FREE SPEECH - What Happened???

[Javery]

:evil: God I hate those tightass idiots at the FCC and all the damn soccer moms who get offended everytime someone farts. If you don't like what is on TV or radio - DON'T WATCH OR LISTEN. :evil: Jesus, no one is forcing anyone to go to the store, purchase a TV/radio, and bring it home. It's the year 2004 and the government is acting like it is 1904. Don't dumb down all of society to the level of a child. :evil:

[LV-426RS]

That's what we get for supporting things we are against. Be it cd's or radio, too many people support it even if they don't like the way it is going.

[TheRaven]

:evil: God I hate those tightass idiots at the FCC and all the damn soccer moms who get offended everytime someone farts. If you don't like what is on TV or radio - DON'T WATCH OR LISTEN. :evil: Jesus, no one is forcing anyone to go to the store, purchase a TV/radio, and bring it home. It's the year 2004 and the government is acting like it is 1904. Don't dumb down all of society to the level of a child. :evil:

Just as someone has the right to say whatever they want, people have the right to oppose that and speak their mind about it.

[CheapyD]

Guess you heard about the Howard Stern thing (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/entertainment/2875270/detail.html).

Remember when Republicans were all about small government?

[Theenternal]

What Howard stern thing? That link goes to gamestop :)

[CheapyD]

What Howard stern thing? That link goes to gamestop :)

Yeah, I know...Howard Stern has turned into Gamestop! Pretty strange.

heh heh...i fixed the link.

[dtcarson]

To be totally accurate, CBS's [or whoever did the Superbowl] and Clear Channel's decisions do NOT violate 'free speech.' They are business decisions, based on their perception of their company, their product, and their audience.
I do in general agree with the fact that the power should begin at home--change the channel, turn it off, etc.
But that's exactly what these companies are doing, responding to that--if 85% [number chosen randomly] of the audience doesn't like Situation X, and they turn the tv off or change the channel, that is exactly what CCC and the tv channels will respond to--they WANT people to watch their shows, because then they can charge more for advertising.
Now, the FCC, being a governmental organization, does blur the line. But they're not saying you can't say or do certain things, they just say you can't say/do them on certain media.

[Machine]

Hmm, doesn't really bother me. I never really "got" Stern anyways. I think he's boring.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

Howard Stern used to be funny 15 or so years ago....If you can find some of his radio show from early 90's and the 80's you should listen to it and compare it to the immature, stupid ass he's become since then all just to get ratings. He's basically a one of the biggest sellouts in all of radio and he deserved to be taken off the air.

Besides, from the news reports I read this was a decision from Clear Channel radio to suspend his show and not from the FCC.....Though I'm sure there was a lo t of pressure from them.

[E-Z-B]

How about this for free speech: if you attend a rally where Bush is speaking, and you hold a sign that says something against his beliefs like "Abortion Rights for Women" or "Fix the Deficit", the secret service will ask you to leave, and if you don't, they will arrest you. Judges initially tried to throw out the cases based on the 1st amendment, but Bush exploits a loophole like calling it something like "a security issue", therefore bypassing free speech.

If you want to protest, they make you stand a half mile away or so.

[Scrubking]

"Clear Channel Radio suspended Stern from six stations" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/26/financial1014EST0070.DTL)
Not the republicans. :roll:

Anyway, I am glad he got shut down. He was nothing more than an idiot doing nasty things to get people to listen to him. When someone goes on a message board and posts something stupid or nasty to get attention they get flamed, but when howard stern does it he gets applauded. It boggles the mind.

[OutlawJT]

I'll tell you what happened to free speech. This nation elected a Republican president and a Republican congress. No contrasting parties, no balance. While it's good for some things like homeland security it's bad for others, like the deficit and personal freedoms.

[Scrubking]

I'll tell you what happened to free speech. This nation elected a Republican president and a Republican congress. No contrasting parties, no balance. While it's good for some things like homeland security it's bad for others, like the deficit and personal freedoms.

You people don't know when to quit. :roll:

[jmcc]

People seem to misunderstand what free speech is and isn't a lot in this country. Seems to me there should be a pamphlet on it or something. Free speech does not extend to someone else's private property, i.e., inside a Bush rally hall (which they rented out) and TV and radio broadcasts aren't a venue for free speech either, though you're only [governmentally] limited to decency (no swearing or nudity) and the standards of the corporation that's broadcasting you. If they think you're going to or are offending their audience they're not going to keep you on the air, it's as simple as that.

[Javery]

Just as someone has the right to say whatever they want, people have the right to oppose that and speak their mind about it.

I agree with this 100%. That is what makes free speech so wonderful. However, I do not think the government (i.e. the FCC) should be involved in telling anyone - be it a million people or one person - what can or cannot be said.

And although Clear Channel suspended Stern "on it's own", I wonder if it had anything to do with the hearings scheduled for this week?

[jmcc]

I'll tell you what happened to free speech. This nation elected a Republican president and a Republican congress. No contrasting parties, no balance. While it's good for some things like homeland security it's bad for others, like the deficit and personal freedoms.

Say what? The homeland security laws (especially the Patriot Act) are some of the worst legislation this country has ever enacted. They teeter dangerously close to fascism and you think they're good? I mean, you put personal freedoms in your bad column. Don't you realize the two are directly related? The bad certainly outweighs the good on the homeland security front.

[E-Z-B]

People seem to misunderstand what free speech is and isn't a lot in this country. Seems to me there should be a pamphlet on it or something. Free speech does not extend to someone else's private property, i.e., inside a Bush rally hall (which they rented out) and TV and radio broadcasts aren't a venue for free speech either, though you're only [governmentally] limited to decency (no swearing or nudity) and the standards of the corporation that's broadcasting you. If they think you're going to or are offending their audience they're not going to keep you on the air, it's as simple as that.

It's not just limited to swearing and nudity on tv. The republicans stopped CBS from airing "The Reagans" miniseries and CBS from airing an anti-Bush ad. Free speech is alright as long as it serves the right wing conservative base nowadays.

BTW - when I say "rallies", I meant at outdoor events. You can't stand too close even outside. The secret service will move you a half mile away, so that no one can see you.

[JimmieMac]

The bottom line is, what's anyone going to do about it? The answer, sadly, nothing.

Nobody here or anywhere else is going to do anything about it, we'll just collectively lay down and let "them" do what ever they want.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

Not that it makes a bunch of sense, but that's standard practice at the majority of formal protests nowdays, I believe.

[E-Z-B]

What can we do about it? I'll tell you: vote in the next election. Be sure to register ahead of time (like 2-3 months, meaning around august). I guarantee you that our voices will be heard. Make those politicians running the country now know what we think.

[jmcc]

It's not just limited to swearing and nudity on tv. The republicans stopped CBS from airing "The Reagans" miniseries and CBS from airing an anti-Bush ad. Free speech is alright as long as it serves the right wing conservative base nowadays.

