The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Video Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

Status
Not open for further replies.
DigitalFudge

DigitalFudge

JUB Addict
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Posts
5,799
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Maryland


Kids weren't having it.
6fa8bf9c.gif




When they laugh at her
ed2305b7.png




This woman did not pick the right audience.
 
Why does anyone give [STRIKE]Dan[/STRIKE] Ann Coulter attention? [STRIKE]He's[/STRIKE] She's nothing more than a shock [STRIKE]jock[/STRIKE] queen who says outlandish things for money and attention so [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE] she can sell more of [STRIKE]his[/STRIKE] her books.
 
I don't know when the GOP is going to shut her the fuck up.

She probably loses them as many votes as their Rape obsessed old white guys do.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Unless that is the intent.
 
She really is unbearable. Conservative charlatans like her are so good at separating gullible right-wingers from their money. Why any serious conservative would give her a platform is a mystery.
 
So why dosen't she marry a man? I mean, she's gay, so she should take her own advise. Or is she secretly shacking up with a girlfriend?
 
Oh the dumb lady. Libertarians were the FIRST political party in the US to endorse gay marriage; almost a full decade before it was part of the Democrat's platform.
 
Rolyo85 said:
Well, but that's mostly because they don't want marriage to be anything more than a ceremony and for the government to stay completely out of it.
Click to expand...

Well, that is what firmly believe too which is why I would marry my roomie, a lesbian, for the tax benefits. Let's be completely honest here: if there were no tax incentives for couples with no offspring/adopted children, do you really think people would be getting married at an abundant rate if not to dupe their spouses into alimony via divorce or the first statement I made? I doubt it.

If you need an example: look to Japan which offers no tax incentive for couples and they have one of the lowest birthrates in the world atm.
 
maxpowr9 said:
Well, that is what firmly believe too which is why I would marry my roomie, a lesbian, for the tax benefits. Let's be completely honest here: if there were no tax incentives for couples with no offspring/adopted children, do you really think people would be getting married at an abundant rate if not to dupe their spouses into alimony via divorce or the first statement I made? I doubt it.

If you need an example: look to Japan which offers no tax incentive for couples and they have one of the lowest birthrates in the world atm.
Click to expand...
There are benefits of unions besides tax breaks (which really should not exist). The lack of requirement for medical power of attorney is one (law gives married partners this power). Marriage now really only benefits the wealthy. They are also the only group that is really getting married. The poor are better off being not married. They get more in benefits.

Japan's low TFR has more do with the economy (lots of work with very high cost of living) than it does with tax breaks for kids. Other economies see the same thing. TFRs decline as financial security increases. Wealthy people have fewer children. Middle class people wait longer until children are affordable. Poor people just fuck and produce burdens without regard to the effec on society.
 
itsmejeff said:
There are benefits of unions besides tax breaks (which really should not exist). The lack of requirement for medical power of attorney is one (law gives married partners this power). Marriage now really only benefits the wealthy. They are also the only group that is really getting married. The poor are better off being not married. They get more in benefits.

Japan's low TFR has more do with the economy (lots of work with very high cost of living) than it does with tax breaks for kids. Other economies see the same thing. TFRs decline as financial security increases. Wealthy people have fewer children. Middle class people wait longer until children are affordable. Poor people just fuck and produce burdens without regard to the effec on society.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your statements. You are right about the marriage tax abatements. You get penalized if you are married and file separately from your spouse [on average, over $30k in penalties for doing so and yes, there are fiduciary reasons why one may do so. Thank you, NPV].
 
maxpowr9 said:
Well, that is what firmly believe too which is why I would marry my roomie, a lesbian, for the tax benefits. Let's be completely honest here: if there were no tax incentives for couples with no offspring/adopted children, do you really think people would be getting married at an abundant rate if not to dupe their spouses into alimony via divorce or the first statement I made? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

If they want property and medical rights between themselves, yes. In fact that's the primary concern for me with the marriage question. Not tax breaks.

If you need an example: look to Japan which offers no tax incentive for couples and they have one of the lowest birthrates in the world atm.
Click to expand...

Not related at all.
 
She is a $#@ but one who knows there are many people who agree with her..and will buy all of her books while she laughs all the way to the bank.
 
Her philosophy, such as it is, can be reduced simply to "government should use its power to force people to do what I want". This was evident from her argument that we'll never get government out of marriage, yet she wants to fight to get government out of business.

Simple hypocrisy. She doesn't believe in freedom at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top