Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Chomsky Lives! | Main | More On "The List" »

October 06, 2006

Comments

Good Lt

I wonder if the shadow lefties hiding just outside the fray on this scandal are actually crab people.

Remember the South Park in which Mr. Garrison discovered that the cast of 'Queer Eye' was actually a gaggle of crab people in disguise trying to take over the world through slick media presentation and the feminising effects of their ubiquitous TV show?

Prophetic stuff.

Marianne

Why can't they just leave the Boy Scouts out of this? There is nothing to be gained by dragging the Scouts into every discussion of gay issues. Leave them alone!

Rick Ballard

Here is the home page of the infamous Christian Coalition which has a front page link to this extraordinary gay bashing of Mark Foley. And here is the notorius Focus on the Family website which has this strong denunciation of Hastert and all Republicans. And here is the website for the Southern Baptists which cleverly hides any reference on its homepage but gives SEVEN RESPONSES when you do a search for "Foley".

Obviously, the blinkered Christianists stand ready to join the rising Democratic Wave which will protect the pure youth of America from despoilment by GAY PREDATORS.

Do the Democratic right thing - OUT A CLOSETED GAY TODAY - for the children.

hit and run

Such a list has been talked about for months, if not years, by more militant homosexual activists, who have threatened to out Republican congressional staffers or even congressmen if they take positions counter to their gay lifestyle.

I've seen several references to "militant gays".

Are we getting close to calling them terrorists?

And therefore getting close to the counter claim that they are "freedom fighters"?

SteveMG

I didn't think it was possible, even at this late date, but the liberals will blow this opportunity (i.e., electoral gains) again.

What's the saying: They never pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity.

Geez, outing staffers just because the folks they work for are against gay marriage (I assume we out Democratic staffers too? DOMA garnered a lot of Democratic votes) is not only malicious and cruel but just plain flat out dumb.

I've never been impressed by anyhing Iglesias has ever said or written. He continues to meet my expectations.

SMG

hit and run

From NRO's Corner:

Hastert staffer offered to resign [Rich Lowry]

Here in the New York Times:
Mr. Hastert, a former schoolteacher and wrestling coach, is more at home in Illinois than in Washington, traveling back to the state almost every weekend with Scott Palmer, his chief of staff, and Mike Stokke, his deputy chief of staff. When Congress is in session, the two aides and Mr. Hastert share a townhouse near the Capitol, living a bachelorlike existence. The speaker once boasted that neither he nor his roommates had cooked a meal since 1986, preferring to dine out.

WAIT!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? Rich is burying the lede.

Three doods sharing a townhouse!?!?!?!?!?

SOMEBODY INVESTIGATE HASTERT RIGHT NOW!!! I SAID NOW!!!!!

clarice

Excellent, Rick.

On F R I am seeing an occasional nutter screaming the party should purge itself of all gays..But the general tenor is otherwise.

And the tide has turned about 2 days ago with people noticing there was little Hastert had to work with in the initial email correspondence.

Appalled Moderate

I sometimes have the feeling that many liberals have the same impulse to be racist, sexist, homophobic, or just plain mean that the rest of us do. But, given the philosophy they have chosen to embrace, they have to well, be closeted about these impulses. Moral equivalency is a hard philosophy to live by. One so wants to be judgmental....

So, given the actual opportunity to vent about gay people (or Isreali people) by some political event or other, some liberals just go barking mad. (I remember the netroots ranting about the non-scandal about Jeff Gannon -- some of the homophobia on display was in its way eloquent) I think the commenting community at Just One Minute needs to be understanding of these displays, and temper one's mockery just a bit. These poor folks are so consumed by their persuit of hypocracy that, half the time, they don't realize that all they are doing is chasing their own tail...

Rick Ballard

Just to complete the list:

Family Research Council

Alliance for Marriage

Concerned Women for America

Eagle Forum

Take a look at all those sites to see how DEMOCRATIC GAY BASHING is resonating with the actual groups who are supposed to rise in righteous anger.

Rick Ballard

needs to be understanding of these displays, and temper one's mockery just a bit.

OK

I hadn't seen your comment before I posted. Out of charitable compassion for the Democrat mental defectives I won't bold DEMOCRATIC GAY BASHING any more.

