Roger L. Simon:
Am I the only one or have you noticed your liberal friends and family have been strangely silent lately?
I tweeted as much Friday and, given the number of retweets in a matter of minutes, I gather I am not alone.
So why are these normally voluble people suddenly doing a disappearing act? (I’m not talking about the politicians and pundits. They’re being paid to move their mouths.) It’s pretty obvious.
They are bewildered and embarrassed. Some are even ashamed of themselves, not that they will readily admit it. The man who was their hero has now been unmasked in every direction as the worst president since the Civil War and possibly earlier. Not only is he a cheesy liar, everything he has done, domestic and foreign, has failed, sometimes to extraordinary degrees. The domestic part is bad enough, but at least that might be reparable. The foreign is another matter. The world is spinning out of control. Who knows where that will end?
Hence, the silence.
Easter and Passover celebrations will be a little easier for those on the right this year. We won’t have to listen to as much stultifying palaver about global warming, income inequality, etc. Some, of course, but not enough, I suspect, to ruin our dinners.
Unfortunately, however, we have nothing to gloat about. Our liberal friends have left us with a pile of dung the size of the Horsehead Nebula. Digging out will be a titanic undertaking, especially in the aforementioned area of foreign affairs. Ironically, Republicans have been jumping up and down about the inept Affordable Care Act, but the real problems left by the Obama administration will be global. You don’t easily roll back an Iranian nuclear weapon or regain respect for America as the global leader when it is being dissed in nearly ever corner of the planet. (See Bret Stephens’ excellent column on the subject.) Just as nature abhors a vacuum, global leadership abdicated rapidly finds a replacement – usually a worse one. (Rand Paul and followers take note.)
@George Wells:40
What state do you live in? I don’t believe that about Confederate flags, I live in Louisiana and I haven’t seen a confederate flag in years. I lived in SC for many years also and even though they still fly the Confederate flag on the capitol grounds, I never saw one anywhere else, even though it is part of the history of the south and should not be a target of racism.
This seems to imply that there is more racism in the South than other places. I suggest you do a little travel in the US outside the south and you’ll see some real racism.
I suggested that progress in gay movements wasn’t finished? My suggestion is that they haven’t started yet. Right now, the gays are being played for political gain, once that is neutralized, you’ll find out how the liberals really feel about gays that emerge from the closets. Gay people have always had a right to live together, I don’t see how that’s been changed.
#41
What a truly strange statement. Let me see if I have that clear. You’re not convinced that pot is a problem. It may be. But you are sure booze is extremely destructive, but it’s not clear if pot is quite that destructive, but since one destructive drug (alcohol) is legal, what the hell, just make all the likely destructive drugs legal. That about sum it up?
If it’s all about tax money, how does that square with not selling tobacco on military installations?
#42
You’re in fantasyland. If you told that 55% of the people that they had been selected to have a same sex partner
to be married to, how many do you think would say, ‘all righty’, makes no difference to me, it’s all the same, man or woman and after all I did “claim to be ‘for it’ ” . So, I’m gonna suggest that they were just saying it didn’t matter to them who people lived in the house down the street with, but don’t expect them to invite someone of the same sex to move in with them.
I am just thrilled that you see that as ‘progress’. That means that you can fool some of the people all of the time. How many of those 17 states could you live with a same sex partner 11 years ago? I would guess about 17. So what has changed?
You didn’t understand that example? Jeff Gordon is not gay. Someone posted a false news story that he had come out of the closet. All hell broke loose. Had he been within shooting distance when he found out who did it, he might have shot him. Now if a person ‘thinks’ it is okie dokie to be gay, why do they get so excited when a rumor surfaces that they are gay? Just pick, at random, any straight person that you are friends with and that you know has said he supports gays in their movement, then insinuate to him confidentially that you suspect that he really is gay. See how long he remains your friend and what he will say about gays from that point forward. Progress? LOL.
@Nanny G:
I understand completely. First we have comments from a GLBT supporter:
“My post on Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, was prompted by at least three people on different social networks thinking I wanted Mozilla to fire the guy. This way, I can make my argument in full and clarify my own view without having to go back and forth with someone who can’t separate me from the other ten people he’s talked to.
