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

"Pavil Natanovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [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.

Do you suppose they are referring to a legal child or a physical child?

>
> 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?