Jacob Bell

Jacob Bell

Joined: February 1st, 2007, 1:28 am

May 11th, 2012, 4:06 am #1

What no comments on the fact this guy just scooped up 65K and walked? I know Mike Brown posts here as an imposter...I'm waiting to here how you just got burned in a poker game Mikey.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 14th, 2001, 1:34 am

May 11th, 2012, 11:14 am #2

No one here cares about the Bengals anymore

------------------------------------------
In Memory of Dunn4QB
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 1st, 2007, 1:28 am

May 11th, 2012, 8:54 pm #3

Sorry, forgot Storm...how about Gay Marriage? What are your thoughts? How about that?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 25th, 2007, 12:30 am

May 12th, 2012, 12:56 am #4

What no comments on the fact this guy just scooped up 65K and walked? I know Mike Brown posts here as an imposter...I'm waiting to here how you just got burned in a poker game Mikey.
At least now when I search for references of "bell-cow" on Bengals.com I won't pull up 500 mentions of Jacob Bell, which surely would have happened had he stayed on. LOL

The Bungs collecting guard prospects like crazy may have had something to do with his decision.
_______________________________________
" Bell-cow quarterbacks are like queen bees. Only one can take you to the land of milk and honey."
~ What Mike Brown never quite said, but should have.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 14th, 2001, 1:34 am

May 12th, 2012, 11:27 am #5

I'm against heterosexual marriage as well as gay marriage, not sure why the state has to sponsor a relationship

------------------------------------------
In Memory of Dunn4QB
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 27th, 2001, 6:12 pm

May 12th, 2012, 4:32 pm #6

That's the most intelligent thing that's ever been posted here.

Mikey is cleverer than you think.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 16th, 2001, 8:14 am

May 12th, 2012, 6:39 pm #7

Storm,

I 100% agree.

All off this would never have been an issue had the government stayed out of marriage in the first place.
Coincidentally, if the issue comes before the Supreme Court, the #1 issue that may decide its fate - Tax Breaks for married folks.

Yup. That issue alone has the capability to strike down any marriage law on the books.

Why you might ask?

#1. Well, Because the marriage tax break is a "Federal State benefit". And pursuant to the equal protection clause of the Constitution, you cannot arbitrarily deny one person a state benefit and give it to another person. The issue is further darkened by the success (or lack there of) of marriage anyway. Most places have a about a 50 - 60% marriage success ratio. Hardly a reason to cite to. Divorce laws alone (in all 50 states) strike that one down anyway.

#2. Further , The US Supreme Court ruled Loving v. Virginia that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals and one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. After Loving, marriage is deemed a fundamental freedom protected by the constitution, and states cannot deny an individual of this basic right without an extraordinary reason. If its not a good enough reason for a state to prohibit someone from getting married because he committed a crime or failed to pay child support, then its probably not going to happen if the person is gay.

When Loving is coupled with the tax break issue, I simply cannot see what argument the Supremes could use to prevent gays from marrying.

The slippery slope arguments wont work, because the only argument put forward is that two consenting adults be allowed to marry. All of the garbage about marrying dogs (thank you, Dick Santorum) and polygamy (thank you crazy right wing Mormons) is hogwash. No one is advancing that argument.

Personally, I feel the goverment should stay out of marriage all together. You want a tax break? Apply for it. You want succession rights and property rights? Contract for it or create a will. You want hospital deathbed rights? Contract for it. Put it in a power of attorney. All couples should do this anyway when they are wed. You dont even need a lawyer for it in most instances (many places have self-halp law forms that have Power of Attorney that enable you to designate someone as the person to make life/death/medical/legal decisions for you should you become incapacitated).

"Insert witty quotation here"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 23rd, 2007, 3:59 am

May 12th, 2012, 7:38 pm #8

Bell should have stayed on. He was pre-Bungalized, would have fit in perfect.*

*I do think they've built a hungrier team than in years past, but I'm not dropping the Bungalization jokes until I see sustained success. They've earned every one of them imo.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 25th, 2007, 12:30 am

May 12th, 2012, 9:05 pm #9

Storm,

I 100% agree.

All off this would never have been an issue had the government stayed out of marriage in the first place.
Coincidentally, if the issue comes before the Supreme Court, the #1 issue that may decide its fate - Tax Breaks for married folks.

Yup. That issue alone has the capability to strike down any marriage law on the books.

Why you might ask?

