DeLay Is Charged With Criminal Conspiracy in Texas

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

You'll find much harsher, insightful, and on-topic criticism of the Republican political party from NR than most other sources. And from NR it'll be valid criticisms, not just the typical "I hate Bush too" that passes for mainstream liberal thought nowadays.

I have seen very few articles on NR Online that are critical of the right, especially in comparison to the ones that are supportive of the right. I agree, Bush bashing can get old, but most of the time it is justified. He really is doing that poorly as President.

And Clinton wasn't all that hot either, before you go there.

Quote

And yeah, NR has those wacky people who think men, and women, should marry, before having kids, and stay together, after having kids, crazy as that thought is to some people. Damn them!

They make up a portion of this nation, as do gays, single parents, and those that have been divorced. If you deny yourself the ability to understand current events from the perspectives of others, you are not getting the whole story.

I'm curious, have you ever lived anywhere where you a minority?

[Sopheavy 0]

I live only 1 minute shy of DeLay's district.

Anyway, since so many people hate Bush, I just want to say....it's not easy being president.....
Off topic, since Chris mentioned Clinton, my friend used to work to Hillary directly. He was a lawyer for oil/environmental stuff when Clinton was governor. He mentioned that Clinton sure was a nice guy but he was always cheating on Hillary while governor, old news. He told me that Hillary was a lot smarter than her husband which I agree.

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
If you want to see the rainbow, you gotta put up with the storm. God bless! :)

[Guest 1010]

Quote

Quote

You'll find much harsher, insightful, and on-topic criticism of the Republican political party from NR than most other sources. And from NR it'll be valid criticisms, not just the typical "I hate Bush too" that passes for mainstream liberal thought nowadays.

I have seen very few articles on NR Online that are critical of the right, especially in comparison to the ones that are supportive of the right. I agree, Bush bashing can get old, but most of the time it is justified. He really is doing that poorly as President.

And Clinton wasn't all that hot either, before you go there.

Quote

And yeah, NR has those wacky people who think men, and women, should marry, before having kids, and stay together, after having kids, crazy as that thought is to some people. Damn them!

They make up a portion of this nation, as do gays, single parents, and those that have been divorced. If you deny yourself the ability to understand current events from the perspectives of others, you are not getting the whole story.

I'm curious, have you ever lived anywhere where you a minority?

(yeah i wander a bit, felt like writing some)

>I have seen very few articles on NR Online that are critical of the right,

That's a nice reply to nothing I have said. I said NR is often critical of the Republican party. Yes the right has no place else to go, but the Republican party is not a conservative party. They are a political party. That means they will generally hold (or say) whatever view it takes to get elected, same as the Democratic party.

Yes there are backers of the Republican party at NR, but to say only one side of current topics is presented is a falsehood.

I haven't even been to John Derbyshire (who is a skydiver, btw):

"It still looks hopeless. Does this mean I’ve turned on George W. Bush? Nah. Just lost what enthusiasm I had. I’d still vote for Bush over any Democrat, but I really can’t take too much more Bushism. Iraq... New Orleans... Medicare… Our president — my president, since I voted for him — really does believe that the feddle gummint can accomplish absolutely anything just by spending boxcars full of money. When did conservatives ever believe this? And didn't even Americans at large stop believing it around 30 years ago? And when does this open-borders insanity end? A whole quarter of my town has been turned into a vicious slum by illegal immigrants. Why doesn’t the federal government do its job — round them up and deport them?

"What surprises me is how many of my conservative friends are still hot’n’heavy for W. Some of them are born-again Christians, and Bush is a born-again Christian, and that’s what does it for them. Fair enough, I suppose, if that’s the most important thing in your life, but what about the rest of us? What about us benighted folk who aren’t born-again Christians, but are nonetheless conservative, believing in small government, self-support, fiscal prudence, individual liberty, national security, orderly immigration, judicial restraint, traditional values, and equal opportunity? W doesn’t really offer a whole lot to us, does he? Sure, John Roberts was a good pick for SCOTUS, but who’s the next pick? Alberto “La Raza” Gonzalez? No thanks. Sorry, George, the bloom is off the rose. I can’t even imagine voting for a Democrat, and I’m not a third party sort of guy, but… is this really the best we can do?"


