal relationships, the Treasury said. Same-sex spouses will be able to file as married couples for the 2013 tax year, the Treasury said, and will also be able to file amended returns for certain prior tax years, meaning that many couples might be eligible for refunds.

     



     
  • gardengumby
    gardengumby Member Posts: 7,305
    edited August 2013

    It's so terribly unfortunate that so many people actually believe the drivel that comes out of the mouths of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc.  I've read reams of statements complaining the Mr. Obama is a liar - yet at the same time believing every blessed thing that is ever stated by someone on Faux News.  Both FOX and MSNBC should be taken off the air.  Then maybe - maybe - eventually some type of sanity might begin to take a toe hold. 

    It used to be that journalists actually researched a story.  They were held to a high standard.  But no more.  The most insane person in the world can sit down in front of their computer and become a "professional" blogger.  And people will read and believe what they want to read and believe.  The two channels mentioned above do nothing to calm things down, they both (and yes, I do think that one of them is worse than the other, but they are both highly partisan and repeat "stuff" that is not necessarily true) fan the flames rather than attempting to bring people together. 

  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013

    GG...some good truths in what your saying. 

    I love the new avatar......which I hope is really new but I admit I could have been preoccupied and missing it for awhile.....if so, pardon my blunder.

    Jackie

  • gardengumby
    gardengumby Member Posts: 7,305
    edited August 2013

    Thanks, Jackie.  Yes, it is new.  Someone said my old one looked like a fuzzy nipple, so I figured it was time for the dandelion to go.

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013

    I'm friends with Paris Jackson on FB and she wrote a really insightful post today.  So much pain at such a young age.  Just breaks my heart!

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013

    Living on the edge!

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013

    Today's funny!

  • RetiredLibby
    RetiredLibby Member Posts: 1,992
    edited August 2013

    The racist wingnut who wrote that revolting post about President was a former cop and should have known better. Local law enforcement actually alerted the Secret Service to the post. Marsters was called to the local police station and interviewed by the Secret Service as well as the local PD. The Secret Service also reportedly searched his house, which means they went before a Federal judge and asked for a Federal search warrant - which the judge granted based on credible evidence that this guy represented a threat to the President ( Marsters is an avowed gun nut). The Secret Service will present the information they gathered to the local U.S. Attorney, who will determine if there is enough evidence to charge him. Moral of the story - threatening the life of the President of the United States IS a Federal case. And I don't give a rat's patootie if he is allegedly "afraid" his health care or his wife's health car will go away - curiously, he never said that until the Secret Service came calling. It is pretty clear he is simply a loudmouthed, unashamed, unabashed racist. I hope the USA charges him.



    L

  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013

    RL....thanks for the fill in on the yo-yo retired ( feelings it seems of not only entitlement but grandeur ) retired law officer.  I was searching for info but the Bing ( something I think I accidentally invited ) that is now a part of my Internet searches was giving me some fits.  I did not get as far as you though I did see a couple of "news" interviews. 

    I'm like you....I think the Obamacare issue is just a smokescreen for being a bad-ass.  May he get as good as he was attempting to give....only I hope his REALLY works out.

    Jackie

  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013
  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013
  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013
  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013
  • crazy4carrots
    crazy4carrots Member Posts: 5,324
    edited August 2013

    Faux Noise "medical expert" says women should pay more for their healthcare because they have breasts and ovaries.  Good grief!

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/29/fox-news-expert-dr-david-samadi-says-that-women-should-pay-more-for-healthcare-because-they-have-breasts-video/

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013

    I read that C4C!  Nuts I tell ya!

    My heroes!

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013
  • Enjoyful
    Enjoyful Member Posts: 3,591
    edited August 2013

    Well, women are a tad more likely to get pregnant than men are, and pregnancy costs money.  Women are more likely to use healthcare when they're ill than men are, but of course by the time men go to the doctor they probably end up costing more because they waited too long.

    On the other hand, men are more likely (1 in 6) to contract prostate cancer than women are to contract breast cancer.  But testicular cancer is rare, only 1 in 270 while ovarian cancer is 1 in 72.

    But smokers are more likely to get cancer, so should they pay more?  Or how about people who rely on fast food?  Or those who engage in dangerous activities?  Or older vs younger people?  If "they" want to sort people out by health risks, they need to consider everything, not just something as crude as gender.

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013

    Enjoyful, BENGHAZI!

  • Enjoyful
    Enjoyful Member Posts: 3,591
    edited August 2013

    Crap!  How do I keep forgetting about that??

  • crazy4carrots
    crazy4carrots Member Posts: 5,324
    edited August 2013

    In our universal health system, every once in a while an issue comes up -- most often, the smoking and lung cancer issue -- and whether or not those who supposedly abuse their bodies and subsequently get sick and require healthcare should be entitled to receive it.  Canadians are essentially egalitarian and the issue is shot down, only to rise again when a few folks -- who are the "screw you, I've got mine" types -- make a fuss.

     Healthcare costs are continually rising, and there is a great deal of research and effort going into how these costs can be controlled.  Preventive care (which is included in your ACA) has proven to be one effective way.  Catch a little problem before it becomes a big, expensive problem.  Teach patients how to properly care for themselves and their children.  Of course nutrition plays a major role in this, but when your healthiest foods are also your most expensive, and certain of your congresscritters either reject upping the minimum wage, or else want to get rid of it altogether, then Houston, you've got a problem.

    There is loads of research which prove beyond a doubt that poverty is the biggest factor in poor health.  It's also the biggest factor in the tendency towards criminal behaviour, but that's an issue for another day.......

  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited August 2013
  • IllinoisLady
    IllinoisLady Member Posts: 29,082
    edited August 2013

    About the health care thing:

Categories