Today.

But I'm keeping the caps.

Nixon and McCarthy

We think it's wonderful that the Democrats have decided to adopt our ideas !

And yes, we may be dead (and Republican), but we still chuckle at the fact that the Democrats have, in their quest to demonize and ostracize gay males, adopted the tactics of two guys nicknamed "Tricky Dick" and "Tailgunner Joe".

Gabriel Sutherland

I may have used the term 'gay militants', but I prefer 'gay fascists'. The tactics are very aggressive, trafficking in the backhalls, and seeking to violate the privacy of individuals. I use 'gay' because I don't see many lesbians supporting these tactics.

It's a very isolated planet if the world you demand is absolutist. The gay fascists demand that all homosexuals adopt their policy platform or they face invasion of their personal privacy. That's what fascists do. They haven't reached a point where they're willing to endorse physical means to violate an individuals privacy, but if they do move to physical then I would use the term 'gay militants' to describe them.

SteveMG

Geezus, this is just unbelievably cruel to people. Real life, full blooded human beings.

Just because the boss they work for doesn't think marriage should be offered to gay people. Or some other friggin' excuse. It it wasn't gay marriage it'd be AIDS funding; if not AIDS funding it'd be gays in the military or some other absurd excuse.

Appallingly cruel.

SMG

SunnyDay

I find it strange - militant gays cannot fathom that there are non-militant gays. I guess, to the militants, everything in their lives hinges on their sexual orientation.

It's also the thing that most likely is preventing them getting the things they want. People shy away from militant individuals - they are scary. So, no one gets to know them and feel empathy for their situation.

If anything has swayed me on these issues, it's liking and accepting my gay friends. I doubt any straight person will like or understand Rogers and his crowd.

I do hope non-militant gays of both parties speak up. Rogers and his crowd are doing irreparable damage to the entire gay community.

hit and run

I sometimes have the feeling that many conservatives have the same impulse to be tolerant, inclusive, open-minded, or just plain nice that the rest of us do. But, given the philosophy they have chosen to embrace, they have to well, be closeted about these impulses. Moral equivalency is a hard philosophy to live by. One so wants to be judgmental....

So, given the actual opportunity to embrace gay people (or Islamic terrorist) by some political event or other, some conservatives just go barking mad. (I remember the wingnut blogosphere ranting about the non-scandal about Mary Cheney being outed by John Kerry -- some of the tolerance on display was in its way eloquent) I think the commenting community at Just One Minute needs to be understanding of these displays, and temper one's mockery just a bit. These poor folks are so consumed by their persuit of hypocracy that, half the time, they don't realize that all they are doing is chasing their own tail...

Appalled Moderate

very cute, h&r.

ed

Hmmm.

I wish liberals would make up their minds. Am I supposed to be tolerant of gays or am I supposed to burn them at the stake?

Well if they weigh as much as a duck of course.

hit and run

AM, How would you know that I'm cute? I rebuffed your attempts to get me to email you a pic.

Sick sick sick sick sick sick sick

ed

Hmmm.

@ hit and run

So, given the actual opportunity to embrace gay people

Sorry fella but I'm straight.

hit and run

Wait, ed, how do you know I'm a fella?

Seriously folks, are there pics of me floating around in these tubes I don't know about?

I've been outted as a "cute" "fella".

Sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick

nawoods

God how I wish that everyone on that list would gather on the steps of the Capital, hold hands, and in front of God, everyone, and the cameras just come out and say "Yes we are gay and so what!" All of this garbage would imediately go away.

SunnyDay

I think most social conservatives are big believers in personal responsibility.

Also, my Bible says "judge not that ye be not judged." and something like "get the telephone pole out of your own eye, before you go picking at the wood spinter in someone else's" which is kind of like saying "keep your own house clean and let other people worry about their houses." Or as AA says "live and let live"


Then there's "let him that is without sin cast the first stone" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I could go on. Nowhere does it say "be mean and hateful to people who don't believe as you do. Condemn them publicly and have nothing to do with them."

God made us all. Some people I don't completely understand, but that's not a requirement to accepting them as being God's children too.

Cecil Turner

I interpret that as opposition to the publication of The List.