I don’t support the position that someone should be fired for holding a bad opinion. People need to be free to air their dumb ideas so we can have an open, honest discussion about them. No one should be made to suffer for having an opinion, even if that opinion is really stupid.”
Nothing like creating creative dialog between opposites by telling your opponent their ideas are “bad,dumb, stupid” Yeah, that makes everyone want to listen to an opposing view.
Then there is this:
“Another Week, Another Silly Gay Nontroversy
Posted by V the K at 10:01 pm – March 31, 2014.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness
The CEO of Mozilla holds a politically incorrect opinion on gay marriage. Since Mozilla produces the Firefox browser, the gay left … in their usual perfectly reasonable way … wants you to know that if you use Firefox, you’re morally equivalent to Josef Mengele. Possibly worse. Probably worse, in fact.
Matchmaking website OKCupid wants its users to boycott Firefox; and gives this histrionic explanation.
If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal… Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
Is there any evidence Mr. Eich wants gay relationships illegal or gay people to be miserable? Of course not, this is just the usual gay-left drama queen victimhood and bullying twofer.
Seriously, we would all be better off if these people would just grow the hell up.”
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/03/31/another-week-another-silly-gay-nontroversy/
Needless to say, although the most popular gay conservative web site in the nation, you will find no comments from George there agreeing with the commentator. No surprise there. I doubt that George has any desire to seek out gay conservative web sites although he claims to hold certain “conservative” views.
The “tolerant” left is not so tolerant. They will smear, tear, degrade and destroy anyone who doesn’t buy into their goals. You don’t have to be a baker, a florist or a bed and breakfast owner to feel their intolerance. Just disagree with them. You have two choices; support their agenda or be destroyed by any means possible. So a brilliant man, who donated a mere $1,000.00 to a cause 6 years ago was destroyed and the cowardly web site that started the petition against him has since taken that petition down. Destruction achieved.
@Redteam #51:
“What state do you live in? I don’t believe that about Confederate flags”
They are a common sight here in Virginia, most frequently seen on the back sliding window of pickup trucks, or across the tailgate. (Frequently a set of bright blue, rubber testicles can be seen hanging from the trailer hitches of the same trucks.) And I didn’t mean to imply that racism doesn’t exist elsewhere or that it is worse here in Virginia. I only mean to suggest that the amount of it here today, 150 years after the Civil War and 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, leads me to believe that it will still be around 200 years from now. You think it won’t?
“I suggested that progress in gay movements wasn’t finished? My suggestion is that they haven’t started yet.”
I got that that is what you were saying. I guess that we just see progress differently. Gays are now allowed in the military – they weren’t before. That’s progress. The SCOTUS has found in favor of gay rights in SEVERAL historic decisions. That’s progress. The fact that people are even talking about gay rights is progress. Whether or not Jeff Gordon is gay and his reaction to that suggestion is not the only measure of progress on gay rights.
” I’m not convinced that pot is a problem. Maybe it is, but everything I have seen leads to the conclusion that pot isn’t anywhere near as destructive as booze.
What a truly strange statement. Let me see if I have that clear. You’re not convinced that pot is a problem. It may be. But you are sure booze is extremely destructive, but it’s not clear if pot is quite that destructive, but since one destructive drug (alcohol) is legal, what the hell, just make all the likely destructive drugs legal. That about sum it up?”
I stand by what I said. What you said isn’t what I said, so, “NO”, that doesn’t “sum it up.”
“You’re in fantasyland. If you told that 55% of the people that they had been selected to have a same sex partner
to be married to, how many do you think would say, ‘all righty’, makes no difference to me, it’s all the same, man or woman and after all I did “claim to be ‘for it’ ””
Fantasyland???? You make an absurd proposition and have the gall to call ANYTHING fantasy?
In ten years, gay marriage will be the law of the land. That is my prediction. At the rate public sentiment is evolving on the issue, it is likely to come much sooner. If you think that your hysterical denial of this progress will change ANYTHING, be my guest. I’m filing my federal taxes as “married,” and that’s progress.
