Good spirited humor from the Right!

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
OMG - Sparky I agree I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you see the part about killing all the lawyers??!

[sparky]

Originally posted by Rob67
Sparky, I LMAO when I read your reply....

I knew I would be entertained by this thread....

Rob

Well, Rob67, I am thrilled you were amused by my post.

After talking to a friend of mine this evening, I am realizing my political views are far more serious than I ever realized.

More than a few people I know are currently in the process of losing their entire retirement funds. Their companies, in spite of Union rules, are deciding that the retirement funds need to be "absorbed" to remain competitive.

Imagine. 34 years of service to a company. The belief that the company was setting aside money for you. An agreement. A belief. A contract. And guess what ? The rug pulled out from under you a few months before retirement. And a Washington environment that is conspicuously Anti Union and Anti Labor. An entire lifetime of work, and the prize at the end of the road snatched away by CEOS and executives who wanted....a Chalet...a vacation in the Bahamas...no matter. Whatever it is, it doesn't matter. This is the environment fostered by and sanctioned by this current administration.

This is not about entitilement or laziness. It is about honor and character. It is about contracts, beliefs, and human decency. It is about the American values I was raised with and which do not seem to matter anymore in the Bush world. Who is punished for this ? Evidently, Martha Stewart, for a 40k stock transaction.

IMO, the American middle calss is a vanishing breed. The "haves" take all they can grab, the "have nots" are increasing exponentially as I speak. While the "haves" are purchasing condos, islands, and stocks on the backs of people who worked all their lives for a pittance of a retirement. Said retirement is now being used for vacation homes and golden parachutes for crooked executives.

This is America ? I think not. The same people who would see me gutted in a ditch (Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, and Reverend Phelps among them) are all for this. They are in good company, financing the Republican coffers. As for the middle class, you'll soon find them in the ditch in which they would like to see me rotting.

For the record, I am a miser and invest my money wisely. I'll be fine.

If you make 150k a year or more - vote Republican. They give a damn about you. If you don't, have fun in the in the ditch ! You'll have plenty of company.

[strandinthewind]

Oh Sparky - you had me going!!!!!!! and then this last post

I agree, it is ashame, horrible, repugnant, etc., that some, but certainly not all, corporate big wigs pad their retirements, etc. But, unless they are doing something illegal (which many do and are never caught ), I think we are complaining to the wrong person IMO. I mean look by way of example at the offshore corporation loophole that exists to help corporations avoid paying some but not all American taxes by incorporating in say, Bermuda - where they pay far less tax if any at all. I think this is horrible and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for not carrying what I independantly determine is their fair share. But, my opinion of fair share is not the opinion of the IRS, which is the only opinion that matters. The IRS must tell you what taxes you owe (Oh if it were the other way around ). Apparently the IRS does not care about this gross loss of revenue because they have known about the loophole for a long time and have not shut it. Moreover, Republicans and Democrats alike have bitched about it to get votes, but neither has done a whole lot to close it. Why? It seems to me that some of that legally gotten tax savings finds its way into a campaign donation in one form or another. So, as I have repeatedly said, it is not just the Republicans in the boat of corporate horribleness ( ) , the Democrats are right there with them on almost every issue. Also, corporate big wigs were padding their expense accounts, etc., during the past ten administrations and no one did a whole lot about it. For example, the trillions of dollars in fraud that Enron, MCI, and others committed for years in the Clinton Administration - yet they were never investigated, audited, or caught.

Also, I often use the analogy of mortage interest tax deduction to make my point that taking a legal tax deduction is generally bad or unfair to the poor, yet we pretty much all do it with little care for whom it may hurt. For example, if you own your house and take the perfectly legal mortgage interest deduction, it could be argued you are screwing the poor. After all, the poor generally cannot afford to buy a house and get no such deduction and if they do buy a house they will probably buy a lesser expensive house and get less of a deduction. So, when someone fortunate enough to own a house takes the mortgage deduction off of their taxes, they are taking an elitist tax cut unavailable to everyone. So, I have suggested to my friends that bitched about the tax cut going only to the wealthy that they not take the mortgage interest deduction because it similarly also is a dedection only for the wealthy or at least it is a sliding scale tax benefit that benefits people who buy expensive houses with a mortgage. The same argument applies to the homestead exemptions available in many states which allows a homeowner to take usually about 20% off of the value of their house before the property tax is calculated. To date, I know of no one who has declined these clearly elitist but perfectly legal deductions despite their apparent care for the poor

Note: I offer this in a friendly manner and not an in your face, finger snapping, I'm right your wrong way I just hate it when people say Republicans are against the little guy and Democrats are for them. I say based on the votes, they are essentinally the same, with the Democrats coming out a little on top, but not much.