Whilst implying a list of gay Republicans is all the GOP's fault, I guess. A bit convoluted for high-minded moralizing, but . . .

I interpret that as a Democrat being worried that his party's fingerprints will be all over this.

That one, at least, was clear (and tactically sound).

I've been outted as a "cute" "fella".

Heh. On point, it has always baffled me that the lefties can't fathom a person honestly believing redefining marriage is a bad idea (though civil unions is fine). Or that abortion is bad, though it shouldn't be illegal . . . even though a majority of Americans apparently hold some permutation of those beliefs. Or that when it leads to obviously abusive behavior such as "the List," they're going to turn off the vast majority of the electorate (and most especially those 20% in the middle). Political seppuku.

The Unbeliever

So, given the actual opportunity to embrace gay people (or Islamic terrorist) by some political event or other...

Ladies and gentlemen, moral relativism at its most idiotic.

The Unbeliever

Also, I hereby condemn h&r for his discriminatory language. How dare he leave out all the gay Islamic terrorists out there!

maryrose

Live and let live is my motto. If a person wants a private personal life -let him/her have it. McGreevey of NJ. decided not to tell his fellow New Jerseyans of his orientation until after he was in office. That is his choice. Similarly -if Militant gays want to get gay marriage passed-get behind campaigns of outed gay politicians.Do not out those people who prefer to keep their personal preferences ,private.

stevesh

h&r = anonymous (from the 10/4/06 "Corn has a list" thread).

Either that or they are roomates.

Jimmy's Attack Rabbit

SteveMG- I have a quibble with your "Just because the boss they work for doesn't think marriage should be offered to gay people".
Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals just as long as it is between one man and one woman. It's the redefinition of marriage that is the problem and not a civil rights issue.

Forbes

That Democrats and the political left take such apparent glee in condemning Foley's behavior with their Casablanca-like "shocked! shocked!" reactions is part and parcel their interest-group politics and policies. By their reckoning, Foley (and those on "the list") should be a homosexual, or a gay man, first and foremost, and as such, interest group-centric (left-wing and Democratic) politics should follow from there. Democrats see no hypocrisy when defending a sitting President's sexual liaisons with a consent-aged female, as compared with a Congressman's sexual banter with consent-aged males, as it's all about the politics, and Bill Clinton had the right politics, in their view. (Who was it on the left who said: The personal is the political?) The hypocrisy, in the view of the Democrats, is a homosexual who is also a Republican. (But then Democrats believe it's hypocritical to be black and a Republican, as well.)

As someone commented above, the Democrats "never pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity." The rhetoric (and the agenda created therefrom) is so over the top that no one not already drinking the Kool-Aid is going to find these lines of argument as persuasive.

We're talking about inappropriate conversations, and gay-activist Rogers believes he can blackmail Congressional staffers about their personal lives because he disagrees with their policy stance regarding issues related to homosexual relations and the "gay" lifestyle.

I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant, and letting dingbats like Rogers et. al. perform in the light of day is all it takes to illustrate who's playing dirty politics. Give the man another 15 minutes--even the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force isn't buying it.

And neither is Middle America.

hit and run

Also, I hereby condemn h&r for his discriminatory language. How dare he leave out all the gay Islamic terrorists out there!

Purely unintentional. I hereby include all gay and non gay Islamic and non Islamic terrorists and non terrorists in an universal embrace or non embrace without discrimination.

Florence Schmieg

Jimmy's attak rabbit: Yes. Your reasoning is sound here. Marriage as defined by tradition is man/woman. Gays may choose that form of marriage. Gay marriage, however, does not exist as we define marriage. Therefore, rather than being prevented from engaging in a constitutional right, it is the opposite. Proponents of gay marriage want to invent a new constitutional right. This issue is not as straightforward as it appears on the surface.

hit and run

h&r = anonymous (from the 10/4/06 "Corn has a list" thread).

Either that or they are roomates.


What we have hear is a failure to communicate.

PeterUK

"So, given the actual opportunity to embrace gay people (or Islamic terrorist) "

So anonymous you are equating gay people with Islamic terrorists,they are homosexual,not homicidal.Bigot!