@George Wells:
Wow, what an argument!. So if I understand you, it is okay to legalize shooting someone as long as the number shot remains under the number of drunks that fall out of windows. That about sum it up? #48
Why did they put ‘gays’ in a category by themselves? Here you’re telling us that they are the same as everyone else, but for discussion sake, they have to be discussed as a ‘class’? How strange.
So you’ve limited your exploration of sources of condemnation to exclude Muslims and the Koran? So since you don’t consult that source, the very worst condemnation of gays is Christians. I’ll bet I could locate several sources equal to Christianity or actually even more so. Even some everyday Americans that don’t even go to church.
That’s because when someone goes on their sites to rattle their cages they just send over a hit squad. Cuts way down on arguments. Those that remain see things ‘their’ way. Is it any wonder?
but boy, he sure got what he deserved.
And if you kept your mouth shut about your feelings, nothing would change and being gay wouldn’t be an issue. Got it. Or is it that gays have a right to free speech but anti gays don’t.
Anti-gays shouldn’t have a job? hmmmm…….
@George Wells:
Of course it will still be here, just as in the rest of the world. remember it’s me claiming gays have made NO progress.
I was in the military in the 1950s and there were gays there at that time. When, in history, have the military services been 100% gayless?
Name one SCOTUS decision that is limited to gay rights only and not constitutional rights. None come to mind, tho I’ve not studied that issue.
I’ll agree, if you had the opinion that I expressed it would at least make sense. Your opinion to just legalize everything less destructive than alcohol makes no sense at all..
Absurd? aren’t you the one that said 55% of the people are ‘for’ gay marriage? So you meant they think it is okay for all those queer folks but not for them? So are they ‘for it’ or not? If I am for ice cream for a snack, that means if someone gives me ice cream, I’ll be happy. If I was ‘for’ gay marriage, that would mean if I were in a gay marriage I would be okay with it. So letting gays shack up is not quite the same as being ‘for gay marriage’.
would you point out the ‘hysteria’ part? Do you really think that continuing to allow you to shack up legally is gonna make gays more eager to come out of the closet?
@Redteam #54:
” Here you’re telling us that they (gays) are the same as everyone else”
I have never said that and you know it. Find it and post it – embarrass me if you can. But you can’t.
All you can do is draw absurd inferences from my comments and then ask “Does that sum it up?”
It never does.
“Or is it that gays have a right to free speech but anti gays don’t.”
I guess you didn’t notice where I said that Eich had a right to free speech:
#46: “I wouldn’t want people in high places to have to surrender their free-speech rights to keep their jobs.”
#48: ““You will demand your right to free speech but refuse to honor those rights for others.”
Not at all. He had every right, as I said.”
How many times do you need to be told?
@George Wells:
People have been filing federal taxes as married for many years, I don’t think that’s progressive. But then income taxes have always been the progressives ways to redistribute the wealth. Real progress will be when we don’t have to file federal tax returns.
@Redteam #55:
Maybe in the morning you’ll make some sense.
Now get some sleep – you need it.
@George Wells: At least you surrender when it’s obvious you’ve lost.
@Redteam #59:
I continue to be baffled by your Jeff Gordon example. It reminds me of the white man who says that he isn’t racially prejudiced – that he is fine with Blacks so long as his daughter doesn’t marry one. That people feel that way doesn’t mean that Blacks have made no progress in their quest for civil rights. It simply points to the fact that discrimination is part of the human condition and won’t ever be eliminated.
The same is true with gays. Not all people will be thrilled about working with or living near gay people, just like some people cannot stand to be around red-haired people or folks from the Philippines.
Your Jeff Gordon example DOES point to the fact that that the animus directed toward homosexuals and the stigma associated with BEING homosexual is still very real and pervasive.
Your absurd claim – that gays have made NO progress in their quest for equality – DOES encourage me to work harder to make MORE progress toward eradicating that bias. As long as people like you see nothing wrong with discriminating against gays in every walk of life, and as long as people use the Bible to justify the persecution of gays, we will continue to take the fight for equal rights to every place that you can hide.
Only when the discrimination that YOU so eloquently demonstrate is finally eliminated will the fight end. THAT would be the so-called “End-Game of Gay Marriage” that you were asking about months ago.