[strandinthewind]

Here we go - let's kill all the gays - they are what is wrong with the failing institutionof marriage even though they WANT to be married.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109150,00.html

This is why I say get the govt. out of marriage altoghether. If you want to marry, let your church marry you. The govt. should not be supporting one form of marriage (gay, staight, polygamist, whatever) over another.

That they did not even give benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees as well as different sex partners of state employees is also horrible. It does, however, raise an intersting issue in that no Constitutional Equal Protection calim can be raised - in other words no unmarried group is being protected over another. It could be argued that protecting the rights on spouses of married people as opposed partners of all unmarried people is a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause. But, the caselaw in this area indicates that argument will fail because the state clearly has an historically compelling interest in protecting marriage and unmarried people as a whole are not a historically discrimminated against and congenital class of people (termed "suspect class" ) like black people are. So, the law will stick on Equal Protection grounds. Interstingly, there may be a claim to overturn it via Ohio's Constitution a la the Mass. Ct. Also, the US Sup. Ct. could in theory apply the "liberty interest" rationale used in the recent case barring laws outlawing homosexual sodomy. However, that appears a remote chance.

Sad - very sad that so much hate exists in the world. For those who think it is not hate, I submit they should walk in the shoes of people who lose their houses, etc. because when their partners (regardless of sex) died, they had to pay Uncle Sam like 70% of the value at that time of their home or they were denied access to their loved ones in the hospital or could not make any decisions for them while they were sick.

Note - Georgia introduced a similar bill today -

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met.../22leggay.html


I think that although it smacks of the "sep. but equal" used in the civil rights cases, the heterosexual institution of marriage should not have been attacked and instead the politically correct "civil union" should have been sought. Hopefully, that is still a viable option.

[Rob67]

Exactly...I definitly think the government should stay away from this argument. Who cares if gay people want to get married?

Rob

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

I mean, I have enough trouble sleeping at night, without that on my conscience!

"When Democrats were the majority, I could sleep nights, not weep nights..."

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Exactly...I definitly think the government should stay away from this argument. Who cares if gay people want to get married?

Rob

John Ashcroft and Bob Jones.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
John Ashcroft and Bob Jones.

See - Leviticus - only don't read too closely - just read the part about God hating fags - after all no one really does the rest of the stuff in there - just the fag hating is important

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
See - Leviticus - only don't read too closely - just read the part about God hating fags - after all no one really does the rest of the stuff in there - just the fag hating is important

There is a good article in Vanity Fair this month about Mr. Ashcroft's attitude towards homosexuals and how he tried to prevent Ambassador James Hormel from becoming an ambassador because he is gay.
It goes on to detail Mr. & Mrs. Ashcroft's opinion of their "servants" in their Missouri home. Not pretty.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
There is a good article in Vanity Fair this month about Mr. Ashcroft's attitude towards homosexuals and how he tried to prevent Ambassador James Hormel from becoming an ambassador because he is gay.
It goes on to detail Mr. & Mrs. Ashcroft's opinion of their "servants" in their Missouri home. Not pretty.

Yea, the Hormel stuff was homemade (sorry ) bigotry. I mean come on, how is that fact that the guy is gay going to effect at all our relationship with that beuatiful but politically insignificant country of Luxembourg


Interestingly, Clinton made a "recess" appointment" in the Hormel case a la W and Pickering.

[sparky]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree, it is ashame, horrible, repugnant, etc., that some, but certainly not all, corporate big wigs pad their retirements, etc. But, unless they are doing something illegal (which many do and are never caught ), I think we are complaining to the wrong person IMO. Apparently the IRS does not care about this gross loss of revenue because they have known about the loophole for a long time and have not shut it. Moreover, Republicans and Democrats alike have bitched about it to get votes, but neither has done a whole lot to close it. Why? It seems to me that some of that legally gotten tax savings finds its way into a campaign donation in one form or another. So, as I have repeatedly said, it is not just the Republicans in the boat of corporate horribleness ( ) , the Democrats are right there with them on almost every issue. For example, the trillions of dollars in fraud that Enron, MCI, and others committed for years in the Clinton Administration - yet they were never investigated, audited, or caught.

Also, I often use the analogy of mortage interest tax deduction to make my point that taking a legal tax deduction is generally bad or unfair to the poor, yet we pretty much all do it with little care for whom it may hurt.

So, when someone fortunate enough to own a house takes the mortgage deduction off of their taxes, they are taking an elitist tax cut unavailable to everyone. To date, I know of no one who has declined these clearly elitist but perfectly legal deductions despite their apparent care for the poor

Note: I offer this in a friendly manner and not an in your face, finger snapping, I'm right your wrong way I just hate it when people say Republicans are against the little guy and Democrats are for them. I say based on the votes, they are essentinally the same, with the Democrats coming out a little on top, but not much.

