Back in the late ’70s, the Republicans learned that if you hailed people as “taxpayers” rather than citizens, and appealed to their meaner instincts, you could convince many that they were downright righteous to withhold their money from supporting the common good. Why should hard-working, responsible people who never themselves got a “hand-out”—as the line went—see their hard-earned dollars spent… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (42)Page 1 of 1 pagesAmen!! An excellent repudiation of the right-wing’s “moral” rhetoric. This article shows that morality for the right-wing is constrained to two issues: gay marriage and abortion, which are hardly the most pressing issues facing this country today. To the right-wing, values and morals are constrained to private life, such as a women’s personal reproductive choice and what two consenting adults choose to do in their own bedroom. Liberals must show that they too have values and morals, just in a different set of society: that of the public sector. Liberals must shift the values debate to the public arena and assail the Republicans for their clear deficit of those values. Susan Douglas does an excellent job of pointing out where those deficits reside.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 9:20 AM good to see there are some people here who share my hatred for the christian nazi media. anyway, i’d like to spread the good news about something from the dark arts that has blown my shit for the past ten days. my stepmom reads tarot in san jose and one of her friends who is wrapped up in the dark arts recently sent me two authentic wanga dolls - an exorcist wanga and a controlling wanga. i’ve been tripping power ever since, man.
i muled meth for two years before i said fuck it and lifted a load from boss and went on the lam. it’s been pretty hot since and when i got these wanga dolls the first thing i done was to exorcise that motherfucker whose been on my tail. sure enough he got pumped with a nine outside of a club in fresno that very night. now i’m sitting on enough meth to ski down.
as to the other wanga doll, i met this dancer at high heels in burbank and i’ll be damned if i didn’t cast a love spell on her with that doll. she’s got some sort of magical pussy cause she came five times in a night and i don’t even have but a regular size cock. that pussy’s like a waterfall it’s so wet all the time. and now she won’t touch nobody but me.
anyway, i seen where some folks are trading parts on this site and if anybody’s got a whole F kit ...i know somebody who’d pay top dollar. 831.277.9873
keep carrying the banner for doom metal and check out my list of favorite black metal albums below. they’re all stripped down wicked, diabolical, and totally blasphemous.
borknager - blood on ice
dark throne - olden domain
mayhem - pure fucking armaggedon
thokk - of rape and vampyrism
twin obscenity - where light touches none
ogarth - rape, kill, pillage, and burn
blind death - pulverize
thorr’s hammer - velvet darkness they fear“i live at right angles to the people i meet”
- blaze
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 10:34 AM go ahead you silly liitle liberals compare Christians and conservatives to nazis like the five year old morons you are. America is absolving and cleaensing itself of the sill socialistleft. What you awnt more taxes for abortions and gay indoctrination? go to hell- you will never steal my money for your socilaist crap. i have not paid taxes in years It is your patriotic duty to avoid and lie about taxes. Taxation is theft plain and simple. The less money the government gets the less the liberals get to use against Ameerica and decent Ameericans. You left wingnuts are in your own little world aren’t you?? liberal scum. no more taxes- less government, no friggin asshole liberals. get used to it.
Posted by anti-liberal on Jul 18, 2005 at 10:41 AM The second post was not Lefty at all. Rather, it was a posting by a sick, twisted, and perverted miscreant who has NO BUSINESS writing that kind of filth on this website!!!!
Anti-liberal, therefore you must conclude that progressives do not compare conservatives to Christian-nazis.
Taxation is not theft because it is not illegal. Taxation is legalized in a minor document called the CONSTITUTION! If you think taxation is theft, then what are roads, schools, police and fire departments, public parks, and national defense? Giveaways from GOD? Give me a break! Society cannot function without a government subsidized by the people. It is not socialism to believe that. Tax money does not promote a “gay agenda, “ whatever that is. You may disagree with public funds being used for abortion, but then you must be opposed to far greater public funds being used to kill innocent Iraqi children. Right?
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 12:14 PM The last time I checked, anti-liberal, liberals have not crafted a federal budget since the year 2000, over five years ago. Why then would you not want to pay taxes if a right-wing social conservative is in the White House? Most of your tax dollars are going to defense, do you disagree with the President on that? I do, but I still pay taxes anyway, because it is the obligation of those who benefit from a civilized society to contribute towards it maintenance.
You prove my conception of conservatives/libertarians everywhere- anti-intellectual, mentally devoid polemicists who despise rational discourse because they are incapable of partaking in it!!
