<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return  

Jacob Bell

May 10 2012 at 9:06 PM
No score for this post

uscthree  (Login uscthree)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
from IP address 76.89.161.99

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.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

Storm
(Login stormincincy)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
208.102.97.227

Re: Jacob Bell

No score for this post
May 11 2012, 4:14 AM 

No one here cares about the Bengals anymore

------------------------------------------
In Memory of Dunn4QB
[linked image]

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

uscthree
(Login uscthree)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
76.89.161.99

Re: Jacob Bell

No score for this post
May 11 2012, 1:54 PM 

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

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   


(Login psychostats)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
107.10.83.42

Re: Jacob Bell

No score for this post
May 11 2012, 5:56 PM 

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.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Storrm
(Login stormincincy)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
208.102.97.227

USC

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 4:27 AM 

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

------------------------------------------
In Memory of Dunn4QB
[linked image]

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

TOBB
(Login Bengal_Boy)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
67.142.162.20

Storm

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 9:32 AM 

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

Mikey is cleverer than you think.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

bronco
(Login broncobux)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
24.234.30.172

Re: Storm

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 11:39 AM 

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"

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Synonymous Bengal
(Login CIN-C-STAR)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
67.221.117.180

Re: Storm

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 12:38 PM 

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.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   


(Login psychostats)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
107.10.83.42

Re: Storm

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 2:05 PM 

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. happy.gif

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Homey
(Login HomerSaysDoh)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
74.215.241.55

Re: Storm

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 4:28 PM 

"#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

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

OldSchooler
(Login oldschoolerfan)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
98.238.185.194

One of the many reasons

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 6:31 PM 

Why I can't be Republican:

Abortion and Marriage issues should NOT be a government issue. They should be personal. Everyone should have the right to be married. Everyone should have the right to have an abortion.

Heterosexual Marriage Right: "But it lessens the marriage we have."


Why the f*ck does it? I never have understood this biblical argument. What a bunch of horsesh*t.

No it doesn't. But you're letting it. Why?

And why did this issue come up in this thread? LOL





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Storm
(Login stormincincy)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
208.102.97.227

Re: One of the many reasons

No score for this post
May 12 2012, 7:52 PM 

Is Jacob Bell married?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

uscthree
(Login uscthree)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
76.91.70.253

Basic History of the Institution

No score for this post
May 13 2012, 9:14 PM 

It is true that marriage imposes legal restrictions. It takes away rights that individuals/singles might otherwise have. Yet gay marriage advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled. They argue against a ban on gay marriage but marriage has for friggn centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Jacob Bell
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return