Sara (Squiggler)

I have several gay/lesbian friends. Most came to be my friends thru the workplace where we first met. Over the course of many years and lots of different social events of mixed groups, I have met many of the gay/lesbian friends of my gay/lesbian friends. In the past 15 or so years, I've attended 7 commitment ceremonies where gay or lesbian couples commit to each other. These were every bit as "sacred" as a wedding and usually culminated in commitment vows, followed by signing "partnership" agreements of a legal nature which could then be legally recorded. These agreements are very similar to a business partnership and include some of the legal documents I mentioned in another thread covering health care issues and financial issues. These couples buy homes together as partners, two of the couples have adopted children together, and in one case they have a very successful business together.

As far as I know, none of them think they would gain anything by a "marriage" the way we traditionally define a marriage ceremony. It takes a little extra effort to set up civil unions but once they are set up in the form of partnerships, the parties are every bit as protected as a married couple. So to me this whole gay marriage act is nothing but a way for publicity and a way to stick it to those who are truly offended at taking the sanctity of the marriage and turning it into a circus.

I am not a supporter of "gay marriage" but I am an ardent supporter of the civil union. However, civil unions should not be limited to gays. Civil unions have their use when two single people, sisters, brothers, mother/daughter, father/son, friends, whoever join forces to live together for the benefit of both. The six years I had care of my Mother was a civil union, except that I didn't get the tax benefit of being able to claim her as a dependant and we each had to pay individual taxes on income that was used for the support of both of us and our combined household and I was not able to draw social security help when I had to leave the working world of paychecks to take care of her full time.

If I'd been taking care of spouse, I would have had alot more financial resources available to me. As it turned out, I had to exhaust all of my Mother's savings and all of my own to cover medical bills and ongoing care. A civil union would have opened up a whole range of help.

PeterUK

"h&r = anonymous (from the 10/4/06 "Corn has a list" thread).

Either that or they are roomates.

Posted by: stevesh | October 06, 2006 at 12:18 PM"

Nah! They just shower together and borrow each other's Judy Garland albums.

PeterUK

"So, given the actual opportunity to embrace gay people (or Islamic terrorist) "

So anonymous you are equating gay people with Islamic terrorists,they are homosexual,not homicidal.Bigot!

Jimmy's Attack Rabbit

Florence- We agree which should end all debate, right? The way SteveMG had stated it allows for Libs to say us HalliBusHitler-ites are against equal rights.....And SteveMG, I understand you were writting about the Foley stuff. Like I said, it's a quibble but, in my mind, a semi-important one. Much more important than this Foley foolishness.

hit and run

PeterUK?!?!?!?!?!

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good / Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstod.

Did you catch Appalled Moderate's original post - mine was just a pardoy of his, substituting conservative for his liberal and other various modifications.

(hint: I'm on the conservative side of the ledger and big on sarcasm/parody/humor. I don't always offer much on substance, but try to lighten things up)

Jane

As far as I know, none of them think they would gain anything by a "marriage" the way we traditionally define a marriage ceremony.

What they gain are several tax benefits and access to their spouse's health insurance.

My business partner is about to "get married" in her third state. The first was her real wedding - a civil union in VT. Her second in MA was done at my urging so she could indeed be on her wife's health insurance, and the third will be in CT because her wife works there now, and they require that state proof to again get health insurance. So basically she has had to get married twice to help my business' bottom line. I kid her that before she is done she will be married in all 50 states. It's a nuisance, but she is happy to do it.

The whole reason today to get married is for tax benefits. And even gay marriage in MA doesn't get you federal marriage tax benefits. But then again I don't get them either because I'm single.

Sara (Squiggler)

Jane, I understand. That is the point I was making about my caretaking time with my Mother. Even with all the legal documents in place, I got reamed and so did she on taxes. And the second the death certificate was signed, her income of social security and retirement stopped and I was left with half the income, all the same expenses, plus burial and unpaid medical bills and no additional help. If she had been my spouse, I would have had SS survivor benefits at least.

I haven't recovered financially. In addition, had she been in a nursing home Medicare would have paid up to $100,000 for her care. I did not get a single dime even though I was a 24/7 provider that saved SS/Medicare a pot full of money by having her at home.

