Originally Posted by waynet

this redistribution nonsense must stop. Why is it when we cut taxes of the wealthiest no one yells redistribution is no good. If we just let the Bush tax cuts die will some of you be yelling about this redistribution stuff? Incomes in America have always changed as have the tax rates on people. I just can't believe that the wealthiest 1% and the super corporations have convinced some of you that any change in taxes is not American.

Well said. I am disappointed that the powers that be did not let the Bush tax cuts die. You make a good point about when the wealthest start whining.

If conservatives are so strict about being anti-gay marriage, why not just call it a civil union with all the benefits of marriage being included? I am sure the uber-conservatives would find fault with that, too.

As for legislating what a woman can do with their own body (and a fetus IS part of the woman's body until birth), it is ridiculous. As Dennis Miller (conservative) said - he is against abortion personally but believes it is up to each woman to decide for herself. Good words from a conservative.

I do not want to start a discussion on abortion with anyone so do not reply about that.

Originally Posted by buggyone

If conservatives are so strict about being anti-gay marriage, why not just call it a civil union with all the benefits of marriage being included? I am sure the uber-conservatives would find fault with that, too.

As for legislating what a woman can do with their own body (and a fetus IS part of the woman's body until birth), it is ridiculous. As Dennis Miller (conservative) said - he is against abortion personally but believes it is up to each woman to decide for herself. Good words from a conservative.

I do not want to start a discussion on abortion with anyone so do not reply about that.

Is it OK if I say I agree with what you said?

Originally Posted by buggyone

If conservatives are so strict about being anti-gay marriage, why not just call it a civil union with all the benefits of marriage being included? I am sure the uber-conservatives would find fault with that, too.

As for legislating what a woman can do with their own body (and a fetus IS part of the woman's body until birth), it is ridiculous. As Dennis Miller (conservative) said - he is against abortion personally but believes it is up to each woman to decide for herself. Good words from a conservative.

I do not want to start a discussion on abortion with anyone so do not reply about that.

I have absolutely no problem with civil unions...in fact I would wholeheartedly support them...with all the benefits of marriage included too! Why shouldn't I? People should be free to do with their lives,loves, and bodies as they deem fit.

As far as a fetus being part of a woman's body,...just saying it doesn't make it so. I am amazed at the educated people who refuse to accept certain facts, because those fact go against their agenda.

Originally Posted by buggyone

"Due to the liberal movement beginning in the late 1060's we have progressed to a generation of trophy kids who are disengaged from the realities of life and have this entitlement mentality."

Are you seriously saying that this began with the Norman Conquest of England in 1066?

Well yea

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Whereas conservatives believe in prsonal responsibility, limited governement and a free enterprise system where people can be free to seek their goals.

This is the part that always confuses me about conservatives, especially the "limited government" concept. It seems to me that conservatives want the government out of anything that has to do with their making money, but right in there about social things they do not like. For example, the most personal and private events of a person's life...THAT's where they want the government to come right on in. Freedom of choice.....conservatives want to tell half the population what they can or can not do with their own bodies. It is a woman's personal responsibility to make that decision. Gay marriage...again, a very personal thing, and once again...conservatives want the government to legislate morality. I just don't get it....No liberal I know fits the distinction you make.

No one is "attacking" those who make over $250,000...the issue is equity in PAYING TAXES, no redistributing wealth. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes based on my income.

I guess there is way too much stereotyping going on in this labeling and name calling. This response is specific to the issues in the post....

Ladydoc: katz response echo's mine but she did it better.

The problem with increased taxes as I see it is it create more problems (period) Increasing taxes is like a homeowner determining the best way to meet his debt is to go to the ATM. I am not so interested in the question as to fair or unfair because that debate has been ongoing since the beginning of time. I am more interested in reductions in spending.

The Greeks embraced homosexuality but even they recognized gay marraige as a problem. Enough said.

Rubicon,

What problem would you have with gays and lesbians having civil unions with all the rights of marriage - except it would be done in a non-religious place? It would be very similar to a man and woman being married in a court setting but would not be called marriage.

Michelle Bachmann stated that since 47% of Americans pay no income tax, they should be forced to pay some tax. She did not want to increase tax on the very wealthy but would force everyone to pay "their fair share" and those are her words from the Republican debate last Saturday. Tax the poor and lower-middle classes more and not the wealthy. Now, that makes real social justice.

Originally Posted by waynet

this redistribution nonsense must stop. Why is it when we cut taxes of the wealthiest no one yells redistribution is no good. If we just let the Bush tax cuts die will some of you be yelling about this redistribution stuff? Incomes in America have always changed as have the tax rates on people. I just can't believe that the wealthiest 1% and the super corporations have convinced some of you that any change in taxes is not American.