We’re in this for the long haul. Hope you didn’t have anything planned for next Saturday.
Yet note that Obama and Eich agreed with one another until 2012.
Yet Obama was NOT pilloried by Liberals.
Apparently Ali Abunimah got to the heart of it in 2007 when he met Obama and Obama admitted he lies all the time for expediency’s sake.
Israel was the example he used.
But gays apparently also believed Obama would get around to them when he could no matter how deep he was pulling the wool over the eyes of potential voters.
Thus no backlash.
Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org has quit as Mozilla’s CEO, forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot measure against gay marriage. There’s no record of Eich discriminating against gay employees—“I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” says the company’s chairwoman, Mitchell Baker. In fact, last week, Eich pledged,
I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.
You will see exemplary behavior from me toward everyone in our community, no matter who they are; and the same toward all those whom we hope will join, and for those who use our products. Mozilla’s inclusive health benefits policies will not regress in any way. And I will not tolerate behavior among community members that violates our Community Participation Guidelines or (for employees) our inclusive and non-discriminatory employment policies.
But that wasn’t enough. A revolt among Mozilla staffers, compounded by pressure from software developers, outrage on Twitter and a boycott movement spearheaded by OkCupid, has driven Eich out. Baker, having accepted Eich’s resignation, offers this apology: “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”
Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. If you organize the data by company, you can add up the total number of donors and dollars that came from people associated with that company.
The first thing you’ll notice, if you search for Eich, is that he’s the only Mozilla employee who gave to the campaign for Prop 8. His $1,000 was more than canceled out by three Mozilla employees who donated to the other side.
The next thing you’ll notice is that other companies, including other tech firms, substantially outscored Mozilla in pro-Prop 8 contributions attributed to their employees. That includes Adobe, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and Yahoo, as well as Disney, DreamWorks, Gap, and Warner Bros.
Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.
Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.single.html
The article goes on to list all the companies whose employees donated to support Prop 8. Of course, the author of this bit of tyranny goes on to say that he hasn’t listed all the companies whose employees opposed Prop 8. (how convenient to prevent blow back against those companies) And of course, the article starts with a photograph of a Prop 8 opponent with a sign and giving the middle finger to a Mormon church (stay classy, queers).
So here is your chance to speak out against tyranny, George. I will be waiting, and watching, for you to respond to the author regarding such tactics being advanced by the gay community.
@Nanny G:
Read the Slate article. The war is on. If you do not agree with the homosexual community, you will be trashed and they will go after your job. It is no longer limited to bakers who don’t want to create a wedding cake and deliver it to a reception for a same-sex marriage.
How is this not tyranny? How is this any different than any other oppressive movement? How are these tactics any different than the KKK?
So Slate doesn’t publish the names of the companies whose employees opposed Prop 8 with their donation dollars and that, Slate thinks, will prevent a blow back from Christian conservatives? I think not. This is what George gives tacit approval to with his silence on these blogs and sites where he could voice his opposition to this kind of fascism.
The really odd thing? While George, et al, screams how homosexuals want to be able to legally marry, the actual numbers of those who have taken advantage of same-sex marriage legalization where they can, doesn’t support that meme.
How true.
In CA, where gays can marry there are disease-spreading orgies instead.
In Palm Springs a few weeks ago, several gays gathered for one.
Now about a dozen of them have mennengitus and one is dead.
I wonder if they enjoyed the party enough to justify that high cost?
Yet liberal silence.
And on a feminism point let’s pile on.
Among the 16 metropolitan areas with more than 50,000 people working in computing, what percent of employees are MALES vs females?
Here’s the chart:
http://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/screen-shot-2014-04-03-at-7-39-00-am.png?w=773&h=909
The lowest percent of male workers is 70%.
Seattle, a liberal bastion, has 78.3% males over females working in tech.
Yet not one word from liberals about sexual discrimination!
@Nanny G:
Brendan Eichs is a hero. He could have caved to the homosexual lobby’s demands and tell them he has had a “change” of heart, or “evolved” like Obama. And kept his job. Instead, he resigned due to the pressure brought on him by homosexual tyrants. How are those homosexuals any different than any other tyrant? Their not. Even Andrew Sullivan has a problem with what happened and how it happened.