>He really is doing that poorly as President.

We differ. I would guess that you have residual anger from the 2000 election, am I correct? Does your dislike of Bush color everything he does, or has ever been involved in? The country entered a recession while Clinton was president, the stock market (and dot com bubble) crashed in March of 2000 (The NASDAQ Composite Index closed at a high of 5048.62 on March 10, 2000. It found a relative low on January 2, 2001 of 2291.86, a few weeks before Bush was sworn in.) Tax cuts and a stable hand at the fed saved us much grief. If 20 years from now Iraq is a Democracy, a stabilizing influence like Germany has been in Europe since WW-II, you will thank him for the effort.

>And Clinton wasn't all that hot either, before you go there.

ummm, thanks, but I'll go anywhere I please. Clinton did good things as well as bad things when he was president. Clinton COULD have been a great president, if he would have got past his need for acceptance/legacy concerns, and had just a little more political insight - enough to get rid of the "pardon" crooks that surrounded him at the end, and backed off the partisanship just a little (He had 8 years to enact that arsenic rule - if it was so important, why wait until the last weeks of a presidency to pass it, if not to just use it to beat Bush over the head with it. They probably still have a good laugh about that. I would. It was a totally brilliant political move - if the rule is strictly enforced, small towns across the west are royally screwed. If he rescinds it hes an evil destroyer of the environment, poisoning tomorrows children. Totally freakin brilliant move.)

And you really don't think Clinton WANTED Gore to be President, did you? Please. You're smarter than that. Clinton could have cracked down on the Enrons, but obviously he didn't want the blame for the market crash so he wasn't about to touch those companies. Left it for Bush. Along with so many other things. I could go on but this is tiresome and boring.

>They make up a portion of this nation, as do gays, single parents, and those that have been divorced. If you deny yourself the ability to understand current events from the perspectives of others, you are not getting the whole story.

I said "should". Not have to. You don't have to actually be another person to comprehend what they may be experiencing.

>I'm curious, have you ever lived anywhere where you a minority?
PM sent. Lived? According to my conversations with the EEOC I am a black person. I have never claimed it for any benefit from a government agency or private company. You don't know me at all. You think I'm just a dumb 'ol straight white conservative guy, therefore I've never experienced anything and couldn't possibly understand what others may go through. Puhlease. You do the stereotyping of me, which you attribute to me.

As far as perspective of others, I have varied news sources. For now its just the local paper (liberal rag) and cnn, msnbc, fox. Not that you believe this, but Fox actually has a large number of lefty talking heads on their shows. Not the Michael Moores, but Howard Dean was on recently for several segments, Alan Derschowitz was on when Rehnquist died, and so on. I'm kind of withdrawn politically at the moment, not really in need of the 24 hr news cycle. But when/if I go back into it, Roll Call is good for the Washington DC stuff, the NYT and the Washington Post must be looked at, Slate and some blogs to see what the wacko left is up to, then the Wash Times, National Review, Human Events, The Weekly Standard for that side.

Question for you - where do you get your news?

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

That's a nice reply to nothing I have said. I said NR is often critical of the Republican party. Yes the right has no place else to go, but the Republican party is not a conservative party. They are a political party. That means they will generally hold (or say) whatever view it takes to get elected, same as the Democratic party.

You're right.

Quote

Yes there are backers of the Republican party at NR, but to say only one side of current topics is presented is a falsehood.

It would also be false to say they are unbiased for the right. They may throw in the occasional critical article, but they are clearly conservative. In fairness, they do not claim to be otherwise.

Quote

Does your dislike of Bush color everything he does, or has ever been involved in?

No. I judge the man by the merits of his actions. IMO he has done very poorly as President. McCain would have been far, far better. So yes, in a sense I am still upset about the 2000 primaries.

Quote

Tax cuts and a stable hand at the fed saved us much grief.

I don't understand how tax cuts and increased spending can be considered fiscally responsible. To compound matters, the military spending will have a much smaller benefit for the nation than would social spending.

Quote

You don't know me at all. You think I'm just a dumb 'ol straight white conservative guy, therefore I've never experienced anything and couldn't possibly understand what others may go through.