BTW - when I say "rallies", I meant at outdoor events. You can't stand too close even outside. The secret service will move you a half mile away, so that no one can see you.

1. Both of the things you mentioned were Viacom's decision not to show. In the Reagan movie's case, it was the threatened boycott of CBS that took it off the air. They were more than free to show it, but they feared losing money from advertisers. Now, republicans may have organized the boycotts, but that's how you influence companies, there's nothing wrong with it and there was nothing stopping democrats from organizing a counter boycott to have it shown (it's still going to be on Showtime if anyone REALLY wants to watch it.)

In the case of the Anti-Bush ad it was a matter of CBS not showing political ads at all. How many pro-Bush ads did you see during the superbowl? None, so you can hardly call it unfair to anyone.

2. As for political rallies outdoors, they still rent out that space. If you want to protest, find out exactly where the property they paid for ends and stand right on the other side. Then there's nothing legal they can do to you, assuming you're peacefully protesting. Sure you might still get arrested, but it would be wrongful arrest at that point and you'd have a court case that the ACLU would be more than happy to take up for you.

[JimmieMac]

What can we do about it? I'll tell you: vote in the next election. Be sure to register ahead of time (like 2-3 months, meaning around august). I guarantee you that our voices will be heard. Make those politicians running the country now know what we think.

Yeah, because that's been working out really well for the past few decades.

[jmcc]

Yeah, because that's been working out really well for the past few decades.

What they need to do is give, say, a $50 tax break for every vote you can prove you took part in. I think it would be the best way to get people to vote.

[JimmieMac]

Yeah, because that's been working out really well for the past few decades.

What they need to do is give, say, a $50 tax break for every vote you can prove you took part in. I think it would be the best way to get people to vote.

This is why you'll never be in a position of power.

[dtcarson]

All these people claiming 'Republicans' want to quash free speech [and by 'Republicans' I'm meaning the established organized political party, not the grass roots portion of the population who identify themselves as 'republicans'] must not remember our old friend, the former Vice President's wife, and her pet project, the PMRC. Ostensibly a 'private organization,' I believe, organized by the wife of a senator and VP. Oh yes, and a Democrat. Who apparently support free speech, as long as I don't say 'G-d' or anything 'politically incorrect.'
If CheapyD comes on here, and says, You, 'FredSmith', you're out, and cancels your account, that is not a violation of free speech. You can speak what you want, just not here--on HIS website. Just like CBS had a policy, no political ads during SuperBowl, and Viacom made a business decision, 'We don't want to show this.' Much like they didn't want to show, oh, any more episodes of My Big Fat Greek Life. By the logic used in this thread, *that's* censorship also.
Re: the Patriot Act--there is an interesting and in-depth essay on it here http://www.federalist.com/papers/03-41_paper.asp
And according to it,
'The Constitution does, however, make provision for the curtailment of the civil rights of citizens when necessitated by war and the public safety. "
We are at war, and I'd say public safety is still a concern.
Even Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, ironically suspended civil rights: "President Abraham Lincoln used the executive authority afforded him under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution to suspend the writ of habeas corpus on eight separate occasions, and under that provision incarcerated some 38,000 Americans".
Is the PA all it's cracked up to be, defense-wise? No.
Is the PA crushing our civil liberties, so we live under the bootstrap of Big Brother? No.
Like all legislation, it's got some good points and some bad points, but in general, the PA really just gathers a lot of existing laws into one unified document.

I do agree, that anyone, regardless of party or political orientation, needs to vote. Here we are, living in one of the most democratic countries, hundreds of other countries look to us as a role model for civil rights, and, unfortunately, in federal elections for the past 40 years, in only 3 out of 21 elections did greater than 60% of the voting-age population vote. In only 10 of 21 did greater than 50% vote. And that's looking at voting-age population, not registered voters--the percentage of registered voters would be slightly higher, of course, because not everyone who's eligible is even registered to vote. In the 1998 federal elections, only 36.4% of the VAP voted. That's just sad.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Educate yourself, listen to speeches, check the voting records [action not words!] and Vote!

[jmcc]

This is why you'll never be in a position of power.

And as such, my great pyramid will never be built. *sigh* Sometimes I think I'm the worst Pharaoh ever...

[ZarathosNY]

I also think it's kind of suspicious when CC dumps Howard right after Howard went on an anti-Bush rant. Howard's show is no diiferent now than last week, except for the Bush bashing. Just like CC censored the Dixie Chicks, they are now censoring Howard. Free speech seems to be fine in this country, unless you are criticizing republicans, then you are anti-American.

[doraemonkerpal]

This is why you'll never be in a position of power.

And as such, my great pyramid will never be built. *sigh* Sometimes I think I'm the worst Pharaoh ever...

jmcc, lol.

[dtcarson]

A business making a decision what shows to carry or not carry is not 'censorship.'
Maybe it was related to Bushbashing. Maybe the evil fatcat CEO's, who of course are always rich and Republican [therefore evil] did get mad at him for that and dump him. Unless he had a contract, *that is their right.* He can still speak all he wants. Just not on the networks that CCC OWNS.
The Dixie Chicks can still sing and sell records and be downloaded from the internet [whoops!] Just not on the stations who decided, *based on feedback from their listeners*, not to play them. That is the listeners' expressing their free speech, and the company's making their own business decision based on their bottom line.
And that's funny, about 'free speech unless you're criticizing Republicans.' I guess you don't watch, oh, virtually any news channel, or read virtually any news website or newspaper/newsmagazine. Virtually all I see is cricitism of Bush.

[E-Z-B]

Guess you never watched Fox News with Bill O'Reilly.

Most respectable newspapers and websites that I read like CNN present a neutral view. It's all the anti-bush messages in the Opinion Sections that you must be reading.

Or...let's see. What has Bush done this week to put himself into the news.
1. A call for an amendment to ban gay marriages. The first 17 amendments were meant to EXPAND rights, to make people not feel like second-class citizens. This would be the first time discrimination was written into the constitution. Bush says more or less "this definition has existed for 3,000 years". Well, so did slavery up to about 150 years ago before we gave blacks rights.
2. Bush's mishandling of our taxpayer money WILL result in social security cuts, prophesizes Greenspan. Bush says "not for current retirees or those about to retire". You know what that means? It'll affect us instead. So every dime you pay into social security - thanks to Bush, you'll never see it.
3. Bush's biggest cuts in his budget will affect the EPA the most. Go figure.
4. The gun bill in congress now - the democrats want to add an amendment, which Bush supported at first, to extend the ban on assault weapons that expires this year. Now, as usual, it's "his way or the highway", meaning no amendments allowed. Talk about compromise, huh?
5. Refusing to allow haitians to enter this country. We're talking about a humanitarian crisis going on here. When we were bombing the hell out of afghanistan, neighboring countries helped out those refugees. Some example we're setting.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. As Sen. Kerry said, Bush needs to run on a vision, and not his record.