Even my cousin who did the same for her Dad got all kinds of help because he was entitled to VA coverage. I paid for everything out of pocket, she called the VA and they delivered bed, wheelchairs, medicine, a weekly visit from a nurse, even a handicap van for her to use on the weekends for transport. I paid for everything including wheelchairs and a conversion of my van out of pocket.

Jane

Sara,

You can't be held liable for unpaid medical for a deceased mother, I don't think.

I'm sorry to hear it was so difficult. It sounds horrid.

Forbes

So Jane, what you're suggesting is that all that's at issue regarding gay "marriage" is an issue with the tax law. Then you should be advocating a change the tax law, and not the dictionary definition of a word.

For example, abolishing the estate tax removes the tax implications for the bequest of one's assets. Gays should roundly endorse such a proposal. (Apparently vocal gays are more concerned with toeing the Democratic Party line rather than advocating in their own self-interest!)

Why should changing the definition of "marriage" have any effect on the tax law? In other words, when the particular tax provisions were implemented, there was NO intent to include any future change in the common usage of a word.

If the whole reason to get married is for tax benefits--as you state--then such a marriage is a sham. You might want to check out the legal impications of sham transactions under the tax code.

This would all be quite funny, if some people didn't take it so seriously, instead it's all quite sad because some people don't find the world perfect to their liking.

TexasToast

It is interesting that you folks seem to just now realize the social effects of the tax code.

The Estate Tax has been neutered as a tool of social policy. Is it any wonder that income disparity has reached epic proportions?

Specter
could go on. Nowhere does it say "be mean and hateful to people who don't believe as you do. Condemn them publicly and have nothing to do with them."

Sounds just like islamofascism to me....

Specter

I meant the book that does say that, if one exists....

Jane

So Jane, what you're suggesting is that all that's at issue regarding gay "marriage" is an issue with the tax law. Then you should be advocating a change the tax law, and not the dictionary definition of a word.

Can you point out where I'm advocating changing anything Forbes, except my health insurance bill?

You want my position? I think marriage should be a religious institution and the benefits attendant to it should be abolished. But I don't really care. I've never wanted to be married, and I can manage without the benefits. I don't really have a dog in that hunt.

For example, abolishing the estate tax removes the tax implications for the bequest of one's assets. Gays should roundly endorse such a proposal. (Apparently vocal gays are more concerned with toeing the Democratic Party line rather than advocating in their own self-interest!)

My co-worker has adopted my philosophy on the matter - make enougn money so it doesn't matter what the law is. Make enough money so you can lead your life in the way that suits you. Oh and contract for the rest. good thing she is a lawyer. Oh and she's not a democrat either.

Why should changing the definition of "marriage" have any effect on the tax law? In other words, when the particular tax provisions were implemented, there was NO intent to include any future change in the common usage of a word.

You tell me since it is clearly your issue.

If the whole reason to get married is for tax benefits--as you state--then such a marriage is a sham. You might want to check out the legal impications of sham transactions under the tax code.

Now where did I say that? You seem to be reading all sorts of things into my post to promote your agenda. I take it you oppose gay marriage, and I take it you think letting gays marry takes something away from you. Well I'm neither gay nor married so consider me a double bonus!


This would all be quite funny, if some people didn't take it so seriously, instead it's all quite sad because some people don't find the world perfect to their liking.

You mean like you? More people in the fold that big of a threat. Poor thang.

Sara (Squiggler)

These discussion by people who have no idea what they are talking about used to go on and I paid no attention. Now, I'm directly affected and they piss me off royally.

Here is what its really like. You come on here and make accusations about rich Republicans when I have never been poorer in my life and yet I still wouldn't vote for a cut and run democrat. You talk about tax benefits and insurance benefits. I have ZERO income to pay taxes on and no insurance. I can't even pay my car insurance so it sits in the driveway undriven.

I spent 6 years as a 24/7 caretaker, barely leaving the house in all those years because I couldn't leave my Mother alone and I couldn't afford to pay anyone to come and sit with her so I could get out. When she died, I tried to go back to work, but no one wants to hire a 60 year old who has been out of a job for over 6 years. They are brutal with rejection.