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 12:20 PM Fuck off and die Bud you don’t speak for me. If the christian nazi media needs your help in censoring my message you’ll know it.
Now, a few words from the other side. For those who prefer the most unholy of metal, RECKON! The greatest of all slaughterers-- Witchmaster. Familiarize yourself with the end as it draws near!
WITCHfuckingMASTER is now signed to Agonia Records (World) and Pagan Records (Poland), the band is preparing shit for their new album, so expect something ugly as your mothers crippled asshole.
WITCHMASTERs old bassist Reyash is back in business, molesting the four strings in the band again! A new assault on your feeble asses!
WITCHMASTER prepares to release another whipstruck on your worthless asses… The split 12” LP with English ADORIOR will be out around july through French CIRCLE OF THE TYRANTS Records. Check this out and don’t fuck with the Tyrants or the Tyrants will fuck with you, cunt!
The anthems of degeneration for the new LP are already composed… Expect the new strike or fuck off and die, you fucking wench. Finally unleashed!!! WITCHMASTER „Sex, Drugs & Satan” 7”EP
Six degenerated, lustful hymns previously known as “No peace At All” demo holocaust Anno Bastardi 1997 now pressed into a 7 inch slab of black vinyl, limited to 333 copies. Slaugtering Black Thrash Fetish Metal Attack! WITCHMASTERs bassist Shymon was replaced by Christfucker (also of ANIMA DAMNATAs fame).
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 12:33 PM Lefty, the previous posts with my name are clearly the work of an impostor. I in no way aim to assist the Christian hordes in their crusade to crush the Black Metal Legions. You seem to know a lot about our struggle so I was wondering if you could tell me something I’ve been wondering lately…
What Is The Purpose and Meaning Of Corpse-Paint?
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 12:42 PM To the Fake Lefty and Fake Bud,
I believe you are one in the same, having conversations with yourself to disrupt liberal discourse. Any consistent follower of the threads on this site knows that I am a proud liberal and stick to the issues. I do not partake in disgusting, useless jargon that interrupts dialectical discourse. This conservative impostor has gone too far in threatening my life. Maybe I should contact the police....
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 12:49 PM Ah, the old corpse-paint question..... How many times have I answered this one over the years?
It is my understanding that the purpose of corpse-paint, in addition to being primarily an aesthetic part of the stage show (along with spikes, leather, demonic/evil imagery and artwork, fog, and other miscellaneous stage props, etc.), is utilized by Black Metal practitioners to help portray their personal allegiance to the darker side/instincts of human nature, as a means of personal [removed]with the unique individual designs), to invoke a sense of other worldly power/might, and to pay homage to their ancestors (and perhaps ancient culture?) that have since passed on into shadow. It also acts as an artistic catalyst to help convey our deep-rooted, unspoken dreams and fantasies …. and Black Metal music is the path of that expression.
To quote Ihsahn of the now-defunct Black Metal icons EMPEROR: “Corpse paint is an essential mark of Black Metal. The atmosphere it creates visualizes the most grim and macabre nature of the artist. The dark forces reflect my soul and it is within them that I learn to create.”
Hell, some bands even wear corpse-paint to pay tribute their influences!! A great deal of today’s bands wear ‘the paint’ simply due to the fundamental influence of groups like CELTIC FROST, DARKTHRONE, MAYHEM, IMPALER, and EMPEROR (among others) who pioneered the use of corpse-paint in the early, critical days of extreme Metal.
Especially for Scandinavian/European bands (whose direct pagan/Viking heritage was essentially put to death by Christianity), perhaps this is a way for them to metaphorically strike fear into the Christian hordes by portraying themselves as the “dead who have returned for vengeance upon mankind”??
To quote the common Metal fan, unschooled in the ways of Black Metal: “How does putting makeup on your face make you look “evil"?" To that, let me ask this … Just how does a sexy pop video with tons of no-talent, half-naked sluts dancing around manage to be the main (and oft-times ONLY) marketing tool in selling shit- loads of useless/terrible records and discs to an unsuspecting general public?? For some people - it just works! It’s “part and parcel” of the whole package - it’s essential to the genre’s visual identity as well as its theoretical aspect in the artist’s performance.
