If you are a taxpayer this could turn into a Rant.... This ticks me off big time

[Oldman]

If this does not tick you off then you never have paid taxes in your life.
A Very Late Checkout

Please feel free to express yourself concerning this *cough* peckerhead<---My personal take on what looks like should be an adult male.

Olds

[Habanero Smoker]

There are just some that are beyond help :(

[TomG]

Are we ranting about one person(God forbid) taking advantage of a system run by corrupt, incompetent appointed political hacks doling out billions of dollars in corporate wellfare or Mr.Johnson's choice of movies? ::)

[iceman]

Man oh Man Old's that whole thing is way wrong. Sounds like our whole system needs a kick in the behind. ???

[Habanero Smoker]

Are we ranting about one person(God forbid) taking advantage of a system run by corrupt, incompetent appointed political hacks doling out billions of dollars in corporate wellfare or Mr.Johnson's choice of movies? ::)

Are you suggesting that everyone take advantage of that ???

[TomG]

Are you suggesting that everyone take advantage of that ???

Nope! I just hate to see my tax dollars being wasted on renting bad movies, when they could be spent keeping the Senate in session debating the merits of a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. 8)

[Oldman]

when they could be spent keeping the Senate in session debating the merits of a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages.

I agree. Over on the KoV site on a private board there is a real back and forth over this amendment.  I stayed out of it until last night. However, I just could not abide with the statement that marriage was based on religion. As such the government had no business in considering a religious matter. Not that I want jack my own thread, but I will post below my reply on that thread.

This is the original statement that caused me to post my reply.

Either view point still doesn't justify it becoming an admendment to the constitution. The bible defines that not the government. Religon does not belong in government. This proposed amendment does not belong.

My reply:

I'm not going to get to deep into this thread, but Pinger brings up a note that is personal with me.
QUOTE 
Currently, there is a tax penalty for being married. 

When I go to retire, Susan and I will divorce. Why? So we each can draw our full SS benefits that we have paid for our entire lives. If we stay married then we can only draw on one or the other. In our case by divorcing we will add another 24-28K to our retirement that we have paid for. Gay folks don't have that problem as they are not married.

I won't get into what I earn, but would it be fair to Susan who between School teaching and the company she is paying taxes on 115K per year on her income and yet not receive the same return as a gay person? No way.

As far as marriage being born from religions that is a weak statement. My grandparents on my Mother's side had an "Arranged Marriage." Believe me religion had nothing to do with it.


Consider:
In the 1500's there appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses.

It is very hard to be able to establish a true date on the first marriages although the Old Testament in the Bible does mention a little about marriage as it was considered a family and household affair. In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

Now what I find interesting is in the New Testament of the Bible is the notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). In simple terms St. Paul used for an example a formal union that is not even mentioned in the Old Testament.

Consider wedding rings
There is no mention in the Bible of betrothal finger-rings; but, in Genesis xli. 42, a ring is mentioned as a token of fidelity or friendship, and, in Luke xv. 22, of adoption. In fact the first culture to use a ring in forming a union was heathen. Not Christan. Its beginnings lie in the deserts of North Africa, where the ancient Egyptian civilization sprang up. It became a symbol of eternity for the Egyptians as well as many other ancient cultures as it had no beginning and no end.

Therefore it is not difficult to see how the ring and the gift of a ring began to be associated with love, in the hope that this most worthy of emotions could take on the characteristics of the circle and capture eternity.

My point here is simple. Both marriage and wedding rings were adopted later by the Christian Church. They were not created by the Christian Church.

I do think if someone walk up to a married atheist and told him his marriage and wedding rings were based upon Christian values that person would more than likely get B-Slapped.

So I suggest that we take religion out of this subject and just get down to brass tacks. The first marriages were NON-Christian, agnostic, nonreligious unions between Men and Women. The first use of rings in a marriage were NON-Christian, agnostic, nonreligious unions between Men and Women.

Anyone can twist this all they want, but facts are facts.

It is for these aforementioned reasons I believe we need a federal amendment to insure if nothing else that the history of marriage, the reason for its creation be preserved.

Olds

(Oops I guess I got a little more into this thread than I originally planned on.)

Oh well back to bad movies....