The irony is that billionaires such as the Koch Brothers have spent millions (which could go to taxes to help us out of the budget imbalance) to promote politicians who will not raise their taxes, and organizatons such as grover norquist's, which will intimidate politicians into signing an agreement not to raise taxes. Tens of millions of conservatives have been convinced by big-money interests that raising taxes on wealthy individuals would be in their best interest, which could not be further from the truth. Clinton era tax rates, which produced our last budget surpluses, were cut in the highest brackets by Bush, which began, among other factors, our downhill slide. Conservatives have bought into a lie, perpetrated by those who stand the most to gain by low upper-bracket tax rates, and huge tax credits and deductions. Meanwhile the vast majority of us suffer while the wealthy enjoy historic wealth, much of which may be deserved, but the disparity is astounding.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

The irony is that billionaires such as the Koch Brothers have spent millions (which could go to taxes to help us out of the budget imbalance) to promote politicians who will not raise their taxes, and organizatons such as grover norquist's, which will intimidate politicians into signing an agreement not to raise taxes. Tens of millions of conservatives have been convinced by big-money interests that raising taxes on wealthy individuals would be in their best interest, which could not be further from the truth. Clinton era tax rates, which produced our last budget surpluses, were cut in the highest brackets by Bush, which began, among other factors, our downhill slide. Conservatives have bought into a lie, perpetrated by those who stand the most to gain by low upper-bracket tax rates, and huge tax credits and deductions. Meanwhile the vast majority of us suffer while the wealthy enjoy historic wealth, much of which may be deserved, but the disparity is astounding.

These millionaire senators "enjoyed historic wealth" and "the disparity was astounding" between them and the rest of us long before the Bush tax cuts came along.

And you'll not be able to convince me that the "lofty", "magnanimous" Democrats in this list do not take advantage of nor use the "low upper-bracket tax rates, and huge tax credits and deductions". They milk the tax breaks and loopholes just as any thinking person would.

Senate millionaires (2003)

John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024

*These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...tors.finances/

A conservative is a liberal who was mugged the night before.

A conservative is a person who just sits and thinks, mostly sits.

Originally Posted by rubicon

Ladydoc: katz response echo's mine but she did it better.

The problem with increased taxes as I see it is it create more problems (period) Increasing taxes is like a homeowner determining the best way to meet his debt is to go to the ATM. I am not so interested in the question as to fair or unfair because that debate has been ongoing since the beginning of time. I am more interested in reductions in spending.

The Greeks embraced homosexuality but even they recognized gay marraige as a problem. Enough said.

You are absolutely right about the Greeks...the men had no problem with homosexuality and often preferred it. The problem with marriage had to do with producing heirs and transfer of property to progeny. Had nothing to do with morality...

Civil unions are OK...as long as the partner gets the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

I agree with cutting spending, but I also just read in the paper today about what the house came up with. Decrease payroll social security taxes. Great...good for you and terrible for your kids...there will soon be a shortage of funds, so putting even less in is a fine idea.
Cut medicare payments 27% to doctors. Swell....if you think you get little time with your doctor now, just wait until he or she needs to increase the number they see a day to ofset the decrease in reimbursement. Or even try finding a doc who will take medicare.
All this concern about what federal employees make...another swell idea..just as long as the house and senate include themselves in that definition of federal employees and take the same cuts or lack or increases. They are federal employees as far as I am concerned. All of this from republicans...so very interesting.

Also just heard that the house threw out the above. At least they have some hint of an idea. But in that report they also said that the house majority leaders said NO COMPROMISE. That is a wonderful way to get a concensus that might actually help us.

As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to.

Yesterday there was article in our paper (surprised the heck out of me that it got published) saying that a long term study of abortions effects on the mental health of women were NOT due to abortion, but due to the unwanted pregnancy. Another conclusion was that those women who had abortions and had mental health problems afterwards are the women who had mental health issues before the pregnancy/abortion. That makes sense.....past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I have not read the actual study, so I have no idea of the methodology invovled.

But the best story of all was the one this morning saying that the decorated trees that were actioned off made Special Olympics over $5000.

Well, I need to go bake some cookies for the cookie exchange. Anyone for mint chocolate chip cookies?

Like I implied before...never met anyone in my 38 years in the medical field that called themself "doc" and believed such fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."
Maybe it's true what they say- people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one!

A conservative is a person who just sits and thinks, mostly sits.

This is proof positive that you are disconnected from planet earth and have smoked too much of the wrong thing.
Truly the biggest line of BS I have read on this forum since being a member.

Like what? Tell me in what way this is so!

Wow! Proof that aliens have landed.

"fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."


Katz's statement has me somewhat confused. She is saying that it is fiction to believe that a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Or is she saying it is fiction to believe a fetus is part of a woman's body.

A simple knowledge of biology knows that it is the woman's body where a fetus is formed and grows. If you do not have that woman's body, you cannot have a fetus - except for the petri dish conceptions and medical machines, etc. Of course, it is part of the woman's body.