To quote Wrath from AVERSE SEFIRA (the most profound Black Metal band to emerge thus far from the United States): “We, the messengers, the purveyors of the art, must set ourselves apart from our audience lest we appear mortal and finite. Black Metal once had a sense of wonder and limitless perception. It was a way of projecting, transcending. Corpse paint is the outward facet, the physical presentation of the music, the rejection of human form. Our paint has significance attached to the larger aesthetic in that it represents being blinded by the crown of thorns, and our mouths sewn shut to prevent our speaking the truth. Some bands no longer use paint as it was never appropriate to begin with. In such cases I respect their decision. However, there are other bands that were defined in part by these elements and the subsequent removal broke the black magick spell that made their music transcendent and profound. I do not see it as a coincidence that most of these bands released increasingly disappointing work after removing the paint.”
You may not necessarily find corpse-paint “evil” in the plain light of day, but under the proper circumstances (for example - a Metal show), it definitely adds to the overall Metal atmosphere/experience.
Regardless of the growing misuse by many of today’s newest Metal bands, I feel that through time, corpse-paint has become a critical element of Black Metal and to lose corpse-paint due to the fact that some people in the Metal community find it wholly ridiculous and laughable, would mean abandoning one of the pioneering and defining aspects of the Black Metal genre.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 1:38 PM Wow and I thought the article was bad. The reader’s comments are even worse. What a bunch of left-wing wackos…
At first I wanted to respond to each ludicrous point in this article but I don’t have the time to try and reason with people who have lost all reason. Suffice it to say, that neither the author of this article or the 534 oath breakers in Congress have read the Constitution or understand the principles of Liberty and personal responsibility.
If you want to give away obscene piles of money for social issues, feel free to do so. But don’t point a gun at my head and demand that I do the same.
The left (and that includes most Republicans as well as Democrats in office today) using the Constitution in defense of their positions is akin to Satan using the Bible to defend his actions. Neither party gives a damn about the document unless it’s convenient. I would have to laugh if it weren’t so nauseating.
Thomas Paine: “We still feel the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches property as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
George Washington: “[government] has no more right to put their hands into my pockets, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours...”
Thomas Jefferson: “...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
Thomas Paine: “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
Thomas Jefferson: ‘What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?...a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government...”
Posted by Airborne LT on Jul 18, 2005 at 2:01 PM Airborne LT,
Are you one of those so-called originalists when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and certain remarks by certain founding fathers? You, of course, do not provide any context to your quotes. Jefferson and Washington were bitter about taxation not because of its existence, but because of its misuse by the British to finance their war debts in the wake of the French and Indian War. You have to understand that the remarks by Jefferson and Washington about an overpowerful government did not have to do with social spending but wiith a lack of democratic transparency in the way it conducted its business, ala Great Britain. The leaders of the new American nation were still upset about their nation’s treatment by the British as colonies and it was in that spirit that those comments were made.
Jefferson was a clear libertarian, but such a political perspective was more feasible in a pre-industrialized, agrarian society where the vast majority of people were self-sufficient in food production. One can only wonder what Jefferson would believe politically today....
Washington also warned against the U.S. getting caught in the vicissitudes of other nations. Does that mean we should not have been involved in Vietnam and Iraq? Most conservatives would believe otherwise.
Do you concur with the viewpoint of James Madison that political parties are a danger to the democratic process?
My point is that those comments were made in a certain historical era and not in a vacuum. Those comments are not absolutes, but rather reflect the amalgamation of particular events that affected the thinking of certain founding fathers.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 3:15 PM I am not one of those “so-called originalists when it comes to interpreting the Constitution”, but I am literate. The plain meaning of the Constitution is hard to miss if you have been simply taught to read. Phrases like “shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” our unambiguous and not open to interpretation. If the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect a changing political perspective, a process to do so is in place. They call it an “Amendment” and made it intentionally difficult to pass one so that a fickle majority could not trample the rights of the minority.
I am in total agreement with Washington. I do not believe we should have been in Vietnam or Iraq. The Constitution places the President as the Commander in Chief, but clearly places the power to Declare war in the hands of Congress. The Congress has abdicated that power to the President on several occasions illegally. It has no authority to transfer that decision to another branch of government. By doing so, they have shown themselves to be the spineless, self-serving, vermin that they are. This tactic allows them to be on both sides of the issue and thus unaccountable to the People. Instead we have the, “I voted for it, before I voted against it” syndrome. If we need to go to war, then Congress needs to declare it and be held accountable to the People for their decision.
“Do you concur with the viewpoint of James Madison that political parties are a danger to the democratic process?”
They certainly have proven to be a danger. Just look at McCain-Feingold; an obvious flagrant violation of the First Amendment designed by incumbents of the two major parties to stifle political speech thus securing their reelection. Look at the ballot access and campaign finance laws designed to make it nearly impossible for a third party to compete in the same arena on equal footing. And what have the two parties given us? Excessive taxation without representation. Our elected “representatives” tax us but do not represent us any longer. They represent paid lobbyists and special interest groups; powerful unions like the NEA who are perfectly happy to keep our nations children ignorant rather than release us from their vicious monopoly.