Maybe that's the "criticism of Bush" that you're seeing. Well, he's just doing it to himself.

Oh, and if you find the edge of the property at a Bush rally, stand there with a sign, you WILL be asked to leave OR be arrested. 100% guarantee now.

[Medium_Pimpin]

Nice work on summing GWB jr's week E-Z-B.

The FCC came out with new regulations 2 weeks ago due to the super bowl incident that lashes out at indecency on public shows. I don't see it the fault of the republicans, unless they paid janet jackson to commit that act to accomplish these means. It was only really a matter of time, i think even howard stern knew that a few weeks ago.

[coffman]

Guess you never watched Fox News with Bill O'Reilly.

Oh, and if you find the edge of the property at a Bush rally, stand there with a sign, you WILL be asked to leave OR be arrested. 100% guarantee now.

The Sierra Club has on every occassion been escorted to a site at least 1/4 of a mile away from any Bush events, even when the event is held on public property. To Bush, image is everything. He does not want people to see protestors on the 6:00 news.

[ryanbph]

I think that being a conservative, I have more beef with bush then a democrat...on every issue he caves, except for the war on terror...yeah he caved on tax cuts, as he took tax payers money and gave money back to people with children who don't even put into the income tax system...as for the patriot act, deal with it, over 3000 people were murdered several years ago, and we still have gapping holes in our borders...I am fairly sure that if you want to protest, you need to get a permit for a group...as for one person at a rally...if I remember correctly Howard Dean lashed out at a person in Iowa, for telling him to play nice...and John Kerry was asked a question in NH, and besides ignoring the question, staffers removed the person from the press room..so its not like both sides of the political spectrum don't partake in removing people that disagree with them from their rallys...as for stern, I am a fan, but their is rules for radio shows, and the network televisions for what they have on the air...this wasn't made up recently by the bush admin, they have been their for awhile, remember opie and anthony..if it wasn't for the public outcry by a large amount of americains, nothing would have been done about the superbowl incident, or howard stern...or even the regan show on cbs...but if a large portion of americains don't want it or want something done to fix it, you can't complain about being in the minority...I like stern, I liked opie and anthony, I also like hannity, and rush...Politicians usually don't get involved in a controversial subject, unless it will help them out

[dtcarson]

1. Amendment to ban gay marriages: I personally support this, *given the state of the situation now*, that is, that judges and mayors in certain communities are willfully breaking the law, duly enacted and voted upon by their alleged constituents. Roy Moore did that, and got fired. Gavin Newsom did that, and he's being praised. I think it should be the decision of the states [and the people within], but the judiciary and executive branches in the states *are not letting the people decide*.
2. 'Mishandling of our taxpayer money.' What, GIVING IT BACK? You're right, that's *our* money. I'm all for tax cuts. I'm also all for managing spending. I can see spending more on military/defense right now, but Bush has disappointed me with his open checkbook. The funny thing is, many of these are traditionally Democratic issues [Medicare, education, etc] that he's throwing money at [probably to steal their thunder], and now, it's bad? Or is it bad simply because it's not enough? And I didn't see Greenspan 'prophecy' that, I read that he 'suggested' those cuts. I think Social Security ought to be privatized anyway, because as it stands, it's a myth, and even without Bush, we [assuming you're roughly my age] wouldn't be getting out what we paid in. There is no 'lockbox', the money that goes in, comes right back out to pay the current recipients.
4. I don't know the details about this bill, but it was my impression that the definition of 'assault weapon' as originally defined was very broad and loose. And as I mention above, Bush has been very compromising--he is *not* a true conservative, at least based on the last couple years. He has never vetoed a bill, as far as I know, and has signed bills giving money in one form or another to virtually population in America.

Re the Kerry comment--see, that's where I differ. I think one *needs* to run on one's record. That's how you see how they *act*, not just what they say in speeches. A vision is good, but it does nothing unless you act upon it. I can see why Kerry says that, though, because looking at his record, it's totally schizophrenic.

Care to test your guarantee about being asked to leave a Bush rally? Like someone above said, if you're on the private property that is rented by a certain organizatino, I can see that. Otherwise, depending on where you are or what you do, you could be arrested for many things, and this has happened in many cases, for people of all political persuasions.
Besides, I never understood this, standing outside a rally with a sign. If I'm at a Bush [or Kerry] rally, odds are I either support him, or am interested in what he has to say. Seeing some dude outside with a sign 'Ban Bush Now' 'Pro-Abortion' 'Anti-Abortion' whatever is supposed to be some super argument, and suddenly change my mind?
Re: Bill OReilly--Toss in Rush there too, why not. Bill OReilly is not a newsman. He is an opinion commentator. I EXPECT opinions from him. I Don't expect them from Koppel, Rather, etc, unless it's in their 'My Minute' sections. They, and my newspapers and news programs, are supposed to *report the news*. Check out www.ratherbiased.com for proof of just one popular newsman's bias. This is one of my favorites [Rather being interviewed, ironically, by OReilly, about former Pres Clinton: "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
And comparing Oliver North to Pres Clinton, both of whom lied, when they both got good poll/opinion numbers soon after the truth came out:
North: ", North, according to the polls, has a strong chance of defeating...What's going on here?"
Clinton: "What a comeback for President Clinton! "

[Indiana]

How about this for free speech: if you attend a rally where Bush is speaking, and you hold a sign that says something against his beliefs like "Abortion Rights for Women" or "Fix the Deficit", the secret service will ask you to leave, and if you don't, they will arrest you. Judges initially tried to throw out the cases based on the 1st amendment, but Bush exploits a loophole like calling it something like "a security issue", therefore bypassing free speech.

If you want to protest, they make you stand a half mile away or so.

This is very scarey. This nation we live in has less and less freedoms everyday. The government has been using 9/11 to remove our basic freedoms and rights.

[ryanbph]

image is everything with every politician...wtf is wrong with you people...don't you remeber that clinton had his people go to france, to set up things at an event he was going to be at in france in regards to D Day...that is what politicians do it isn't party biased..both sides do it

[E-Z-B]

I think that being a conservative, I have more beef with bush then a democrat...

as for the patriot act, deal with it

You sound like you're far from being a conservative. My impression of conservatives was that the government should stay out of your business. Privacy at all costs. The Patriot Act is just the opposite. Maybe you meant to say you're a moderate, probably like the majority of Americans.

if I remember correctly Howard Dean lashed out at a person in Iowa, for telling him to play nice...and John Kerry was asked a question in NH, and besides ignoring the question, staffers removed the person from the press room..