#1. Well, Because the marriage tax break is a "Federal State benefit". And pursuant to the equal protection clause of the Constitution, you cannot arbitrarily deny one person a state benefit and give it to another person. The issue is further darkened by the success (or lack there of) of marriage anyway. Most places have a about a 50 - 60% marriage success ratio. Hardly a reason to cite to. Divorce laws alone (in all 50 states) strike that one down anyway.

#2. Further , The US Supreme Court ruled Loving v. Virginia that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals and one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. After Loving, marriage is deemed a fundamental freedom protected by the constitution, and states cannot deny an individual of this basic right without an extraordinary reason. If its not a good enough reason for a state to prohibit someone from getting married because he committed a crime or failed to pay child support, then its probably not going to happen if the person is gay.

When Loving is coupled with the tax break issue, I simply cannot see what argument the Supremes could use to prevent gays from marrying.

The slippery slope arguments wont work, because the only argument put forward is that two consenting adults be allowed to marry. All of the garbage about marrying dogs (thank you, Dick Santorum) and polygamy (thank you crazy right wing Mormons) is hogwash. No one is advancing that argument.

Personally, I feel the goverment should stay out of marriage all together. You want a tax break? Apply for it. You want succession rights and property rights? Contract for it or create a will. You want hospital deathbed rights? Contract for it. Put it in a power of attorney. All couples should do this anyway when they are wed. You dont even need a lawyer for it in most instances (many places have self-halp law forms that have Power of Attorney that enable you to designate someone as the person to make life/death/medical/legal decisions for you should you become incapacitated).

"Insert witty quotation here"
You might say that this thread qualifies as a "switch hitter," alternating between two topics as it does. It also seems fitting that on the gay marriage topic, Storm and Bronco have come completely out of the closet. As anarcho-libertarians!! Not that there's anything wrong with that!!!

Seriously -- if the a civil marriage is a contractual obligation, then the government should be involved to enforce the contract. Beyond that... yeah, they should stay out of it.

Anyway, I'm sure I can vouch for Theydey as we welcome you to the side of light and truth.
_______________________________________
" Bell-cow quarterbacks are like queen bees. Only one can take you to the land of milk and honey."
~ What Mike Brown never quite said, but should have.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 31st, 2004, 5:40 pm

May 12th, 2012, 11:28 pm #10

Storm,

I 100% agree.

All off this would never have been an issue had the government stayed out of marriage in the first place.
Coincidentally, if the issue comes before the Supreme Court, the #1 issue that may decide its fate - Tax Breaks for married folks.

Yup. That issue alone has the capability to strike down any marriage law on the books.

Why you might ask?

#1. Well, Because the marriage tax break is a "Federal State benefit". And pursuant to the equal protection clause of the Constitution, you cannot arbitrarily deny one person a state benefit and give it to another person. The issue is further darkened by the success (or lack there of) of marriage anyway. Most places have a about a 50 - 60% marriage success ratio. Hardly a reason to cite to. Divorce laws alone (in all 50 states) strike that one down anyway.

#2. Further , The US Supreme Court ruled Loving v. Virginia that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals and one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. After Loving, marriage is deemed a fundamental freedom protected by the constitution, and states cannot deny an individual of this basic right without an extraordinary reason. If its not a good enough reason for a state to prohibit someone from getting married because he committed a crime or failed to pay child support, then its probably not going to happen if the person is gay.

When Loving is coupled with the tax break issue, I simply cannot see what argument the Supremes could use to prevent gays from marrying.

The slippery slope arguments wont work, because the only argument put forward is that two consenting adults be allowed to marry. All of the garbage about marrying dogs (thank you, Dick Santorum) and polygamy (thank you crazy right wing Mormons) is hogwash. No one is advancing that argument.

Personally, I feel the goverment should stay out of marriage all together. You want a tax break? Apply for it. You want succession rights and property rights? Contract for it or create a will. You want hospital deathbed rights? Contract for it. Put it in a power of attorney. All couples should do this anyway when they are wed. You dont even need a lawyer for it in most instances (many places have self-halp law forms that have Power of Attorney that enable you to designate someone as the person to make life/death/medical/legal decisions for you should you become incapacitated).

"Insert witty quotation here"
"#1. Well, Because the marriage tax break is a "Federal State benefit". And pursuant to the equal protection clause of the Constitution, you cannot arbitrarily deny one person a state benefit and give it to another person."

-The Bronco

So I assume you are against all minority tax breaks. Tax breaks for using minority owned companies etc..? lol
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: