Re: Liberal Motto: Stay Out Of My Bedroom But Tax Me To Death!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marie A.) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavil Natanovich) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> (snip)
> > 
> > Purple notes the same thing I have long noticed.  How often does
> > something have to be repeated before it assumes a truth of its own? 
> > "The 'promotion' of gay marriage has 'devestating' consequences."  I
> > have heard numerous conservatives link homosexuality with pedophilia. 
> > It is done unconsciously (as most conservative thinking is
> > unconcious).
> 
> You state, "How often does something have to be repeated before it
> assumes a truth of its own?" Well, since every question can be
> re-framed, what if I cast it in this manner: How often does something
> have to be denied before the denial
> assumes credibility? Well, in the case of denying a link between
> homosexuality and pedophilia, you can deny it until the sun winks out
> but it won't change the truth of the observation that a link indeed
> exists. Now, of course one can get around this by redefining things,
> as in the case of redefining pedophilia to include a broad class of
> homosexual priests who assaulted young boys, but that dog won't hunt.
> You can count on one hand the girls molested by these priests, and
> that behavior simply doesn't fit the profile of pedophilia as commonly
> understood.

Pedophilia is sexual activity (not necessarily sexual intercourse)
between adults and children.  That is the definition of pedophilia,
plain and simple, Maria.  We don't need to redefine Man/Boy Love, or
priest/altar boy love, or Mary K. Letourneau Love.  It already is what
it is, Maria.

Pedophilia:  The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in
sexual activity with a child or children.

Look it up on dictionary.com.

Homosexuals account for something like 5% of the population.  Yet
outside of the clergy, homosexual pedophilia accounts for less than 1%
of all cases of pedophilia.  The facts are plain:  Homosexuals are
less interested in your children than heterosexuals, even counting
demographics.

Pedophilia is a symptom of a psychiatric pathology.  Homosexuality is
not.

If you enjoy sick, twisted shit, click on the link below.  It is high
octane homophobia, the kind of perversion that if taken to heart would
leave a lot of sad, pathetic, and emotionally deprived people in its
wake.

http://www.inoohr.org/lesbianpedophilialives.htm



> should be superceded by community interests.  This again is completely
> backwards
> > from what one might hope to expect.  When I think "conservative," I
> > tend to think of individual rights NOT being trampled by government
> > authority.  Why is it then so-called liberal organizations like the
> > ACLU are the ones most staunchly defending individual rights, while
> > right-wing zealots seek to tear them down?
 
> Sir, what you may or may not "tend to think" about anything has about
> as much bearing on reality as your last dream. Just as many of us
> "tend to think" quite the opposite, that totalitarianism and
> authoritarian thinking invariably arises from the left, from a
> socialist mindset which is the hallmark of liberal thinking. When
> liberals decry government interference in our lives, their concerns
> invariably center around sexual matters and licentious behaviors.
> However, in almost any other area you care to name, the sky's the
> limit with your gang where tolerance of the state in our personal
> affairs is concerned.

Madam, bovine excrement.  Cite examples, please.  Conservatives
applaud random drug testing.  It was a conservative administration
that rammed the anti patriotic "Patriot Act" through a conservative
congress.  It is a conservative administration that seeks to implement
programs like "Carnivore" and "Magic Lantern" to eavesdrop on all the
network traffic in the nation.  It is a right-wing administration that
wants access to your library records, movie rentals, and other
invasions of privacy.

 
> I would suggest to you that no greater damage can be done to a people
> than through the taxing and regulatory mechanisms of the state, yet I
> have never met a liberal who didn't instantly fall in love with a tax,
> any tax. It's not conservatives pushing for ever higher taxes and ever
> more punishing regulations. No, it's your crowd doing this, and if any
> government has it in its power to utterly destroy us, it's through
> extortionist taxes and draconian regulations which effectively
> determine what we can do, where we can do it and how we do it. But
> none of this seems to worry your crowd.

Oh, oh, name the president under whose administration the federal
register doubled in size?  I'll give you a clue--it was in the 2nd
half of the 20th century.  Need another clue?  His initials were "R.
R.".  Doesn't it seem kind of funny how the number of executive rules
and regulations during Dubya's first three years in office exceeded
those of all eight years of Clinton's administration?

What I enjoy even more than that is how not only did the economy grow
during the miserable Clinton years, by the end of his term the federal
deficit had been eliminated, and our government was operating "in the
black" for the first time since before the Vietnam War.  Granted, the
national debt was still huge, but one cannot undo decades of decadent
conservative largesse in one short term.

I really miss the days when the biggest problem facing our nation was
the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress.


> Given my druthers, I would far prefer life under a government which
> peeks it's nose into my bedroom from time to time than one which aims
> to steal my home AND bedroom because liberals like you would rather
> tax me into the poorhouse by way of redistributing my money as you see
> fit. The former I can live with, while the latter will reduce me to
> pushing a shopping cart. There's a hierarchy to freedoms, the theft of
> certain ones rendering others problematic.

Wah, wah, wah.  How horrible it must be for you to part with a tiny
fraction of your wealth, you miser.  Tax a few crumbs from your table,
and you whine like you're starving to death.  Be thankful you don't
get all the government you pay for, regardless of which party is in
power.

Progressive taxes aren't likely to cheat you out of house and home,
Maria.  That is merely conservative martyr thinking.  And those who
whine about how horribly they're suffering make such terrible martyrs.
 I suppose you figure if a few extra children need to suffer the pangs
of hunger and starvation so that you can add a second Bentley to your
garage, it must be worth it.  Martha Stewart's chickens live in
greater style and comfort than many children in our country.  And what
is wrong with that?  More power to her, if she can afford gilt troughs
for her setting hens.

I'm not all that excited about higher taxes.  I a progressive tax
capped at 35% sounds about right.  This means that Donald Trump pays
the same rate on his first $10,000 that I pay on mine.  He pays a
slightly higher rate on his next $10,000, and so on, capping out at
35% on anything over whatever the current ceiling is:  $100,000.  What
I and most liberals (and quite a few conservatives) would like to see
is no significant change to this table, but the elimination of loop
holes that advantage certain individuals with considerable political
clout.  Why should Jeb & Neil get huge tax breaks for oil exploration
businesses?  What is novel about that?