It's one thing to stand peacefully with a sign, it's another to act like an ass when someone's trying to talk.

as for stern, I am a fan

And you say you're a conservative?! Conservatives are typically the right-wing religious fanatics who try to boycott Stern. Perhaps you're economically conservative only, but if that was the case, then you would agree with Bush's former staff member O'Neill, economically conservative, who pleaded with Bush not to allow tax cuts and a deficit for fear it would hurt our economic recovery.

[dtcarson]

And you say you're a conservative?! Conservatives are typically the right-wing religious fanatics who try to boycott Stern.

Wow, totally unbiased there. Way to stereotype. I thought liberals/moderates were 'tolerant' and didn't like 'stereotyping'?
I personally:
am a conservative/libertarian.
am atheist.
have strong beliefs, but am non-fanatical.
do boycott, with my own wallet.
like Monty Python, heavy metal [my favorite band is GWAR], sex, having fun.
am generally open-minded [ie, if you try to *discuss* something with me, I'll listen open-minded, as long as you give me the same respect--but if you start proselytizing or spouting off playbook lines, end of story.]
So you might do well, in general, to avoid the pigeonholing.

Re: Dean and Kerry rallies--a citizen asking Dean to 'play nice', and someone else asking Kerry a question, is 'acting like an ass?' O-kay. Funny, I thought that would be 'free speech' and 'asking the candidate a question', ostensibly the reason he was there. If Al Franken didn't attack that one guy, sounds like you would have.

And re: ONeill and tax cut/spending--I agree with that. Cut taxes and spending. It can be done. Reagan did it powerfully, and the economy barrelled along. Of course, the stereotype is the eeevil Rich S&L owners, much like the legacy/stereotype of the 90's will be the eeevil Dotcom failures and daytraders who totally overinflated the entire stockmarket and whole industries, resulting in the recession we are now getting out of, [although Al Gore invented the internet, so certainly that can't be evil].

[The-Bavis]

This whole backlash against the media after the Superbowl is the fault of nobody but the "artists" that have been pushing the envelope to get coverage and sales for years. Used to be that saying a swear word was cutting edge and sold a few records. That got old. The line kept getting crossed, and now we have Janet Jackson showing the entire world, ages 0-99, her breast.

What happened to having a talent?

They need to try to find a way to let their talent shine instead of their metallic pasties to get ahead. I think this trend of more responsibility in broadcasting could be good if it forces "artists" to work harder instead of just thinking of something shocking to display. Will it all go away? No. We'll still have fish in blenders, head scarves as dresses at the Grammys, and blood and guts in video games. Will it at least stabilize at the current level? Hopefully.

[ElwoodCuse]

1. Amendment to ban gay marriages: I personally support this, *given the state of the situation now*, that is, that judges and mayors in certain communities are willfully breaking the law, duly enacted and voted upon by their alleged constituents. Roy Moore did that, and got fired. Gavin Newsom did that, and he's being praised. I think it should be the decision of the states [and the people within], but the judiciary and executive branches in the states *are not letting the people decide*.

Roy Moore violated a court order. The court told him to do something, and he refused. When/if a court tells the mayor "stop issuing these licenses", if he keeps doing it after that, THEN you have a valid comparison.

[dtcarson]

That's a good point, The-Bavis.
Looking back at the past, say, forty years, we do see an erosion of boundaries. Some for the good [I don't mind seeing Lucy and Desi share a bed], some for the, arguably, not-so-good [extremely violent or sexual movies or games, or events like this.]
The focus is on ratings and Q-power. Talent not enough? Be shocking. The trouble is, what's shocking today is passe' tomorrow, so what's next?
And I don't mind violence, sex, nudity, 'adult situations' *in and of themselves.* If it's in a work with purpose, I don't mind. A Clockwork Orange would not be the same movie without the sex and violence, it provides an essential purpose in that movie. It's the mass acceptance of it, at all levels and for all people, that I don't like. Heck, when i was a kid, seeing my first breast in a Playboy magazine snuck from under my friend's dad's bed was a coming-of-age moment [pun not intended.] But how many 6 year olds saw Janet on SuperBowlSunday, and asked 'What was that?' or worse, already knew.
Let kids be kids, they'll spend enough time as an adult and dealing with adult things.

[E-Z-B]

judges and mayors in certain communities are willfully breaking the law, duly enacted and voted upon by their alleged constituents.

It was against the law in many states for blacks to marry whites, for women to vote, and for helping slaves escape the south. All were later called "discrimination" but many years ago, many people didn't think so. Today, we see the errors of the past, that making people second-class citizens is a step in the WRONG direction for mankind.

'Mishandling of our taxpayer money.' What, GIVING IT BACK? You're right, that's *our* money. I'm all for tax cuts. I'm also all for managing spending.

That's exactly it. Tax cuts are nice, but if you're creating the largest deficit in history, then that's irresponsible. Sure, more money short term for us. Long term - well, if we don't have a job, or we're flipping burgers, then a tax cut today doesn't matter.

I don't know the details about this bill, but it was my impression that the definition of 'assault weapon' as originally defined was very broad and loose.

Assault weapons meaning weapons that take out large numbers of people in a few seconds. Don't think people need those for deer-hunting.

He has never vetoed a bill, as far as I know, and has signed bills giving money in one form or another to virtually population in America.

Those tax credits he gave out last year went into everyone's pockets but the poorest (forget the exact number, like < $20k/year). Those are the unfortunate souls that need money the most.

Re the Kerry comment--see, that's where I differ. I think one *needs* to run on one's record. That's how you see how they *act*, not just what they say in speeches. A vision is good, but it does nothing unless you act upon it. I can see why Kerry says that, though, because looking at his record, it's totally schizophrenic.

Not sure where you're getting at with this. Kerry said "Bush is showing that he needs to run on his vision (Bush's proposed vision for the future that he outllined in a speech), because he sure can't run on his record." Meaning that Bush has done very little, if any, good for this country.

Care to test your guarantee about being asked to leave a Bush rally? Like someone above said, if you're on the private property that is rented by a certain organizatino, I can see that. Otherwise, depending on where you are or what you do, you could be arrested for many things, and this has happened in many cases, for people of all political persuasions.

This proves my point: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96474,00.html

Arguement settled.

And comparing Oliver North to Pres Clinton, both of whom lied.

Don't go there, man. Bush: Iraq has WMD. Translation: I want your oil to help our economy.

[ZarathosNY]

A
And re: ONeill and tax cut/spending--I agree with that. Cut taxes and spending. It can be done. Reagan did it powerfully, and the economy barrelled along. Of course, the stereotype is the eeevil Rich S&L owners, much like the legacy/stereotype of the 90's will be the eeevil Dotcom failures and daytraders who totally overinflated the entire stockmarket and whole industries, resulting in the recession we are now getting out of, [although Al Gore invented the internet, so certainly that can't be evil].

Gore never said he invented the internet. That came straight from the RNC.
Check it out here. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Reagan did not cut taxes and spending. Reagan cut taxes in his first year and then raised them every year after. He basically cut taxes on the rich, and raised them on the lower and middle class. Reagan had the largest deficit spending before W.