Actually it was not a loaded question when I asked if you had ever been a minority. I was just curious. Having lived in places where being a white American is not so common, I have gained insight that I otherwise would not have.

Quote

Question for you - where do you get your news?

Primarily from news.google sources, although I have been known to actively seek articles from many of the same sources as you mentioned, including, incidentally, National Review.

My personal favorite is NPR, however. When time limits me to a single source, I find them to be the most in depth, and often the most objective. There is no substitute for multiple sources, though.

[Guest 1010]

Quote

Quote

Yes there are backers of the Republican party at NR, but to say only one side of current topics is presented is a falsehood.

It would also be false to say they are unbiased for the right. They may throw in the occasional critical article, but they are clearly conservative. In fairness, they do not claim to be otherwise.

yes I agree they are definitely biased to the right, many people would say (and I'd agree for the most part) that NR _is_ the right.

I was getting at the differences between the Republican party and conservatism. If it wasn't for the whole social policy side of Bush (and that isn't trivial), he'd be what I grew up thinking a Democrat was ... spend spend spend. Unfortunately, it is the party in power that spends & spends; it was just demos back then.

>Actually it was not a loaded question when I asked if you had ever been a minority. I was just curious. Having lived in places where being a white American is not so common, I have gained insight that I otherwise would not have.

well this is SC, after, if not loaded what are questions for!
Cheers

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[JohnRich 4]

More on Ronnie Earle, from: NewsMax.com

He previously brought charges against Republican Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson. After smearing her name in the mud for a while, the case came to court, and Ronnie dropped all charges almost as soon as the judge opened by banging his gavel. Then Ronnie went back out and smeared her name with mud some more using mock jurors and a fake trial.

Yeah, this guy has loads of integrity, honor and credibility.

[billvon 3,111]

>Yeah, this guy has loads of integrity, honor and credibility.

Whatever you do, don't discuss the indictment! Attack the people whose job it is to bring it. Ignore the fact that a grand jury handed down the indictment. Alternatively, google the names of the jurors, then go to a right wing blog for some dirt and smear them. Remember, they are all guilty until proven innocent.

Question of the day - has Earle prosecuted more democratic or republican politicians?

[billvon 3,111]

Update -

----------
Grand Jury Indicts DeLay on New Charge
AP - 34 minutes ago

AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader. Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.
----------

Another grand jury withut integrity, honor or credibility is slandering the honorable Tom Delay. It's an outrage, I tell ya. Next thing you know, the lying liberal left will insist on a 'jury of his peers' in that hotbed of liberal activism (Texas) instead of a speedy, fair and impartial investigation led by Karl Rove and Bill Frist.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Yeah, this guy has loads of integrity, honor and credibility.

Whatever you do, don't discuss the indictment! Attack the people whose job it is to bring it.

The weakness of the indictment is all over the news. A judge was about to quash it, so Ronnie scrounged up another grand jury and filed a do-over indictment, saying the same thing with a few corrections.

You would think that 'ol Ronnie would have been more careful to get his facts straight in the first place. But then, he seems more interested in the self-publicity and partisan politics, then in actually having a winning case.

Quote

Question of the day - has Earle prosecuted more democratic or republican politicians?

Democrats. That's all there was in Texas up until a few years ago, as it is only recently that Repubs have taken over in Texas. So he went after democratic political opponents too. That should also make you wonder about his motives: if not partisan party-wise, it certainly shows a flair for trying to make a name for himself by using his office to charge powerful people. And many times, those indictments failed miserably.

So, let's see: the Republican-bashers want to presume that Earle is a man of honor and integrity with his only concern to be justice under the law. So let's run with that for a moment. What then does that say about the fact that he's charged more Democrats than Republicans?

It says that there have been more crooked Democrats than crooked Republicans.

(You didn't really want that answer, did you?)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Another grand jury withut integrity, honor or credibility is slandering the honorable Tom Delay... that hotbed of liberal activism (Texas)

These charges are coming out of Austin, which is a liberal hotbed, even though the remainder of Texas is generally not.

And I'm sure that you are aware that the grand jury process only hears one side of the story, from the prosecuter. No defense is allowed at that stage. So it's pretty easy to present some trumped-up charges and get people to agree with you, because there is no counter-argument.

