BaseJester 1 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The problem is that girls can get married at shockingly young ages if their parents consent.If that's the problem, then we can address the problem by changing the rules about parental consent. I.e., if a 50 year old man divorces his wife to marry a 14-year old girl, is that OK? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 If that's the problem, then we can address the problem by changing the rules about parental consent.I'm basically in agreement that bigamy should be legal if all parties are consenting adults. I was just mentioning one of the current problems with the (illegal) practice of it in this country. I.e., if a 50 year old man divorces his wife to marry a 14-year old girl, is that OK?Well, no. Morally, no (we probably all agree on that). But I believe that in some states that could legally happen if the girl's parents okayed it. Why is him getting divorced relevant though? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The problem is that girls can get married at shockingly young ages if their parents consent. So at age 15 a girl might have the choice of marrying a man 3x her age or running away from her insular community and everyone and everything she's ever known. Seriously though, you can get around statutory rape by marrying the girl. I feel like there's something wrong there.Yeah, if parents are forcing kids to marry people the kid doesn't want to marry at 15, there is a problem. But that's not a bigamy problem, that's something else. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yeah, if parents are forcing kids to marry people the kid doesn't want to marry at 15, there is a problem. But that's not a bigamy problem, that's something else.Cultural? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Algore just cried Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 And the world is slowly losing their Obama-fever Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Japan just lowered their corporate tax rates, so the US is now #1. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Woo hoo! We're #1! We're #1! Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Lol. Looks like a good time for a reminder that corporate taxes as a percent of GDP are at historic lows. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Corporate executive: Well it looks like we are going to have to raise the price of widgets that we sell to poor people in order to realize the goal we have set of a 5% profit level.VP: Why? We made $X this quarter.CE: Because we have to pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world.VP: Yea, but they are really low in relation to the GDP.CE: I hope the consumer that is actually paying this tax realizes that important piece of information.Occupier: Wait..the consumer isn't paying that tax, YOU are.CE: Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Corporate executive: Well it looks like we are going to have to raise the price of widgets that we sell to poor people in order to realize the goal we have set of a 5% profit level.VP: Why? We made $X this quarter.CE: Because we have to pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world.VP: Yea, but they are really low in relation to the GDP.CE: I hope the consumer that is actually paying this tax realizes that important piece of information.Occupier: Wait..the consumer isn't paying that tax, YOU are.CE: From an overall economic perspective you can combine individual and corporate taxes if you want. Overall government revenues(taxes) are also at historic lows. The US tax burden is far lower than in most other countries with similar levels of wealth. The problem in the US isn't even remotely that taxes are too high. The basic problem is that we spend more than we take in through taxes and massively waste spending on military and inefficient health care programs. Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 From an overall economic perspective you can combine individual and corporate taxes if you want. Overall government revenues(taxes) are also at historic lows. The US tax burden is far lower than in most other countries with similar levels of wealth. The problem in the US isn't even remotely that taxes are too high. The basic problem is that we spend more than we take in through taxes and massively waste spending on military and inefficient health care programs.the real problem is little boys like the one in your avatar who need HAIR CUTS Link to post Share on other sites
Running Rebel 0 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Lol. Looks like a good time for a reminder that corporate taxes as a percent of GDP are at historic lows. Zomg, why do we have a deficit? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 the real problem is little boys like the one in your avatar who need HAIR CUTSyou leave Ellen out of this! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Sarah Palin showing she has more class than the perky Katie Couric.And within the first few minutes of NBC’s popular morning program, it was clear that Palin had a strategy for handling the show that was once hosted by Couric – plenty of self-deprecating humor. By contrast, Couric’s approach was to completely ignore Palin; she made no reference to the 2008 race or her blockbuster interview with the then-vice presidential candidate that many credited with dooming the GOP ticket.Poor Katie...she's getting uglier and crankier. Pretty soon no one will care about here Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Lol. Looks like a good time for a reminder that corporate taxes as a percent of GDP are at historic lows. I fel so much better now paying confiscatory tax rates now that I found out its actually quite low when compared to GDP. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 President Obama's former student is embarrassed for him regarding his recent statement about the SC... Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy. Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?” I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks...Haha...President Obama focues on the 14th amendment....the one that deals with citizenship....HAHA Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 From an overall economic perspective you can combine individual and corporate taxes if you want. Overall government revenues(taxes) are also at historic lows. The US tax burden is far lower than in most other countries with similar levels of wealth.Only if you ignore the tax burden being passed onto future generations. I bet people without kids are loving this: raping the next generation without remorse. Some of us have more morals than that, though. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Because nothing diffuses racial tension like gun-toting racial separatists patrolling an already on-edge community.Neo-nazis if FL Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Santorum's out. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Santorum's out.and Newt is bouncing checks and stiffing suppliers.http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/0...+Cheat+Sheet%29http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/g...kusaolp00000003 Link to post Share on other sites
iZuma 764 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 and Newt is bouncing checks and stiffing suppliers.http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/0...+Cheat+Sheet%29http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/g...kusaolp00000003 hmm... maybe he would be a good president considering our current situation Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 and Newt is bouncing checks and stiffing suppliers.http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/0...+Cheat+Sheet%29http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/g...kusaolp00000003 If Romney wins and uses tax dollars to pay off these debts, I better not hear any of you lefties who were silent when President Obama did it for Hillary... Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 If Romney wins and uses tax dollars to pay off these debts, I better not hear any of you lefties who were silent when President Obama did it for Hillary...I'm not sure which is more unlikely: Romney winning or Romney doing Newt a solid. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm not sure which is more unlikely: Romney winning or Romney doing Newt a solid.Dont know if you meant it that way, but this post is hilarious. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now