[littlemonkey]

dtcarson writes:

1) "if you start proselytizing or spouting off playbook lines, end of story."

"Al Gore invented the internet"

2)"So you might do well, in general, to avoid the pigeonholing."

"I thought liberals/moderates were 'tolerant' and didn't like 'stereotyping'?"

3)"my favorite band is GWAR"


littlemonkey

[JSweeney]

How about this for free speech: if you attend a rally where Bush is speaking, and you hold a sign that says something against his beliefs like "Abortion Rights for Women" or "Fix the Deficit", the secret service will ask you to leave, and if you don't, they will arrest you. Judges initially tried to throw out the cases based on the 1st amendment, but Bush exploits a loophole like calling it something like "a security issue", therefore bypassing free speech.

If you want to protest, they make you stand a half mile away or so.

Try going there and yelling "Four more beers! Four more beers!!" It fits into the crowd noise so perfectly. You shoud hear the stuff I was yelling about Clinton back at his rallies during the last election. Political rallies are tons of fun when you can yell stupid remarks at the top off your lungs that blend into the crowd noise.

Of course, I did get a group of senior citizens mad at me...

[E-Z-B]

Ha, ha! Glad to hear from you JSweeney!

[ryanbph]

as for giving people under 20k a year money for something they never put in to, is crazy..yeah they need it, but they need to work for it...I work in a financially depressed area in MA, I work for my fathers small business, and we manufactur gift products..some of the people who work and have worked for him for a long time, are degenerates, that take whatever hand out they can get..and work like 20 hrs a week by their own choice..they don't deserve to get a $300 credit cause they are poor, and yes some people have no opportunity, but the majority don't care or desire to improve their life..and it is funny that bush and regan both took office after the previous president messed up the economy..yes the economic slow down started in the clinton administration...yes a presidents economic policy will most likely not take effect for 4 years..yes we are in deficit spending, but no where near the deficits we had 20 years ago under carter...and yes spending should be high, as we are at war..I do not like bush spending so much on domestic poliices and trips to the moon, and spending on aids in africa..

as for conservatives not liking stern or opie and anthony, last i checked it was lieberman and tipper gore who have/and continue to seek action vs the music industry and video game industry about the content of their material..

[Medium_Pimpin]

It's ok littlemokey, GWAR smokes crak all the time.

[Dale Earnhardt Jr]

Wow cheapass gamers talking about politics is hell icing over

[JSweeney]

How about this for free speech: if you attend a rally where Bush is speaking, and you hold a sign that says something against his beliefs like "Abortion Rights for Women" or "Fix the Deficit", the secret service will ask you to leave, and if you don't, they will arrest you. Judges initially tried to throw out the cases based on the 1st amendment, but Bush exploits a loophole like calling it something like "a security issue", therefore bypassing free speech.

If you want to protest, they make you stand a half mile away or so.

Try going there and yelling "Four more beers! Four more beers!!" It fits into the crowd noise so perfectly. You shoud hear the stuff I was yelling about Clinton back at his rallies during the last election. Political rallies are tons of fun when you can yell stupid remarks at the top off your lungs that blend into the crowd noise.

Of course, I did get a group of senior citizens mad at me...

By the way, No one should take this as support or lack of support for a particular party. If I was around a Bush rally I'd do the same thing.
I wonder how long it'll before people start chanting or posting " Don't be a Nader Hater!"

[The-Bavis]

Those tax credits he gave out last year went into everyone's pockets but the poorest (forget the exact number, like < $20k/year). Those are the unfortunate souls that need money the most.

Tax cuts for people that already don't pay taxes? That's welfare, but, oh wait, they got a "tax cut" anyway b/c it's an election year, and Congress had "compassion".



Don't go there, man. Bush: Iraq has WMD. Translation: I want your oil to help our economy.

There is no conspiracy. Left wing or Right wing. Settle down!



This thread is morphing a LOT!

[dtcarson]

If Bush wanted oil to help our economy, how come my gas prices are still 1.60/gallon? That is so tired. And even if he *did* and happened to destroy a despot and help give the Iraqi people some hope for once [and the ability to actually engage in free speech without having their sisters raped in front of them], why does that make that a bad thing? I would rather see a 'war for oil' or money than a war for a mystical being in the sky or the hope of seventeen virgins when I die.

Al Gore: OK, he claimed he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." Nowhere on your link does it mention the RNC or Republicans. What probably happened is someone [an average person] translated 'took the initiative in creating' as 'invented', which isn't that much of a linguistic stretch, and forwarded it in an email somewhere.

No tax refund for the poorest: Um, the tax refund was federal money [or money paid to the feds.] The poorest don't pay federal money, in fact, the *poorest* get federal money in the form of welfare, wic, food stamps, etc. So, no, they shouldn't have gotten back money that they didn't pay in the first place.

Re: discrimination: Firstly, marriage has pretty much *always* been between a man and a woman. Slavery has not always existed, and the other examples you give are fairly recent. Besides, if gay marriage is so 'right' and 'discriminatory,' why don't the states put it to a vote to the people rather than breaking the law and keeping their jobs? [I don't know if I support gay marriage or not; in my original post, I said I supported an amendment, *since* the states are obviously not asking the will of the people anyway. If the will of the people is for/against it, it will come out that way.]

Reagan tax cuts:
"the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply"
"share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. "
"reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent"
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
And, another source:
"Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal 1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981, the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase. "
At the same time that
"federal spending rose from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase. "
"And the deficit fell from 5 percent of gross domestic product to 2.9 percent.

After 1989, the deficit ballooned again as revenues dried up following an increase in tax rates. "
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx64.html

Re: your apparent implication that Bush lied saying Iraq has WMD. Since you apparently like Kerry, and if that's a big deal, remember that on election day:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and
grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

So Kerry lied about Iraq's WMD as well....as did Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, et al.

littlemonkey: I went and corrected/explained myself in this post. Your point 2: Isn't that a stereotype that *they themselves* try to foster? So I'm just listening to what many of them describe themselves as, which is quite different from painting people with a brush that *you've* [not you, the general you] have defined. Plus, what I said is generally positive, unlike the stereotyping I was responding to--so I shouldn't say good things about people? Even when they [as a group, as a whole] try to describe themselves like that?
And I don't get your number 3.

[JSweeney]

Fun fact of the day: In the G.I Joe comics and cartoons, Cobra Commander and most of the Viper regulars are American citizens.

[E-Z-B]

as for giving people under 20k a year money for something they never put in to, is crazy..

They DO put money into it. When they finish their taxes on April 15th, the credit is deducted from their refund. The only feature with a "tax credit" is that you get the money earlier rather than later to help pay bills. The poorest have the toughest time with this, and need the money sooner.

yes some people have no opportunity, but the majority don't care or desire to improve their life..