DeLay Lawyer Has Beaten DA Before

DeLay's attorney rebukes indictment

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

It says that there have been more crooked Democrats than crooked Republicans.

(You didn't really want that answer, did you?)

God. When are you going to realize they are ALL crooked? They use the same tactics but only for different ideologies. But I forgot, you LIKE a divided country.

Us and them mentality is so very very tiring.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

When are you going to realize they are ALL crooked?

Incorrect. Anytime you try and label "all" of a group of people as something, you are bound to be wrong. Like: "all Jews are penny-pinchers" or; "all blacks like watermelon". There are 100 senators, and 435 representatives. I think it is very jaded and incorrect of you to presume that all 535 of these men and women are crooked. You won't get any credibility from me with statements like that.

Quote

you LIKE a divided country.

Wrong again.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

When are you going to realize they are ALL crooked?

Incorrect. Anytime you try and label "all" of a group of people as something, you are bound to be wrong. Like: "all Jews are penny-pinchers" or; "all blacks like watermelon". There are 100 senators, and 435 representatives. I think it is very jaded and incorrect of you to presume that all 535 of these men and women are crooked. You won't get any credibility from me with statements like that.

Quote

you LIKE a divided country.

Wrong again.

Oh, I am sorry. United...under republicans.

But don't worry, the Democrats have people just like that too. Both sides have plenty of people to keep us separated far into the future.

And as for the first statement, it was semi-tongue in cheek. THe point being that there are bad guys on both side of the fence. The blanket statement was hyperbole to get that across.

But jaded? I have seen the wa the direction of this country has been going for many years....so yeah, I might be a bit jaded and hoping for some change, but knowing it probably will not happen anytime soon.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,111]

>The weakness of the indictment is all over the news. A judge was
> about to quash it, so Ronnie scrounged up another grand jury and
> filed a do-over indictment, saying the same thing with a few
> corrections.

Uh, the new charges were filed because Delay threatened to back out of a waiver he signed where he agreed not to be bound by a statute of limitations for that crime. In other words, Delay tried a legal trick to get out of the indictment. It failed.

>You would think that 'ol Ronnie would have been more careful to get
> his facts straight in the first place.

Yep. He expected Delay to keep his word. A mistake with politicians on either side.

>the Republican-bashers want to presume that Earle is a man of
> honor and integrity with his only concern to be justice under the law.
> So let's run with that for a moment. What then does that say about
> the fact that he's charged more Democrats than Republicans?

That republicans and democrats are both crooks, and when more democrats are in power, more democrats get charged. (Recall the old saying about power and corruption.) Now republicans are in power, and now they're getting charged with crimes.

Almost makes you think that republicans _and_ democrats commit crimes, eh? But it sure as hell blows out of the water the "it's all a partisan attack!" nonsense. It certainly proves Earle has not shown a political bias in favor of democrats.

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Innocent Until Proven guilty huh....Thats all fine and dandy for Republicans when a member of that party comes up on charges. However....let the one allegations are brought against be a Democrat and they are the ones screaming for blood. They went after President Clinton's head....he was presumed guilty from the start....I think it is about time we show these people for what they really are. Corrupt! If he is found innocent...then I will be the first to apologize...I am 100% certain that will not be the case!

Johnny Skydive!

[Johnnyskydive 0]

>Are those the kind of people you want running the country?

Absolutely! At least then we would have a party focused on the right things for America. Health Care, Poverty, Equal Rights, The Economy, Diplomacy maybe?! Instead we have got a power hungry ego maniac for a President! Someone who is focused (as well as most of the rest of the party) with the needs of the rich...give them a tax break they surely need it!! A party concerned with the people who need help the least! Do we need programs like medicaid, wic, curbing spending....as it would seem with this administration...this party the answer is no. Let the poor get deeper in to poverty, let them suffer away with out health insurance. Spend money that we don't have.....give more tax breaks to people making over $100,00 a year. Surely they need it more! I just cannot understand why these people keep getting elected....maybe it is because they do appeal to the rich and power hungry...therefore get enough campaign funding to coerce the American people into voting for them. Or rual Americans are just to heard headed to see past gun control. I will personally never understand it!