When I hurt my back and had exhausted every possible source of available money, I went to Social Security to see if I could at least get Medicare coverage so I could get pain medicine and a doctor's care. I was turned down and told to come back when I turned 62. Then, they took pity and sent me to one of their doctors. I had to have help getting to the doctor as I could barely walk, and yet the report came back that I was capable of standing 8 hours a day and able to lift up to 60 lbs. I can't get out of chair without assistance. Sometimes the pain is so bad I just collapse and cry. Yet I'm supposed to be able to stand and lift. I have ZERO income, my house has gone into foreclosure, and in a few weeks, I'll be on the street. I don't even care anymore. I almost welcome it, even though it means I'll lose almost $300,000 in equity. I wanted to sell, but I'm too crippled up to get it clean and fixed to show and I have no one to help me move anyway.

I don't know how people play the system. I sure haven't been able to. I've sold all my Mother's art collection in order to keep my utilities on and buy groceries. I'm about to sell all hers and my jewelry including her wedding rings and my grandmothers. Mine have been gone for months.

And yet, I would never consider voting for a democrat. Ever. I will not allow myself to become another one of their victim statistics. I'd starve to death first. So don't say rich Republicans. The party is full of people like me.

Forbes

Jane wrote:

"My business partner is about to "get married" in her third state. The first was her real wedding - a civil union in VT. Her second in MA was done at my urging so she could indeed be on her wife's health insurance, and the third will be in CT because her wife works there now, and they require that state proof to again get health insurance."

You've encouraged your business to get "married" so as to avail herself of the "spousal" benefit of health insurance.

Apparently you don't understand that the provision for "spousal" benefits are derived from provisions in the tax code.

My agenda? I'm sorry statements of fact are perceived as an agenda.

My opinion? Changing the definition of a word to suit a political agenda is absurd. If you want to grant benefits to a special interest group then be honest enough to advocate the policy change desired--in this case it's a tax code provision.

In following the so-called gay rights issue, the two demands most common were inheretance rights and "spousal" health benefits--both are regulated under the tax code.

And TT, that's a great confabulation of income and wealth--I suppose some people will buy those talking points as an argument, but not likely around JOM.

Why don't you explain how the actual amount of tax revenue raised by the estate tax would reduce income inequality?

Why don't you explain the fairness of taxing assets--assets created from the savings of after-tax income--that have already been taxed? How many bites at anyone's income should the government get?

Why should people that work hard and save be taxed on their accumulated (and taxed) savings so as to redistribute those accumulated savings to people who do not work hard and save?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Cheers.

Jane

You've encouraged your business to get "married" so as to avail herself of the "spousal" benefit of health insurance.

My business partner is married, legally. I've encouraged her to remarry the same person again and again to avail herself of the health benefits she is entitled to under state law, because gay marriage is not recognized under federal law. And as I'm sure a bright guy like you knows, state law trumps in the marriage business.

A rational person would wonder about how pathetically stupid is the bureacracy, but you see tax fraud. Please show me the statute that says she cannnot follow the law, because she is gay.

Apparently you don't understand that the provision for "spousal" benefits are derived from provisions in the tax code.

And apparently you don't understand the tax code in Connecticut and MA.

My agenda? I'm sorry statements of fact are perceived as an agenda.

Your statements are stupid and appear geared at punishing gays for benefits provided by the states.

My opinion? Changing the definition of a word to suit a political agenda is absurd. If you want to grant benefits to a special interest group then be honest enough to advocate the policy change desired--in this case it's a tax code provision.

Both the MA and Ct tax codes provide the benefits. Perhaps you should read up on them before you go spouting off.

r flanagan

One of Josh Marshall's "users" posted the "list" in a thread that started 3 days ago. I responded that I disapproved .

Since then she and I have traded polite comments .In fact there are no words strong enough to express my disapproval , not really a handicap since I don't use strong words.


The balance of her posts convince me that she's not a troll but ike me a lefty who- unlike me- is willing to employ gay bashing .

Two users rated my comment a 4. None rated her comment.I've been disappointed that my position has not been more widely endorsed but heartened that her's has not been endorsed at all.

Easy enough to check my account. Just go to Josh's Coffee House and the exchange is still percolating away there.

Jane

R flanagan,

You are likely to get thrown under a bus if you don't go along with the democrat talking points.

Tonite in here we are all gay, ala Roger Simon.

Tell Josh to out that!