Maybe that's because there's little help from others to give them a reason to improve their lives.

and it is funny that bush and regan both took office after the previous president messed up the economy..yes the economic slow down started in the clinton administration...yes a presidents economic policy will most likely not take effect for 4 years..

Oh, not this again. Clinton managed federal spending efficiently, thus spuring economic growth mostly in the late 90s when the surplus started. During the years of a surplus, our economy flourished. We're now in the longest economic drought since WWII. No other president since then has had this much trouble with the economy. Reasons: irresponsible tax cuts and the largest deficity in history.

yes we are in deficit spending, but no where near the deficits we had 20 years ago under carter...

Truth is, Reagan had the largest deficit until now. But to give him credit, we were in the cold war, which he prevailed.


and yes spending should be high, as we are at war....

A baseless war at that. Kim Jong II is more dangerous. Why didn't we go after him? Why? Because they don't have oil. Bush's family couldn't have gotten richer with their oil investments.

as for conservatives not liking stern or opie and anthony, last i checked it was lieberman and tipper gore who have/and continue to seek action vs the music industry and video game industry about the content of their material..

Perhaps, but the point was that for someone to say they're "conservative", but not exhibit conservative characteristics, but rather moderate ones, is silly.

[cmndrhavok]

Prior to that, Clear Channel also Fired the Florida Dj "Bubba the Love Sponge" , seems to me it's all part of some new measures that CC is doing to clean up its radio stations . It didnt surprise me when some CC stations got rid of Stern.

Course when I was working down in the GA/FL area, I did pickup bubba, he was a Stern wannabe.:wink:

Cheers!

[E-Z-B]

If Bush wanted oil to help our economy, how come my gas prices are still 1.60/gallon?

Because it'll take years to get Iraq's oil operations running again.

give the Iraqi people some hope for once [and the ability to actually engage in free speech without having their sisters raped in front of them],

Kim of North Korea is just as bad, if not worse. Why not take him down?

The poorest don't pay federal money, in fact, the *poorest* get federal money in the form of welfare, wic, food stamps, etc. So, no, they shouldn't have gotten back money that they didn't pay in the first place.

I'm not talking about those who don't work and don't pay any money into it. I'm talking about those making peanuts, barely getting by, but receive no help from the government.

Slavery has not always existed, and the other examples you give are fairly recent.

Slavery hasn't always existed?! Guess you never read the old testament. Moses explained to the Jews during the exodus to the holy land the rules for owning slaves, which at that time, was acceptable. Considering that was probably around 2,000 B.C. or so, that would make it a loooong time. 150 years of no slavery is nothing compared to that.

Besides, if gay marriage is so 'right' and 'discriminatory,' why don't the states put it to a vote to the people rather than breaking the law and keeping their jobs?

What if we allowed the south to vote for slavery in 1867 instead of forcing them to stop? Think that would've worked? It takes years for a culture to change.

Re: your apparent implication that Bush lied saying Iraq has WMD. Since you apparently like Kerry, and if that's a big deal, remember that on election day:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and
grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

He said that because Bush, who is the Commander in Chief, mislead all of us into thinking Iraq actually had WMD to satisfy a personal vendetta against Saddam. He had me convinced for a time, too.

[hulk409]

E-Z-B... you aren't the brightest guy, are you? The poor do not pay income taxes. In fact, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the total income tax.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

[ryanbph]

They DO put money into it. When they finish their taxes on April 15th, the credit is deducted from their refund. The only feature with a "tax credit" is that you get the money earlier rather than later to help pay bills. The poorest have the toughest time with this, and need the money sooner.

My girlfriends older sister and her husband have 3 kids, their combined household income is under $20k, she works 40 hours on the weekend, sleeping at a home for elderly, he babysit after school...they got all their taxes back from income last year, and then an additional $300...they both are home pratically all the time...get off the couch and work

Maybe that's because there's little help from others to give them a reason to improve their lives.

why does someone need help to have a desire to improve their financial situation..if you want to help them out that is fine go for it, but I shouldn't be forced to give people, who the majority will, don't want to improve their life

Clinton managed federal spending efficiently

Last I checked it was the house and senate that manage money, not the president..and clinton increased the size of the govt alot, compared to the previous 20 years..he was the president when the economy took off..he was in the right place at the right time.....having the drought might have something to do with the recession, that was prolonged by 9/11...our govt is way to big...we spend a ton on education, but our children are getting stupidier...

yes we are in deficit spending, but no where near the deficits we had 20 years ago under carter...

We are in a war vs terrorist, and yes n korea should be dealt with, but it is more touchy then taken out iraq, they have nuclear weapons with missles that can potentially hit the usa, oh year, bill clinton sold them that nuclear and ballistic missle technology, damm he was a great president giving him the power plants, for power not weapon grade...as for iraq, eveyrone has said he was a threat, everyone said/thought he had weapons, the dems are attacking this wrong, they should be saying, the same as they did b4 the war and when clinton was in office...iraq had weapons, he dealt with shady countries, we gave you authority to take him out and put an end to this, but you messed up, we are less safe now, as the weapons have been proliferated...not you lied to us...what suddenly, the dems changed their minds based on the intelliegence that was given to them..no they are politicizing it..and they are making a big mistake out of it..they should say you fucked up, where is it, not you lied to us...they should know the country don't care if the president lied, ie bill clinton

point was that for someone to say they're "conservative", but not exhibit conservative characteristics

hey im am very economically, abortion/gay rights, taxes , defense, immigration, because i like certain tv shows/games, wouldn't make me a moderate one

[hulk409]

I could go on forever, but I have work to do. I just wanted to make one more point. The reason that there was a surplus in the 90's is because the stock market was roaring. All of the extra money from capital gains taxes went straight to the government. Turns out that the market did not deserve the valuations and the bubble deflated; thus, the capital gains tax revenue dried up. This had nothing to do with Clinton, good or bad.

[E-Z-B]

E-Z-B... you aren't the brightest guy, are you? The poor do not pay income taxes. In fact, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the total income tax.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Guess you're not so bright either. Do you expect someone making $20K to pay $10K in taxes. What about someone making $1,000,000 a year paying say $100K in taxes. Who's in a worse situation? The poorer people are getting taxed, but at a percentage like the rest of us. That's why the poor don't pay as much. :roll:

[ryanbph]

He said that because Bush, who is the Commander in Chief, mislead all of us into thinking Iraq actually had WMD to satisfy a personal vendetta against Saddam. He had me convinced for a time, too


I guess all the comments throughout the 90's made by clinton and the rest of the dems, were lies to cover up his affairs...come on, i can take the vendatta thing, but please, the entire world felt he had them

[hulk409]

The ignorance is amazing. America does not have a flat tax. People making $20,000 are not taxed at the same rate as those making $100,000. Learn a little before trying to debate. Not only that, there are tax credits that reduce the total income tax for many to 0.