“My point is that those comments were made in a certain historical era and not in a vacuum. Those comments are not absolutes...”
Freedom is an absolute. You either are free or you are not. The left love to talk about “choice” when it comes to killing unborn children in the womb. But ask about a “choice” as to whether or not my tax dollars should fund something it and suddenly “choice” is taken off the table. Stem cell research, Education, Social Security? I’m all for these as long as they are funded privately. There is no authority for such funding in the Constitution. If you don’t like it, amend it.
These quotes from our Founders have just as much relevance now, if not more, today then they did then. They revolted over a 3% tax on tea. I have over 40% of my income confiscated from me every two weeks against my will with the threat of imprisonment. I ask you sir, if that is not the definition of tyranny, than what it? God almighty only asks for 10%, but Uncle Sam demands 12.7% through a payroll tax and another 30% in income tax. Then when I take the crumbs he has left me and go to the gas station or the grocery store, he taxes once again my already taxed dollars. And what are my twice taxed dollars used for? Billions in foreign aid, abortions world wide, parking lots in Alaska, rain forests in Iowa.
Tyranny is also an absolute. Tyranny sugarcoated, spun, and processed through the liberal media machine and placed on the Republicrat agenda is still tyranny.“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the object of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison, the Father of our Constitution
Posted by Airborne LT on Jul 19, 2005 at 6:48 AM Airborne LT,
The Constitution was designed as a living, flexble document. Any historian would tell you that. There are several key phrases in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that are clearly obsolete and certain others that are intentionally ambiguous such as: “cruel and unusual punishment”, “unreasonable search and seizure”, and the clause in the second amendment that addresses the right of militias to bear arms. You might think that state militias are still necessary to repel foreign invasion, but those of us in the real world view that as “quaint” or “obsolete.” Taxation is clearly not tyrannical because it is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. The 10th amendment allows concerns not addressed in the Constitution to be delegated to the states, which would clearly involve taxation as well. Tyranny in the spirit of the founding fathers was the exercise of government power without the consent of the governed. If you think that the governed no longer have the ear of Congress, then you have the landmark 1976 Supreme Court case that equated money with free speech to thank. Money historically was not considered free speech until the court EXPANDED the scope of the 1st amendment to include money, a prime example of a document in transition. That ruling has made Joe Sixpack irrelevant to most Congressmen. McCain-Feingold attempted to rectify this imbalance. This law will make our representatives ostensibly more reliant on the people to secure their re-election, contrary to what you said above. You complain about the burden of the income tax, but such a source of revenue is explicitly authorized in the 16th Amendment. Clearly, taxation is a necessity in a modern, post-industrial world. This is not a nation of 4 million, whose people make a living my subsistence farming. Libertarianism is a bunk ideology given present circumstances. That Ayn Rand crap that society benefits from each individual selfishly pursuing his own economic interests is ridiculous.
And finally, the NEA is not a powerful lobbying group. It opposed NCLB and that was passed with 85 votes in the Senate!! The greatest stepping stone to success in this country lies in having well-funded public schools. If we resort to vouchers or privatization, the already vast disparity in wealth in this country will only increase further. If you want to destroy the American dream, then destroy public schools.
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 10:07 AM That last comment by Bud is not the true Bud because the true Bud deals with arguments in a professional manner and does not employ pejoratives to make his points. I am sorry my name had to be attributed to that rhetorical garbage. Oh and fake Bud, here is the actual text of the 16th Amendment: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
You see, conservative rants cannot stand the light of day!
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 10:53 AM The following Treasury Decision (which expresses the official position of the Secretary of the Treasury) is actually a direct quote from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of “Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.” (240 U.S. 103).
“The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress’ original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment.” Treasury Decision 2303
In the 1916 case of “Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.” (240 U.S. 1), the Supreme Court called it an “erroneous assumption” to believe that “the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
The Sixteenth Amendment was passed in response to the Supreme Court decision in “Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.” 158 U.S. 601 (1895), which said that a tax on the income derived from owning property was the same as a tax on owning property, which would be a “direct” tax, requiring Congress to go through the complicated process of “apportioning” the tax among the states. (The court’s complaint about the tax did not apply to income received in exchange for labor.)