Johnny Skydive!

[Johnnyskydive 0]

>You want to decide who gets health care
Absolutely not....I want everyone to have health care avaliable to them!

>You want to penalize me for working and actually making a living.
Nope, unless you make $100,000 or so a year, then you'd keep your tax cut! However if you happen to be in the top 2% of Americans who make this then I don't really think you need yours....you make plenty of money and I think it would be nobel for you to give up the extra couple thousand a year to help fund some of the programs for the people you think don't work!

>You want to take away my ability to defend myself.
Nope, I enjoy hunting myself, also own a handgun that I keep in my home. However I don't believe that the laws are strict enough...If you need a gun now...right now and can't wait for the proper checks to be done then you probably shouldn't be buying one. We just need a more stringent screening process.

>You need poor people to need your programs
No, we need to protect poor people though...if they honestly want to help themselves then we should have ways to help them find jobs, send them to school, make sure they have health care, and affordable housing. There are plenty of things I'd like to see happen for Small business owners and companies who develop more jobs for our country.

>You are why Bush is president.
No, florida is the reason Bush is President. Even though the majority of Americans voted for him the first time around. The last election there wasn't any good candidates running against him. IMHO!

Johnny Skydive!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>You want to penalize me for working and actually making a living.
Nope, unless you make $100,000 or so a year, then you'd keep your tax cut! However if you happen to be in the top 2% of Americans who make this then I don't really think you need yours....you make plenty of money and I think it would be nobel for you to give up the extra couple thousand a year to help fund some of the programs for the people you think don't work!

I want to distribute my money how I want. I don't want my government to force me to be "noble" because I am successful.

And that is the idea of liberalism. Not socialism. Liberalism

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Johnnyskydive 0]

You can distribute your money however you please....your tax money however is distributed by the government. And thank God that is the way it goes....we have way too many selfish and self centered people in this country.

Johnny Skydive!

[Guest 1010]

Quote

>You want to decide who gets health care
Absolutely not....I want everyone to have health care avaliable to them!

I would also like for everyone to have health care. So on that we are agreed. I suspect that you want the government to pay for it and manage it, taking my money on pain of jail to pay for it. Think FEMA as your HMO.

Quote

>You want to penalize me for working and actually making a living.
Nope, unless you make $100,000 or so a year, then you'd keep your tax cut! However if you happen to be in the top 2% of Americans who make this then I don't really think you need yours....you make plenty of money and I think it would be nobel for you to give up the extra couple thousand a year to help fund some of the programs for the people you think don't work!

You wish to decide how much money it is acceptable for me to earn. Isn't it my money? And if inflation gets rolling again, today's 100k is tomorrow's average income.

Then lets say I do earn 100k per year. Heck, I even have free time. You would penalize me for getting another job to add even more to society, by supplying whatever it is I do, that they wish to pay me for. That 100k thing is a real deal-breaker, isn't it? Most people I know making more than 100k work their ass off and are very good people. This country (and any) would do well to have more people like that.

Quote

>You want to take away my ability to defend myself.
Nope, I enjoy hunting myself, also own a handgun that I keep in my home. However I don't believe that the laws are strict enough...If you need a gun now...right now and can't wait for the proper checks to be done then you probably shouldn't be buying one. We just need a more stringent screening process.

Who said anything about hunting? Are you expecting to be attacked by deer? Quail? What do you mean by if in need of one now, I shouldn't be buying one? You mean should I steal one? Or call the government for help?

If a man is in your house with ill will, how long do you think that scenario will take to play itself out? (It will only be a few moments, whatever it is that happens.) And now, how long will it take law enforcement to respond to your call to 911? Law enforcement, brave and generous as most officers are, arrive at crime scenes to take the history of what happened. Many officers no need to unholster their weapons for years at a time.

Quote

>You need poor people to need your programs
No, we need to protect poor people though...if they honestly want to help themselves then we should have ways to help them find jobs, send them to school, make sure they have health care, and affordable housing. There are plenty of things I'd like to see happen for Small business owners and companies who develop more jobs for our country.