Eichs was NOT about homosexuals being able to legal marry. It is about power. The power to force people to not just exhibit tolerance, but to demand complete acceptance of their decadent behavior. The homosexual movement is not called the Pink Mafia for no reason.
@Nanny G #65:
As a “liberal” who worked in the chemical industry, I have first-hand experience with the problem of disproportionate employment of women in technical industries. Hoechst Celanese had “targets” for female employment that were virtually impossible to meet. There weren’t even enough UNQUALIFIED women to fill openings, and when unqualified women WERE hired, they inevitably failed to advance for the obvious reasons. White managers took hits at evaluation time for not having the target gender profile in their group, but there was no remedy. Whether it was because of cultural bias or gender-related vocational preference, women simply didn’t flock to the sciences.
I abhor gender discrimination as much as I abhor any other unwarranted bias, and I denounce it wherever it occurs. That said, I cannot categorically condemn every instance where women are not represented in the work force in the same proportion as their distribution in the population.
You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
@Nanny G #61:
“Yet Obama was NOT pilloried by Liberals.”
Oh, but he was. The gay community was steamed that he had made “conciliatory” remarks to us, but failed to deliver during his first term. We were told that he would not jeopardize his chances for a second term by taking an aggressive position on gay issues, and the gay community really had no where else to go. The Republican candidates didn’t support us, that’s for sure. But Obama was getting a lot of pressure on the inside. “Pilloried?” No, because the gay community couldn’t risk damaging its best hope for eventual “evolving” on gay marriage, and that DID come. Quid pro quo.
@retire05 #62:
“So here is your chance to speak out against tyranny, George.”
That “tyranny” you referred to was an exercise of free speech, and I think that you would want that protected.
I already said that I was saddened by Eich’s resignation, as I was NOT offended by his insignificant contribution six years ago and don’t think that it deserves any attention. He DID make conciliatory remarks about his company’s gay-friendly policies, and that should have been enough. Had he left his personal attitudes about gay marriage to himself (as you seem to want me to do) then this would not have blown up in his face. But he did speak publically on the subject, and some of his enemies IN MOZILLA used that indiscretion to pressure him to resign. Hoping that they were smelling blood, gay activists pounced for a kill, much like Republicans pounced and pounced and pounced again on Hillary over Benghazi, hoping to kill her chances in 2016. That’s how politics works. This isn’t THE GOOD SHIP LOLLYPOP.
@retire05 #63:
“The really odd thing? While George, et al, screams how homosexuals want to be able to legally marry, the actual numbers of those who have taken advantage of same-sex marriage legalization where they can, doesn’t support that meme.”
You just can’t get it through your thick skull that I am not, as Kraken likes to suggest, a “clone of the collective.” I speak for myself, not others, and my actions ARE consistent with my rhetoric. I got married to my partner of 38 years a year ago, shortly after gay marriage was legalized by popular referendum in Maryland.
The really odd thing? That marriage among heterosexuals has been declining for way longer than homosexuals have even been DREAMING about it. One has to wonder why y’all are making such a fuss about keeping to yourselves something that you’re evidently losing interest in.
@George Wells:
Burning a cross near a black person’s home is also an exercise of free speech. Do you also support that action?
He spoke of his own personal view. Not the policy of his company. But now the line is drawn. If you speak personally, you will be connected to your job because homosexuals are too stupid, or too militant, to understand the difference between personal and professional.
And just who can we thank for that? Liberals, with their lax divorce laws, government playing baby daddy, years of not making absentee fathers pay for their children’s support, the movement to remove all signs of religion from the public square, the “if it feels good, do it” bunch that are accountable to no one, not even themselves. Yes, George, you can thank those you vote for for the destruction of the American family.
So I guess if someone ever burns a cross near enough to your house that you know the cross is meant for you, I guess you will just brush it off as their “freedom of speech”, right?
The blow back will come, and when it does you will not like it nor will all those CEO types who are homosexual.