Without discussing all the ins and outs of “direct” and “indirect” taxes, the relevant point is that the Sixteenth Amendment simply identified the tax as an “indirect” tax (even when the income comes from property ownership), and therefore a tax which does not require (and has never required) “apportionment.” It did nothing to expand Congress’ taxing jurisdiction.
So much for conservative rants and light of day. You know not of which you speak.
Posted by Airborne LT on Jul 19, 2005 at 11:26 AM “The Constitution was designed as a living, flexble (sic) document. Any historian would tell you that.”
First, it’s a document, a mighty one, but still an inanimate object. To call it “living” is a liberal euphemism which translates to “We will change the rules whenever we want if we can’t get the rest of you unenlightened hicks to agree that a woman’s right to murder for convenience is too important to leave up to the States and to the People as the Constitution clearly prescribes.” Flexible it is, however. As I stated previously, the Amendment process allows for change as long as the Amendment is properly ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
Second, show me a historian who isn’t a flaming liberal, and I’ll show you one with which you disagree: “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840The 2nd amendment is clearly not obsolete, as it does not confer, nor do any of the other Amendments confer rights to people. You must remember that the founders believed, as do I, that the right to defend oneself from tyranny, worship how you wish, be secure in your home, and a host of others, were rights given by God, not any government. Many founders were against a Bill of Rights, for fear that they would be construed by evil men with tyrannical designs such as your own, to limit our rights or imply that they could be taken away by government (you call it “obsolete”, but the result is the same.)
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
I’ve got news for you, Bud: Tyranny is still around, thus making the right to bear arms more important than ever.
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall CourtIf you wish to argue semantics, then argue it with a professor of English who dissects the 2nd Amendment wording, here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
Regardless of the Amendment’s wording, it does not change the fact that my right to periodically water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, to paraphrase Jefferson, was given to me by God and not any inanimate object. Especially one that has been dismembered, eviscerated, and discarded by 9 ambulance chasers in pajamas.
In closing, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams, State House in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776
Posted by Airborne LT on Jul 19, 2005 at 12:00 PM Airborne LT,
An example of a conservative historian: Victor Davis Hanson of Cal. State Fresno.
The concept of the Constitution as a flexible document is not a liberal euphimism for expanding government powers. Read the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
What evidence do I have of the fact that the Constitution is not a consensus document with a lone clear interpretation? Simple, the founding fathers themselves could not agree on most issues relative to the nature of the federal government. There were a wide array of opinions at the Convention of 1787. Deals were made and arms were twisted in order to obtain a 9/13 majority of the states to make the document legally binding.
You cannot say with any certainty that the founding fathers, not an ideologically coherent group, would stand by their positions today. This nation has had a civil war, a conclusion of which is that the federal government supercedes the prerogatives of any individual state. That caused the birth of federalism, not some liberal philosopher. This nation has urbanized with only 3% of the workforce involved in agriculture. This nation has industrialized, a precursor to urbanization, and people are no longer reliant on themselves to provide sustenance and shelter, but rather rely on economic novelties called corporations to ensure their livelihood. Libertarianism is not feasible in a post-industrial society.
With respect to the second amendment, that was made in a different time as well. Civilians are not threatened by Indians or wild animals on the frontier anymore. There existed no publicly financed police force whose sole purpose is to ensure domestic tranquility. Not all amendments become obsolete, but this one certainly has. If guns made America safe, then America would be the safest nation in the world. It is not. So why don’t you go back to your Ruby Ridge and declare your compound a sovereign state.
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 12:21 PM In Roe V. Wade, the court exercised its constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution to determine that one’s protected right to privacy under the 4th Amendment allows for the legal performance of abortion. Your characterization of that act is an OPINION, not an evidenced based conclusion of the motives involved in such a serious decision. The Court performed its duty under the Constitution. If you don’t like that ruling, then you can help elect a President who will appoint justices that will overturn that decision. I guess you already have. Or maybe, like most of your ilk, you can shoot doctors on their way to and from work or blow up an abortion clinic.
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 12:29 PM Any genius out there that can figure out how to build roads, bridges, etc and maintain vital infrastructure without taxes feel free to put forth your plan. By the way, with out taxes there would be NO Iraq war, along with NO military/defense collossus; one of the many favorites of most card-carrying conservatives. How exactly does an anti-taxation freak reconcile these things without the freakin’ money to do them??
As for “God,” if you’re so weak that you just hafta believe in the deluded fairy tales of ignorant folks from centuries ago, go for it. I mean, far be it from me or anyone else with a shred of intellect to dare question the ramblings of cultures that thought Appollo - and not Gene Simmons - was the God of Thunder, but hey, whatever floats yer boat. And, if in your weakness you want to donate 10% or more of your income to the church coffers, again… go for it.