Strand, I can't argue with much of this at all. I have been just taken aback at what I see currently happening to the lives and finances of people I know. We can all read the paper and listen to polls, but it is only real when it happens in our own lives.

Of course many Dems are in the pockets of huge corporations as well. It very well may be that they are just better at rhetorically making themselves sound better. I base my opinion that current Rep leaders are more on the side of big business on current policy decisions and a seemingly cavalier attitude about the financial scandals. That, and the anti-union bent of the party.

How I would love it if Bush came out swinging about the corporate
accounting frauds. I'd eat my shorts if he gave an impassioned speech telling those people at those companies that they are criminals of the highest order, and they will be held accountable for their actions. It would be great. He has really softballed the issue, when he ought to be out there calling to have their heads delivered on platters. I think they have done more to damage the morale and spirit of the people of this country than 9/11.

The mortgage deduction is slanted toward the wealthy. No doubt about it. I can't recall the home ownership percentage of American citizens, but I think it is around 60%. I do know that where I live that houses are far less affordable than they were 4 years ago. And that few single income households can afford to buy. That was not the case when I was growing up, and I wonder what the hell has happened. Can't pin that on a party. Something radical has changed in the way of life, though.

Perhaps if the Republican leadership made a few grand gestures that favored "the little guy" my perception could change. I just don't see that happening. I only see companies getting bigger and bigger ( thank you FCC!) and people losing more and more jobs. People I know, are, anyway.

Actually, if the Republican party hadn't been hijacked by our own little Taliban in the Reagan years, my feelings would be quite different. On most counts, I consider myself a fiscal conservative.

And no, I don't see any finger snapping from you !

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
That's the defintion of shock and awe.

Just to get the pot stirred, why are you conservatives against reparations?

LMAO!!! Heres my Archie Bunker moment......No one will EVER EVER EVER make me pay a reparation. It is RIDICULOUS, to say the least. You can not hold someone responsible for something your long-dead relative was responsible for! Its kinda like saying....your great great grandfather shot this convenience clerk, and ever since his family has been in financial ruin, so you have to pay him money. Does that not sound ridiculous? It sure does to me!!!
I have had a rough day...nothing makes me happier than to go online and spew out my republicanism...

BTW, the list was HILARIOUS...Very true list for both sides BTW, Dissention....you did not stir up any pot....you just let it sit and boil over onto the stove causing a massive grease fire

I'm sure your insurance will cover the cost of the fire, though

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yea, the Hormel stuff was homemade (sorry ) bigotry. I mean come on, how is that fact that the guy is gay going to effect at all our relationship with that beuatiful but politically insignificant country of Luxembourg


Interestingly, Clinton made a "recess" appointment" in the Hormel case a la W and Pickering.

Now that would be a proper example of how to use that power.

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
LMAO!!! Heres my Archie Bunker moment......No one will EVER EVER EVER make me pay a reparation. It is RIDICULOUS, to say the least. You can not hold someone responsible for something your long-dead relative was responsible for! Its kinda like saying....your great great grandfather shot this convenience clerk, and ever since his family has been in financial ruin, so you have to pay him money. Does that not sound ridiculous? It sure does to me!!!

So, for example, Bush has millions in a trust from his grandpa's dirty Nazi dealings. When he gets access to all that money, should he be able to keep it for himself or give it all back to the people who deserve it (the Jews)? The Bush family "dynasty" was majorly built on that money, while the people who suffered for it aren't nearly as rich. Shouldn't they get it in some form of compensation, maybe given to their local Jewish Community Center? The idea of reparations isn't far from that train of thought and it's a misconseption that these people just "want money." More often than not, it isn't the case.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
So, for example, Bush has millions in a trust from his grandpa's dirty Nazi dealings. When he gets access to all that money, should he be able to keep it for himself or give it all back to the people who deserve it (the Jews)? The Bush family "dynasty" was majorly built on that money, while the people who suffered for it aren't nearly as rich. Shouldn't they get it in some form of compensation, maybe given to their local Jewish Community Center? The idea of reparations isn't far from that train of thought and it's a misconseption that these people just "want money." More often than not, it isn't the case.

Let him get judged for it.....I want no part in any reparation...If that is true, then that should be on Bush's back, and Bush's back alone...

Reparations are acceptable, as long as they come from where they need to come from.....But like I said....I have done nothing in order to havve to pay a reparation, so I never will, and alot of people feel this way.

~Alex

This thread got serious all of a sudden, lol