I'd much rather have no one be poor. But that's just me. And you're only for small business owners ... as long as they make less than 100k, right? Otherwise then wouldn't they be the rich guys making "extra" money?

Quote

>You are why Bush is president.
No, florida is the reason Bush is President. Even though the majority of Americans voted for him the first time around. The last election there wasn't any good candidates running against him. IMHO!

You're attitude of wishing to control, via government, all of society ie my life, keeps many of us dumb rural people involved with a party maybe we'd rather not be involved with.

And you could pick any of 30 states, not just Florida. I personally choose Tennessee. That state gave it to Bush. But you helped mightily I assue you.

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[Guest 1010]

Quote

You can distribute your money however you please....your tax money however is distributed by the government. And thank God that is the way it goes....we have way too many selfish and self centered people in this country.

In your view, who much money can I make, and keep for myself, and not be selfish?

Please give me the magic number. $75k, $100k, $125k, $200k, $350K ... or just some multliplier of the local wages, or average home sales price?

Try this thought on for size. Say I make $200k, and pay $60k in taxes. You have a friend that makes $40k and pays $3k in taxes. Am I the more selfish one because you leave me $140k of my own money, or are you the selfish one because you only gave a measly $3k to the government?

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[billvon 3,111]

>I suspect that you want the government to pay for it and manage it,
>taking my money on pain of jail to pay for it.

That's what we have now. A huge number of people (including a lot of skydivers) don't have health insurance, and just rely on the ER taking anyone and not requiring payment up front (or, in many cases, ever.)

>You wish to decide how much money it is acceptable for me to earn.
>Isn't it my money?

Nope, not all of it, at least in the US. From the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . "

>Most people I know making more than 100k work their ass off and are
>very good people. This country (and any) would do well to have more
>people like that.

Indeed! And they help support the country that gave them that opportunity (as most people do to one degree or another.)

>I'd much rather have no one be poor. But that's just me.

I agree there. But there will always be poor, as someone much smarter than me once said.

[Johnnyskydive 0]

Glad we agree on health care! Yes I think the government should cover down on those who cannot afford health insurance....as to how exactly....I will have to study more policy and form an idea based on that!

Yes, it is your money but taxes belong to the government as per the constitution...and as inflation rises so should that "magic" number....but you have got to put the bar somewhere and thats the number for now! I agree that these guys work extremely hard. But is that to say John Smith who works for the local factory or a construction company who makes 20,000 dollars a year doesn't also work his ass off also? To support his wife and three children...to try and provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, and a college education for them. But say his company doesn't have an insurance policy to pay into...is he just out of luck...should we tell him "sorry guy, go to college since you have all this time on your hands since you don't work your ass off. And pay for this out of your own pocket!"?

Hunting is one of the arguments for gun ownership...as well as protecting ones self. I said I hunt AND own a handgun for protection. If you need a weapon by all means go and buy one...but be willing to wait for the screening that this should take. If you need that gun now: right now, no wait then you probably shouldn't be buying one in the first place (not you....joe blow criminal who wants to go down the road and rob a bank with said handgun) this is the scenario we need to be putting policy into place for. Yes he can go and break into a gun shop and steal one....hopefully he will be caught in the process. But lets not let him purchase one legally! Again a more stringent screening process is needed!

No, I am for any company or corporation who provides jobs and services for the American people. Small businesses should be given tax incentives... if you provide a service to the community, employ workers in this community....Then the community (government at the local, state and federal level) should do everything in its power to make sure you are afforded the opportunity.

I think that rual americans (i was born and raised in Hickory, North Carolina) are for the most part mistaken for who they should support. They only see one or two issues. Gun's are a big issue in the south. They republican party has the south scared out of it's wits that the nasty democrats are going to kill their babies and take away their guns and try and turn their children into homosexual's. These are the tactics that most republican politicians and political ads use!

And it's not control its called governing....we do not live in an anarchist society where people can live by their own rules. We have to do whats right for everyone involved....and I am sure that if you make 200,000 dollars a year you aren't going to miss that money as much as 40,000 dollars average joe is going to miss his 3,000 or 4,000....or it may in fact get you close to missing it as much as he does!