But where’s your outrage at the TAX EXEMPT status of religious organizations? On that count alone you’re a hypocrite if you don’t think they should be taxed like the rest of us. Religion - especially these days - is nothing more than a BUSINESS and as such should be taxed. If you choose to believe so be it but for God/Allah/Elvis’ sake KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!
Finally, if we can call militant Islamist extremists “terrorists” for conducting things like suicide missions, can we please call Eric Rudolph for what he is? A CHRISTIAN TERRORIST.
Posted by g-love on Jul 19, 2005 at 1:45 PM “If you don’t like that ruling, then you can help elect a President who will appoint justices that will overturn that decision. I guess you already have.”
While i am not against abortion per se, i do believe it should be limited and governed by laws. I would prefer that each state make its own rules, as they did prior to Roe V Wade. Perhaps this will come about now?
“Or maybe, like most of your ilk, you can shoot doctors on their way to and from work or blow up an abortion clinic.”
Who are you talking to here? Surely it cannot be conservative Christians in general? I note that Rudolph has been appropriately tried and placed in prison for life, which is as it should be (but had he got the death penalty, i would have been ok with that as well.)
Posted by Paul on Jul 19, 2005 at 1:47 PM I am the real Bud, but I have changed my screenname to “Liberal.” Thank you very much ITT for ensuring that only serious posters can utilize this feature. The possibilty of abortion being a state issue spells disaster for all of the women in red states. No, I believe abortion is a federal health issue and should be regulated by the federal government. Paul, abortion is already governed by laws and is severely, severely restricted in several states, what with mandatory waiting periods, parental notification, and other such obstacles. The comment I made in my last post was not meant to be taken seriously. I just got a little upset at a previous post. Sorry about that.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 19, 2005 at 4:01 PM Many apologies for the difficulties in dealing with an imposter on these forums. The user posting under false names has been identified by IP address and will be reported to his/her ISP. This person has posted hundreds of messages posing as various people. Honestly, where does someone like this come from and why do they have so much free time?
Again, sorry for the difficulties.
Posted by seamus on Jul 19, 2005 at 5:31 PM Seamus,
I’m glad to see a permanent name and password logon feature has been instituted. Hopefully, the forum troll, Michael Hardesty, will be easier to identify and ignore in the future.
As for why he has so much time, I will just speculate that, if Tom Delay can pay goons to go to Florida to masquerade as recount protesters during the Presidential vote recount in 2000, some GOP crook can pay trolls like Michael Hardesty to clog up liberal message boards. I wouldn’t be surprised if the crook was a Texan. Or maybe it’s Richard Mellon Scaife.
In other words, this is his job. He has nothing else to do with his time but to try to spoil liberal message boards. Try Googling his name. You’ll see what I mean.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 20, 2005 at 6:24 AM Having now read the article, I will repeat one of my several “core value” axioms:
“Conservatism - the culture of lies.” - Lefty ‘05
Posted by Lefty on Jul 20, 2005 at 6:30 AM Back to the issue of abortion. If John G. Roberts, a patrician if there ever was one, gets approved by the spineless Senate, then we can expect to see Roe V. Wade overturned. People forget that O’Connor influenced Souter to uphold abortion in 1992. You can bet Souter will side with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in the upcoming New Hampshire case that deals with parental notification of abortions performed on minors.
Paul, if abortion was made a state issue, it would be at an immediate risk in 21 states, moderate risk in 9, and secure in 20, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. However, among those “secure” states are Florida, Tennessee, Minnesota, and West Virginia. We are looking at abortion being legal in less than 1/3 of the states. This will only further antagonize the vast class disparity in this country because only the wealthy will be able to fly to New York or California from the red states and get a safe abortion while the poor will get them in back alleys and tattoo parlors or have to conceive an unwanted child. Such a future does not look bright for this country.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 20, 2005 at 12:40 PM According to Jerry Falwell not so long ago it has taken 25 years in order for the immoral majority to take control of the
republican party. This began with Reagan/Bush and the immoral majority did not look back.IMO the republican party and and the true definition of conservative is now dead. Members of the republican party have been duped. Disgruntled democrats,republicans and the green party maybe could be the peoples third party.
One day voters will wake up and realize that they must pay attention instead of going to the polls and voting for someone just because they claim to affiliated with one party or the other. Yes even democrats also should be paying attention as the deceitful and lying immoral majority probaly have that party in their sights.