[ryanbph]

Guess you're not so bright either. Do you expect someone making $20K to pay $10K in taxes. What about someone making $1,000,000 a year paying say $100K in taxes. Who's in a worse situation? The poorer people are getting taxed, but at a percentage like the rest of us. That's why the poor don't pay as much.

Under like 30k DONT pay income tax...the dems think that if you have a combined househould income of 70k, they you should pay more then 38% in taxes...im sorry but if 2 people are makin $36k a year, and then have to pay 38% in taxes to the feds, the local property taxes, their will be almost nothing left to live...and yes john kerry has said household income over $72k is considered rich...considering over 50% of americains make of $50k, and only 10% make over 100k, this will effect a lot of people...john kerry and many other dems have stated within the past few months, to repeal the tax cuts, and to add to the welthy tax rate...well if wealthy they consider Total househould income over $72k, then this will mean they want to add taxes to the majority of americains

[kittycatgirl2k]

The FCC has strict rules and regulations and they love to play "Hitler". I personally think the whole thing is ridiculous. Americans get their panties in a wad so easily over the stupidiest things. It all has to do with Janet's boob on the Super Bowl. Big flippin' deal. It was a breast. Atleast 50% of the world's population has a pair of them. Its a boob, get over it. If you don't like Howard Stern, don't listen to his radio show. Listen to something else. If you don't want to see something, then change the channel. I'm sick of the soccer moms trying to control everything to protect their precious little children from ever seeing anything. Back in the middle ages they used to have public hangings and entire families would go and have a big picnic day out for the event. Now in our advanced times we get all in an uproar because of a radio show or a breast. Whoopee.

The human race has issues and politics suck.

[Dale Earnhardt Jr]

The FCC has strict rules and regulations and they love to play "Hitler". I personally think the whole thing is ridiculous. Americans get their panties in a wad so easily over the stupidiest things. It all has to do with Janet's boob on the Super Bowl. Big flippin' deal. It was a breast. Atleast 50% of the world's population has a pair of them. Its a boob, get over it. If you don't like Howard Stern, don't listen to his radio show. Listen to something else. If you don't want to see something, then change the channel. I'm sick of the soccer moms trying to control everything to protect their precious little children from ever seeing anything. Back in the middle ages they used to have public hangings and entire families would go and have a big picnic day out for the event. Now in our advanced times we get all in an uproar because of a radio show or a breast. Whoopee.

The human race has issues and politics suck. Never conpare anyone with Hitler he was the worst SOB that will ever walk on the face of this earth

[E-Z-B]

The ignorance is amazing. America does not have a flat tax. People making $20,000 are not taxed at the same rate as those making $100,000. Learn a little before trying to debate. Not only that, there are tax credits that reduce the total income tax for many to 0.

I never said anything about a flat tax. I said everyone is taxed based on percentages. Yeah, there are credits too, but I didn't want to complicate the arguement.

Never conpare anyone with Hitler he was the worst SOB that will ever walk on the face of this earth

Actually, there was someone who lived the same time as him but was even worse: Stalin. He killed millions more people than hitler did. His own people.

[coffman]

[quote="hulk409"]E-Z-B... you aren't the brightest guy, are you? The poor do not pay income taxes.


Hulk409, what planet do you live on? Anyone who works has to pay taxes. Your link proves nothing about the lower income brackets. Someone who makes less than their standard deduction plus the deduction for dependents basically gets all of their taxes back, but that is typically less than $10,000. How many people can survive nowadays on $15,000 a year? The terrible thing about the tax system is the number of people in the top brackets who pay no income tax, although they are supposed to at least pay the alternative minimum tax.

[Wshakspear]

A company did not want a type of entertainment on thier airwaves. This has less to do with free speech and more with buisness. You wouldnt listen to the "light FM" channels and expect Stern to blow his wad each morning. If CC didnt want that assinine crap (which i listen too anyways) its thier choice. Just like its ABC's choice to take the Clerks cartoon off the air or Nickalodeon to take Invader Zim off the air and why Comedy Central shows the chapelle show..its up to the boss

[GameDude]

Stern sucks. He so boring and old.

[jmcc]

Never conpare anyone with Hitler he was the worst SOB that will ever walk on the face of this earth

I don't know, I think a pretty good case could be made for Pol Pot being at least as bad.

[Indiana]

Guess you're not so bright either. Do you expect someone making $20K to pay $10K in taxes. What about someone making $1,000,000 a year paying say $100K in taxes. Who's in a worse situation? The poorer people are getting taxed, but at a percentage like the rest of us. That's why the poor don't pay as much.

Under like 30k DONT pay income tax...the dems think that if you have a combined househould income of 70k, they you should pay more then 38% in taxes...im sorry but if 2 people are makin $36k a year, and then have to pay 38% in taxes to the feds, the local property taxes, their will be almost nothing left to live...and yes john kerry has said household income over $72k is considered rich...considering over 50% of americains make of $50k, and only 10% make over 100k, this will effect a lot of people...john kerry and many other dems have stated within the past few months, to repeal the tax cuts, and to add to the welthy tax rate...well if wealthy they consider Total househould income over $72k, then this will mean they want to add taxes to the majority of americains

Under 30K you do not pay income taxes??? Where are you from? It's under 15K that you do not pay income taxes and try living on 15K!!!!

[ryanbph]

If I make 50k and my wife makes 25k, we pay a ton in taxes, the wifes salary is pratically gone after income taxes alone, then we both have student loans, car loans, car insurance, property tax, and a mortgage to worry about...why should I get taxed so much, most of the govt programs are not going to benefit me, if I want to make a donation to a charity group, then why can't I make that decision on my own, rather then have the gov't redistube my wealth...I took a 1/3rd of my old salary to help my fathers company out, and I am still paying taxes up the wazoo..I work 70 hours a week most of the year and upwards of 90 during peak season, I have to visit this site due to my lack of funds to spend on video games..If someone is making only $15k a year, working full time job, they should either take night classes to learn a new trade, and that will be subsidized by the gov't, or get a second job, or work overtime...yes shit happens, but I don't see how taxes the majority of the citizens a lot, to help out the few has worked...their is only 10% of americains that make over 100k a year...I know of at least 6 familes that make combined less the 20k a year, who don't care about bettering their life or their childres life and the avg combined work hours of each of these poor familes is less the 60 hours a week..you can't complain about being poor when 2 abled bodies are working less then 40 hours a week

[kram]

They should make TVs and radios with different settings that allow censoring or not. Like if you are on setting 1 the f-bomb will be censored but it wouldn't on setting 3.

[Javery]

Although Clear Channel is a company and they should be in control of their "product", it's not that simple. The airwaves (given to stations by the government - state action, anyone?) are used for speech. In fact, it is really their only function. It is more analogous to a private-public forum similar to the town of Celebration, Florida. Disney may own the town but they cannot prevent me from standing on a soap box on a street corner there preaching at the top of my lungs that Disney sucks...