@George Wells: 60
this sentence, your last in that quote, pretty well sums it up: ” It simply points to the fact that discrimination is part of the human condition and won’t ever be eliminated.” Wont ever be eliminated? and yet you feel that you’re making progress just because the Dims are catering (playing you for a fool) to get your vote? It makes it even worse, actually, that you don’t seem to even realize that the ‘progress’ is ‘playing you’. In the Jeff Gordon case, let’s say that if you asked him, he’d say “hey, we’re all equal, what’s the big deal? ‘ but then THE (false) story broke that ‘outed’ him and he was not so thrilled. Then you know that he was saying his ‘go along-all equal’ spiel because it is ‘politically’ correct, not because someone had made some ‘progress’ in getting him to make gays equal.
This is the sentence that baffles me:
That you see someone ‘giving’ lip service-no pun intended-to be progress, just mystifies me. How much better off are you because of lip service than you were before? Doesn’t that actually count as regression since they now see you as someone that is thrilled that someone is paying them lip service while giving nothing and getting your votes for nothing. Maybe my definition of Progress is not right. I’m of the impression that it means ‘improvement’ not hindrance in pursuit of your objective.
As long as gays are as easily fooled as you seem to be, no one is gonna give in to you, they don’t have to, they can get what they want from you with just ‘words’.
@retire05 # 71:
“Burning a cross near a black person’s home is also an exercise of free speech. Do you also support that action?”
No.
Because:
“In Virginia v. Black the SCOTUS found that Virginia’s statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but that cross burning done with an intent to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence.” Placing a burning cross near a Black person’s home would constitute intimidation with associated threat of impending violence and thus would not be considered a protected exercise of free speech.
@George Wells:
I’m quite sure that everyone is aware that it was likely a black person that placed the burning cross near anyone’s house. The intent is to stir up hatred against the whites in the area. Works well.
@Redteam #73:
” How much better off are you because of lip service than you were before? ”
Much better. My husband and I are covered under a “married” provision in our auto insurance, saving about $400 annually. And as I noted before, I am also getting my health insurance through his Federal employment, providing significant savings. You think that the benefits of marriage are imaginary, but I can already take these financial benefits to the bank, and they pale when compared to the death tax benefits we will gain when one of us dies.
@George Wells:
enlighten me George. I’ve been married for well over 50 years and I am not aware of one single ‘death tax benefit’ that I will get as a result of it.
I would not have auto insurance with a company that penalized me for not being married. Must be a gay run company that has you fooled.
My wife and I have identical health insurance and each is exactly the same as it would be if we were not married. Someone has been fooling you for a long time. I’m gonna guess that it’s some gay guy that wants to benefit from playing the ‘gay card’. All this time he’s been charging you extra because you’re gay and you thought it was just a gay tax you had to pay.
Oh, and one further question about this:
I hope that doesn’t mean you are looking forward to receiving that benefit. Surely it was not an ‘incentive’ to get married.
@Redteam #74:
You can add “conspiracy theorist” to your resume.
The Virginia v. Black case got to the SCOTUS only because a defendant WHO ACKNOWLEDGED PLACING THE BURNING CROSS was appealing a lower court conviction that was based on Virginia’s anti-cross-burning statute. Your speculation is moot.
@Redteam #76:
“enlighten me George. I’ve been married for well over 50 years and I am not aware of one single ‘death tax benefit’ that I will get as a result of it.”
Did you not get what the Windsor case was about? The IRS socked Windsor with a $300,000+ estate tax when her wife died because DOMA disallowed her from taking the so-called “marital deduction”. That was the whole reason SCOTUS threw out DOMA Part 2. Now, you have to have enough of an estate to qualify for being taxed in the first place, and maybe you don’t. We do. You asked.
@George Wells:
Are you sure it wasn’t a Black? Did you see the name of the case? not conspiracist, maybe a ‘realist’.
@George Wells:
Why would I care about that? The government will not get one dime as a result of either my wife or I dying. I know too much about money management to allow that to happen and it doesn’t have anything at all to do with marriage. You think Bill Gates is gonna pay a heavy tax if his wife dies? LOL, no way.
I suggest you find a money manager, you obviously need assistance in that area.