It’s time to bring on IRV and do away with computerized voting as computers can be programmed to say any damn thing. You could punch a button saying JFK,the paper receipt could read JFK yet the vote would go to BUSH.
Posted by merrill on Jul 21, 2005 at 10:20 AM To the “conservative” anti-liberal who is so concerned about taxes and the “thievery” of the government in collecting them: the Bush administration has spent four times as much during its tenure than the Clinton administration did during the same amount of time while in office. We are now spending about 2 thousand dollars a second in Iraq. The government has proposed spending about 1.5 million in one year on national security for our subway systems while it spends 9 billion per month on the war in Iraq. Do you oppose taxes that support war? Do you support taxes that are used for corporate welfare? A huge amount of tax money - millions of dollars - goes to such activities as McDonald’s overseas’ advertising. The fossil fuel energy industry is heavily subsidized by our taxes. Is this OK? These are all “conservative” agendas.
And without taxes, where do our roads, schools, energy infrastructure, police, fire departments, and national defense systems come from? Considering that conservative thought includes deregulation of industry and non-protection of our environment, do you want your children and grandchildren subjected to the huge increase in toxins in our air and water that would be sure to follow in the wake of removing all restraints from corporations? Taxes also are used to prevent the powerful and ruthless from hurting the innocent (incidentally, that includes those babies the conservatives are so concerned about before they are born).
Have you actually thought this through, or is it just a knee jerk reaction to what you view as “liberal” issues? It seems to me that taxes are part of the price we all pay to live in a free, democratic society. I live in rural West Virginia, and the state keeps the back roads in pretty good condition. Every year or two, they grade and gravel our local road. If all of our neighbors got together and paid for it collectively, we could not afford to do this. And it benefits not only the people who live on our road, but anyone else who needs or chooses to drive on it. Who should pay for this? Perhaps no one? Perhaps we should simply live with a lack of roads and just make do?
Isn’t sharing the wealth something that Jesus taught over and over and over (there are more references to helping the poor in the New Testiment than any other topic)? Oh, yeah, and didn’t Jesus say “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” when he heard complaints about paying taxes?
How did capitalism, accumulation of power and wealth, war, and unbridled oppression of the poor and workers of our country get to be associated with Christianity and freedom? And how did a radical agenda that includes pre-emptive war, religious extremism, corporate “personhood” and the suppression of individual liberties come to be called “conservative”?
Posted by LeeAnnG on Jul 22, 2005 at 11:51 AM Oops - spelled “testament” wrong. In any case, Jesus did not ever say “blessed are the powerful,” “blessed are the chickenhawks,” “blessed are the bullies” or “blessed are the capitalists.” Not in the New Testiment or the New Testament.
Posted by LeeAnnG on Jul 22, 2005 at 11:55 AM Amen to all you said, LeeAnnG. I tried to debate that guy from a historical perspective, to show what the real “original intent” was, but it did no good. I used the alias “Bud” at the time.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 22, 2005 at 3:34 PM Airborn LT sounds like a conservative corporate troll. His role is to convince us that government, and all that it does and stands for, is bad. Naturally, in Airborn LT’s ideal world, that leaves giant corporte whores in control of everything. How convenient.
Sorry Airhead, I prefer the elected government to be in control, not General “Whorehous” Electric.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 24, 2005 at 11:09 PM I like the last paragraph of the article. For the right wing people, “culture of life” only refers to white women aborting white babies. It does not apply to thousands of brown and black kids dying because of the policies of Bush administration
Posted by tim4 on Jul 25, 2005 at 8:07 AM LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT, RIGHT
I have noticed self-employed people are generally more fiscally conservative. I was first self-employed at age 19 and was for over forty years (except for a three year period and my time in the army). I paid all the medical bills for a family of four, saved for my own retirement (believing Soc.Sec. — which cost me more, since no employer was matching — would be bankrupt before now) occasionally borrowed to pay my taxes, and still think this is the best country in the world.
It is my firm belief that the country owes none of us anything. But we owe a huge debt to millions of 19 and 20 year-olds who died making it possible for us to publicly criticize anything we choose to. If that makes me a conservative, so was JFK who said it more poetically — “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
I’m fed up with CEOs, making fortunes by selling our jobs for cheap foreign labor, cashing in on stock options and then writing a book on how smart they are. If that makes me a liberal then it’s OK with me.