Those other 30 states are the ones that mostly targeted with these "scary democrats are coming" political ads....and because of huge corporations(that want to pay no taxes and have no government so they can get richer and charge outrageous prices for whatever they want....and put the poverty stricken even deeper into the poor house) the republican party, who draw most of their support (and money) from these corporations, can put these ads out there...and have their politicians ranting and raving out on the stump about the horrible democrats....and scare the people, who really need us the most, into voting for people who really don't support their plight...who really don't care rather their children are covered if they get sick or hurt, weither their children go to college, weither their children are destined to fall into the same poverty stricken life that they themselves were doomed to!

Johnny Skydive!

[Guest 1010]

Quote

>I suspect that you want the government to pay for it and manage it,
>taking my money on pain of jail to pay for it.

That's what we have now. A huge number of people (including a lot of skydivers) don't have health insurance, and just rely on the ER taking anyone and not requiring payment up front (or, in many cases, ever.)

So this is a good thing, and you wish to expand it? Why? Would it be better for government to become EVEN MORE involved in our health care decisions? I would think that the current administration's stands on abortion and other issues would provide you great pause from politicising health care more than it already.

In what direction would you like the US health care system go, and for what purpose? If those purposes aren't achieved in some z number of years, would you let it (help me force it) back to the status quo?

Quote

>You wish to decide how much money it is acceptable for me to earn.
>Isn't it my money?

Nope, not all of it, at least in the US. From the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . "

The constitution means so little now it is rather sad to see quotes from it.

Please tell me what is uniform about our taxation? And as for the "common Defence and general Welfare", I understand that we have a common defense. But the welfare system we have seems rather specific, not general. Especially in contrast as to the common defense. The soldier endangers his life as much for you as for me. (Probably weighted a little more for NYC and DC and other urban areas, which would more likely be the targets of any attack, than rural areas.) In any case, much more evenly than the government check that arrives for some, and not for others.

If we had a conservative "textual" SCOTUS, government would not be the biggest employer in the country and have direct control of a third of the GDP.

Quote

>Most people I know making more than 100k work their ass off and are
>very good people. This country (and any) would do well to have more
>people like that.

Indeed! And they help support the country that gave them that opportunity (as most people do to one degree or another.)

>I'd much rather have no one be poor. But that's just me.

I agree there. But there will always be poor, as someone much smarter than me once said.

The woman that annointed Jesus' head with the prohibitively expensive oil, as Jesus was in the AIDS patient's (oops, the leper's) house, was chastized by the others with Him, and he defended her:

"You have the poor with you always, but you will not always have me. When she poured this ointment on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you solemnly, wherever in all the world this Good News is proclaimed, what she has done will be told also, in remembrance of her."

Unfortunately I am in agreement with you, with the caveat that the poor seem to be confined to earth, a place separate from where Jesus would soon be.

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[billvon 3,111]

>So this is a good thing, and you wish to expand it?

Nope, just formalize it.

>Why?

Because it's a clusterfuck now.

>Would it be better for government to become EVEN MORE involved
>in our health care decisions?

Again, no. Right now in this country we have an informal two-tier healthcare system that everyone uses. ER's, which provide the first level and are essentially free to those with no scruples. And health plans, which provide better health care (like prophylaxis, elective surgery, hospitalization etc.) Formalize that so that hospitals don't go out of business when they help the first level people, and still provide a strong incentive (better care) for that second level, which will remain more expensive.

>Please tell me what is uniform about our taxation?

The constitution does not call for uniform taxation. It calls for uniform duties, imposts and excises.

>And as for the "common Defence and general Welfare", I understand
> that we have a common defense. But the welfare system we have
>seems rather specific, not general.

"General welfare" in this context does not mean "the welfare system." It means things like the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the CDC, air traffic control, police - things that better the general welfare of the citizens of the US.

>Especially in contrast as to the common defense. The soldier
>endangers his life as much for you as for me.

Right.

>If we had a conservative "textual" SCOTUS, government would not be
> the biggest employer in the country and have direct control of a third
> of the GDP.

I agree. But we're in the midst of one of the largest growth spurts the federal government has ever seen - and this from the 'small government' party. Democrats are no better. There is little chance of ever reducing the size of government, absent something like an armed rebellion.