Syl

Forbes

Why should people that work hard and save be taxed on their accumulated (and taxed) savings so as to redistribute those accumulated savings to people who do not work hard and save?

While I agree about the double-taxing issue, I don't agree with your other argument. There are plenty of people who work hard and save but shit happens.

If you argue against income redistribution and the harm it does to our economy, harm to incentive, or whatever, that's fine with me and I agree.

If you argue there are other ways to help someone in need besides the govt, like local charities, churches, or whatever, that's fine with me too.

But to basically say, and I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, that if someone is in need it's because they haven't worked hard enough nor saved enough and therefore are not deserving is what I reject.

I believe in capitalism and incentive and if you earned it it's yours to do with as you please. I also believe in a safety net.

There's a lot of room between laissez faire and socialism and there's no bright line separating them--it's more like a maze.

But it does seem to end up with each side making arguments that are completely abhorrent to the other. I call that politics.

r flanagan

Jane wrote
You are likely to get thrown under a bus if you don't go along with the democrat talking points.

HASN'T HAPPENED YET. IF YOU CHECK JOSH'S COFFEE HOUSE THREAD Reynold Aide Tried to kill ABC story YOU'LL FIND ONE USER ACTUALLY PRINTING THE LIST PLUS ADDING A LOT OF OTHER UNPLEASANT STUFF ,AND ME ATTACKING HER. NO ONE COMES TO HER DEFENSE OR-SADLY-
JOINS ME . I CREDIT THOSE OF YOU IN THIS THREAD WHO DO SHARE MY POSITION ON THE LIST EVEN THO I'M QUITE SURE YOU DO NOT SHARE MY
DOWN THE ROAD LEFT WING VIEWS ON ALL OTHER ISSUES.

TexasToast

Forbes

Why should people that work hard and save be taxed on their accumulated (and taxed) savings so as to redistribute those accumulated savings to people who do not work hard and save?

Why indeed? But no one is suggesting that. The people who "worked hard" are, by definition, dead. Why should the shiftless, ne're do well son get a windfall? Taxing wealth transfers is not income redistribution. We are doing much more effective wealth transfers by running the huge deficits we have been running since, oh, about 2001. Those aren't tax cuts - they are wealth transfers from our children and grandchildren to us. We really are pigs.

Around here, a whole bunch of folks are cashing big checks because the oil companies think there is gas in the Barnett shale. They aren't working (unless you call standing in line at the bank working). They aren't saving. They are benefiting from a windfall - and more power to them! But why shouldn't we tax their estates when they die?

I saw this about Polosi's first "hundred hours"


Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Hallaluja!


Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

You gonna argue with that?

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Yep.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

Amen brother!

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

The democratic party - the party of pay as you go. The republican party - the party of mastercard.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

Patton

Gee, Texas Toast, where is here ant-buggering legislation?

Bob

First off TT She's lying through her false teeth!

If she were honest about stemming the tide of corruption, she would include Unions and Soros led groups as well. You'd then have most Conservatives with her on that.

I also don't mind either if she wants to go back again and look at 9/11. Just let's see who she puts on the committee... probably only Clinton legacy lap dogs! Let's look into the CIA cuts Clinton made and the 11 times he was getting serviced while OBL planned 9/11... ya know "truth to power" and all that happy shit!

She can raise the minimum wage to $10 for all I care... it will only hurt the very folks in her constituency... more jobs will go off shore. Just like lowering interest rates on Student Loans - she's just giving the overpriced schools another reason to raise tuition. How about going after those overpaid and under-worked University Profs instead!

Spending more money on Stem Cell research... just another form of corporate and university pork. Her way of paying off her supporters. Let the market place fund the research.

"The Democrat Party - the party of pay as you go"... That's very true! The only problem is, the Dems will be in charge of going, and going and going.............how about stop spending!

There's a part of me that wishes she gets her 100 hours... then 2008 will be a walk in the park!

Tom Maguire

The Estate Tax has been neutered as a tool of social policy. Is it any wonder that income disparity has reached epic proportions?

C'mon, Tex, align the cart and horse here - income inequality has not yet reached the levels of the 20's, which preceded all these taxes. It has been rising for twenty years, although the estate tax was only abolished a few years back. And (hint) - people like Bill Gates haven't died yet - the projected revenue loss on the estate tax is down the road, not right now.