[TomG]

Gotcha!! You the man Olds  ;D

Keep it clean my friend

[manxman]

Not just in the US do you get such things, this story is the current one here in the UK making the news...... protecting some thugs "human rights".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389413&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

And this one regarding an 8 year old year injured in an RTA equally says a lot about society nowadays:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389417&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

[winemakers]

Do we believe all government is evil because some individuals milk the system?  Does government screw up everything they touch? A resounding yes to that one!  However, I will add that what comprises government is (are) people that we have put there and therefore, we as individuals are ultimately responsible.  Horrific mistakes along the gulf coast/New Orleans were committed by government (read people you and I are responsible for) that cost money, damage, and lives.  However, has the general population considered what a monumental success the evacuation of New Orleans was?  Consider moving into the heart of the closest major city to you and now move 70-80% of the people to safety under cover of storms and near panic, and oh yeah, everyone has heard this before and the weatherman is always wrong.

Some of the failures were terrible and appropriate punishment should be swift and exacting.  Other mammoth successes will never be acknowledged because we expect big things from our military/police/fire rescue.  As an engineer who has done damage assessment in the gulf coast and New Orleans, I could (am) rant on endlessly about stupid things I saw, and how could this have been allowed, but I will also take the time to talk about things I saw that were right.  The people who helped their neighbors, friends, and strangers deserve that.

My father taught us to be respectful of the people around us for many reasons, not the least of which was that without those people around you, you may find yourself doing their job one day.  Having spent time with the Gulfport Police, I for one am thankful that there are people willing to do that job.  I sure don't want to.

wow, way to political for the second cup of coffee at this hour of the am.

respectfully,
mld

[Habanero Smoker]

Winemakers;

I agree with most of what you said and you make some good points, but get I frustrated when someone uses the pronoun "we" to make a political point. Democracy is great, but one man - one vote system can end up as 51% of the population leaving in a democratic society, while 49% live in tyranny. I understand this is an extreme example (or maybe not :-\), but my point is I voted for the other guys :)

[Oldman]

manxman,

Thanks for the links. Both were troubling stories. Something I would expect to hear over on this side of the pond.

Does government screw up everything they touch? A resounding yes to that one!

Given my current contracts I can say that biggest problem I have seen is the lack of accountable. In one situation it took a (government) facility manager 15 months before a contract was issued to maintain an item that has a 15 year non-prorated warranty.  A warranty that has specification that were not being met. It was only after "legal" ruled that an item must be maintained to specification in order to maintain the warranty that the ball started to roll.  Even then it took much work on the facility manager's part to get contracting to issue a contract (like 7 more months.)

The contract is one year with 4 renewal years. Now I will bet you a dollar to a dime now that the facility manager has retired that next year March they will not renew 3rd year. Why? Because there is no accountability. There is no one to say: "Hey we need to renew the contract."

When I first started working 5 years ago for the government, I was told something close to this:  The US Government is the largest company we have and it is run by lawyers, and business managers who could not make it in the real world.

I have seen little to disprove this statement.

Hab makes a good point with his statement of one person one vote.  However, the problem is greater than that.  When was the last time we elected someone to run this country that was a farmer?  I believe it was 1976.  My point is "we" as a people really don't have a choice. When the few times we do, we seem to take the dazzle over the honest.

Olds

[manxman]

run by lawyers, and business managers who could not make it in the real world.

That is so true Olds, no matter which side of the pond you are on! For example it is true of the UK Health Service to name but one!

This joke that was emailed to me today is in a similar vein and sadly sums up the attitute of many people nowadays..... the world owes them a living with no effort required!

A guy walks into the local welfare office for his monthly cheque.

He marches straight up to the counter and says, "Hi. You know, I just HATE
coming in here drawing welfare month after month. I'd really much rather have
a job".

The social worker behind the counter says, "Your timing is excellent. We
just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a
chauffeur-bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter.

You'll have to drive around in his Mercedes, but he'll supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours, meals will be provided.

You'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips.

You'll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage.

The starting salary is $200,000 a year."

The guy says, "You're bullshi**ing me!"

The social worker says, "yeah well, you started it"

Funny though. However the social worker would probably be disciplined in this day and age and the "victim" would receive counselling and £££/$$$ for harassment and discrimination!!

[iceman]

Accountability??? What's that? I didn't see any, did you? You guys have got it right on the money about all this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's nice to hear what others think.

[Phone Guy]

 :-X