The people who call themselves journalists by passing on sound bite news 24 hours a day with no sense of responsibility (just a desire to be the first to say it) make us look like a nation of idiots to the rest of the world. I don’t know if that makes me a leftist or a rightist, but I do know it makes me want to puke.
Above all, I am disgusted with what is supposed to be our representative democracy. While there are a few in Congress who seem to take their jobs seriously (C-SPAN hearings) too many are obviously self-centered, perpetual campaigners. The quality of Presidential candidates leaves me no choice but to vote against the person I view as the worse one. My hand written letters to my representatives years ago brought an answer which was at least related to the issue. Lately I have received a canned response to a different topic several times. I am convinced the only way to get their ear is as part of a large special interest group like the NRA so they can literally weigh the volume pro or con.
Yes, I have been an NRA member for decades. In my opinion that makes me neither a conservative nor a liberal, just a better shot than the average person.
Finally, I will skip this website for a while, since so much of the verbiage is just name calling without any attempt at honest discussion.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 26, 2005 at 9:44 AM Having lurked here for some time, I just want to thank whomever tamped down the Freeper. And if you read back, he (if the discredited Michael Hardesty) has been able to distract and disparage for some time now.
Thanks to those of you who can enlighten us. Liberal, singled out for kudo by, well, me, has been especially on point.
Now, let’s try something. In the spirit of ITT, let’s ONLY respond to Freepers and Trolls with dazzling information, ignoring their rants by further enlightening us, those who bother to read these posts.
How about it? I would truly love to see nothing but postings that engage, synthesize and enlighten. Let’s turn these pages into something real and valuable. Ignore the ignorant rant, the perjorative, the hate-filled. Respond with something we can think about and mull over. Let’s be thoughtful, letting others have the BEST of our minds. Let’s eschew their thoughtlessness, their bile.
Think?
I’ll watch and hope you all will too. If not, I’m afraid I’ll have to say so long. Time slips and slids to the future and is too precious not to use with care—looking for tools to use, not swinging bats to dodge.
Posted by elelbee on Jul 31, 2005 at 8:27 AM “singled out for kudo”
kudoS, that is. Could have sworn I put the ‘s’ in, but accident happen!
Posted by elelbee on Jul 31, 2005 at 11:15 AM Hi,all!I’ve been in Tennessee for a while saying hello to my relatives.
Say,now that you mention it,our notorious troll,Fearless Freep,I mean Sybil,I mean Rumplestiltskin...oh,whatever,is gone.Gee,I almost miss him...NOT!I guess I can use my original post name again without finding somebody else using it who doesn’t know the definition of the word"repudiate".Sorry about posting as Dr.X.How trite.But,I am a fan of fifties sci-fi,I must confess.
One question.Who told these moral majority repressive clowns that they hold the moral high ground in the first place?Nobody! They merely claimed it.A very old trick:tell people that you are in charge,that you know what to do,and people will be just stupid enough to fall for it.Yet,it doesn’t make you any more of a leader.Keeping people afraid to get them to follow you is not leadership.Unfortunately,it works well on the bullied,the cowed,and the simple-minded.
BTW,Airborne LT:Bragg or Benning?
Posted by wwoods on Aug 1, 2005 at 4:51 AM Though the discussion has veered somewhat off track from the article, (well possibly only during the forum misuse) I find the article beautifully written and vastly superior to conservative arguments that taxes must always be cut.
Though it is true that our current tax dollars, (as a g-love pointed out) are going toward defense in this day and age, taxes always have a context. The Bush administration uses taxes to put money in defense because the it has foolishly overextended itself in Iraq.
This being said, taxes, as you well know need to be used properly. I am not ashamed to say that social programs are nessasary. The notion that helping the weak is a waste of money when they can help themselves rings false. The reason being is that not every poor person can help themselves. This not because they are lazy, but because failure is inherent in nearly “pure” capitalism, where corporations greedily use limited resources.
The religious right supposedly are moral, and they supposedly adhere to Christian principals. I believe Jesus would be happy to see social programs implemented, partly because of his generous selfless nature. I’m no expert on the bible, though I doubt that Christianity has much to do with protecting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor, which is the political agenda of conservative Christians. Perhaps evengelicals are more interested in politics than the purpose of religious teaching.
Posted by ByronicMisfit on Aug 6, 2005 at 1:07 PM Squandering wealth on a war begun with false justifications, making it easy to dump toxics on public lands, double-tap tax cuts that benefit those already well off, backing the proscribing of rights for a minority group whose lovestyles are considered objectionable…
What the hell’s moral about all that!?!
Posted by Kuya on Aug 12, 2005 at 12:02 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