I agree that income inequality is worth worrying about, as a possible symptom of other problems, but figuring out the causes ought to precede finding "solutions".

Tom Maguire

Meanwhile, back on Foley and who knew what and when, the WaPo has this at the end of their latest story:

The divergent accounts have highlighted the holes in the public's understanding of Foley's undoing. And they are sure to ratchet up the pressure on Trandahl to come forward with his knowledge of events. As House clerk between January 1999 and November 2005, Trandahl had direct control over the page program.

...Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

So the guy running the page program was gay and a friend of Foley's? I can see why the finger-pointing is so intense - he had to know there was a problem, so blame-shifting is paramount (and maybe appropriate - we still don't know who Trandahl warned, or how).

Seven Star Hand


Hello Tom and all,

Proof that pretending to serve the Creator for wealth and power always leads to calamity

Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes "blindness"...

As recent events and millennia of history have shown us, those who bedevil others with holier-than-thou pretenses, as they support and/or perform blatant evil eventually suffer dire consequences. The prime example is the Vatican, which has caused great disasters for itself and its followers throughout history as the direct result of its great deceptions, hypocrisy, and injustices. One of the most recent are the actions of the Christian Right, Bush administration, and Republican Party, all close allies of the Vatican. While scoffing at the existence of Karma, "blind and deaf" hypocrites consistently provide proof that evil deeds regularly lead to the "curse," mostly commonly known as bad karma.

If Christians leaders are going to go around attacking others for not living up to their professed values, it's a damn good idea to be truthful and actually walk the walk. Logs and motes in the eye, camels through the eye of a needle, glass houses, kettle's and pots, and what goes around comes around, et al. Karma's a bitch when She finally decides enough is enough! This wouldn't have been so bad on Republicans if they hadn't been such arrogant hypocrites in order to corner the so-called values voters! Now the "Two Candlesticks" and "Two Witnesses" (Truth and Justice) are "breathing fire" and "raining hailstones!"

Pretending to serve the Creator while deceiving, exploiting, and oppressing others is a great abomination. Such great levels of blatant evil scream for Truth and Justice to "breath fire" and "burn" those who think they are somehow above the laws of this universe and basic human values. The recent horrendous luck and disastrous results caused by the Bush crew and cohorts shows us that Truth and Justice never remain defeated forever. Now comes the long-awaited time of "fire and brimstone" to punish those who have used deceptive values and great hypocrisy to unjustly subjugate their fellow souls, while pretending to be "God's Servants." The arrogance of the powerful is again reaping the promised rewards for evil deeds and results. Now we see the unfolding of the true meaning and purpose of "Armageddon," which the Vatican and its cohorts have long confounded because they were the intended targets of these prophecies. Most Christians have long been deceived and deluded into failing to understand that the great deceivers, which ancient prophecies predict the fall of, are the rich and powerful nations, the three faiths of Abraham, and the "three foul spirits" of money, religion and politics.


Here is Wisdom !!

Peace...

The List (Here it is!)

The LIST

Operating since July of 2004, telling you the truth about hypocrisy in the gov't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Representatives

Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. David Drier (CA)
Rep. James McCrery (LA)
Rep. Mark Foley (FL)


US Senators.

Sen Barbara Mikulski (MD)


Senior GOP Staff

Jay Timmons, NRSC
Dan Gurley, RNC
Jay Banning, RNC


Senior Senate Staffers

Robert Traynham, Santorum
Jonathan Tolman, Inhofe
Kirk Fordham, Martinez
Dirk Smith, Lott
John Reid, Allen
Paul Unger, Allen
Linus Catignani, Frist


Senior House Staffers

Jim Conzelman, Oxley
Lee Cohen, Hart
Robert O'Conner, King
Pete Meachum, Brown-Waite


Bush Staff

Israel Hernandez
Jeff Berkowitz


Local Officials

Vincent Gentile, NYC


The rest...

Ed Koch, NYC Mayor
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge
Armstrong Williams, Radio host
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, MD Gov.
Chip DiPaula, MD Gov.
Lee LaHaye, CWA
John Schlafley, Eagle Forum

cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold

So simple the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold is.

mabinogi gold

When you have mabinogi gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.