[hulk409]

Ummm... here is a quote from the Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address.

"This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes - and it will help our economy immediately. Ninety-two million Americans will keep - this year - an average of almost 1,100 dollars more of their own money. A family of four with an income of 40,000 dollars would see their federal income taxes fall from 1,178 dollars to 45 dollars per year. And our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses. "

I don't think $45 is unreasonable.

Link:

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&y ear=2003

[E-Z-B]

If I make 50k and my wife makes 25k, we pay a ton in taxes, the wifes salary is pratically gone after income taxes alone. why should I get taxed so much, most of the govt programs are not going to benefit me,

Join the club. That's the price we pay for living in the greatest country in the world. Without taxes, you wouldn't have roads, schools, teachers, stadiums, police, fire fighters, etc. If you're adamant against taxes, then home-school your children someday, ride a mountain bike to work, and don't ever walk into a hospital that was built with taxpayer's money.

then we both have student loans, car loans, car insurance, property tax, and a mortgage to worry about...

As we all do.

if I want to make a donation to a charity group, then why can't I make that decision on my own, rather then have the gov't redistube my wealth...

Because being a cheapass like the rest of us, you would never donate that much money. :wink:

I took a 1/3rd of my old salary to help my fathers company out, and I am still paying taxes up the wazoo..I work 70 hours a week most of the year and upwards of 90 during peak season,

Sacrifices must be made to run a business.

I have to visit this site due to my lack of funds to spend on video games..

If you're worried about money, then you wouldn't be buying video games in the first place, now would you?

If someone is making only $15k a year, working full time job, they should either take night classes to learn a new trade, and that will be subsidized by the gov't, or get a second job, or work overtime...

Try telling that to a young mother whose husband left her or was gunned down, and is trying to raise two kids at the same time with little outside help. Do you know how much daycare is? Try $150 a week for one child. Working a second job wouldn't offset that cost anyway. So she needs to work her job while the kids are at school, then care for them at night. No time for night classes.

The more money you have, the more you have to lose.

[Reality's Fringe]

Everywhere I go I end up hearing someone bashing on Bush's policies. The truth is, the USA seems to be doing quite well as it is. Sure, it's not paved with gold, but in relation to many countries we're pretty sweet. I hear all the complaints about "Our social security money being gone" and I can't help but think only a few people know how social security works. "That's our money we're putting into it!!!" No it's not. The social security you pay now is used to suppoer current retirees, and then when you retire, the tax on the new generation is supposed to pay for you and so on. There's not some mythical bank account in which the IRS deposits the Social Security money while Bush sneaks into the bank and misappropriates it. It's being paid out now, and do you know why? Baby Boomers. They''re already retired and they're offsring are getting closed to retire. It's a sheer numbers game ladies and gentlemen. People aren't having as many kids as they used to. The reason the social security pool is drying up is because there's just not enough of us to pay for all the impending old people. This was a looming problem long before Bush got here, and I haven't seen him sudden;y withdraw money to pay for a new coat or anything, so I'm not going to validate my frustration by blaming it on him. It's the old people. Those damned old people. Get ready for the end of social security people, it's coming and it's coming sooner than we all feared.
Now, as for Saddam. I'm glad we kicked his ass? You know why? Regardless of his WMD or his oil, he was a crazy fucker, and that's one less crazy fucker for us to deal with later. As for Ol' Korean Kim, it surprises me how many peple think we should just "take him now". Unlike Saddam, who we assumed was starting up a nuclear program; Big Kim already has nukes that are aimed at South Korea and Japan "Let's just take him now!" Good idea, there won't be a nuclear retalliation at all! We'll bust his ass eventually, but now is not the best time. GO IMPERIALISTIC AMERICA!!!
Which brings me to another subject.....well, IMPERIALISTIC AMERICA. What the hell is the problem. Through all of the tossed around "nobility" and "political correctness", I fail to see any point that makes me feel otherwise. IT's not as if we "liberate" a country and then force them to do what we want, lest we tank their asses. Sure, we're spreading our influence, but we're not gassing people or making them worship Jesus. I kind of like being on the winningn ide, actually. Sure, if I was someone else, I might be a little pissed, but I'd get used to it and enjoy my fast-food and porno.
Porno brings up another interesting point; Republicans vs Democrats. IF you've already chosen a side, stop reading now, you're a dumbass. Republicans and democrats are the same party with different Rhetoric. The real affiliation is conservative or Liberal. Personally, I tend to be moderate, but I don't like to admit it because it's a reather "puss-out" type response. It's like the kid in highschool who thinks he's ultimate cool "Yeah, I just let it flow." It's akin to wanting the best of both worlds without choosing a side; it doesn't work in real life. However, I support abortion and believe in less censorship, or rather a reform thereof. I strongly oppose gay marriage, most welfare programs, gun control, excessive government, and several other liberal social programs. Why? Well, because I do. I don't feel it works, and nothing anyone says is going to change that. Gay sex is gross (sorry, but I think it's gross), guns are cool, bureaucracy pisses me off, and the way public schools are run "to leave no child behind" is fucking stupid. Some people will disagree, perhaps venomously, but that's a great part about this country; the ability to disagree. The problem, really, is that everyone thinks they're owed something by the world, and it's totally insane. In the words of The Eagles: "....but the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing-get over it! Get over it! Get over it!" Man, that song is cool. Like I am.

[Javery]

I strongly oppose gay marriage ... Gay sex is gross

What difference does it make to you? This is the kind of crap your grandkids are going to be ashamed of in 50 years just like I cringe when the phrase "colored people" comes out of my grandfather's mouth. Grow up.

[Reality's Fringe]

I strongly oppose gay marriage ... Gay sex is gross

What difference does it make to you? This is the kind of crap your grandkids are going to be ashamed of in 50 years just like I cringe when the phrase "colored people" comes out of my grandfather's mouth. Grow up.

Jesus, get over it. It's the same thing as saying "Bugs are gross" I find it gross. Just because I accept it doesn't mean I have to like it, kinda like rap music and Bologna. It's the kind of "I'm mature because I don't speak like that" attitude that sparks those kinds of "Anti-Gay/Pro-Gay" debates. It's gross, I'm sorry, I find it gross. EWWIES (You obviously didn't take that with a grain of salt, as intended)

[ryanbph]

Join the club. That's the price we pay for living in the greatest country in the world. Without taxes, you wouldn't have roads, schools, teachers, stadiums, police, fire fighters, etc. If you're adamant against taxes, then home-school your children someday, ride a mountain bike to work, and don't ever walk into a hospital that was built with taxpayer's money.
true they are supposed to pay for that...but I live in MA, our state budget over the past 5 or so years has gone from 4 BILLION to 6 Billion a year...the state population is approx million people...the budget has raised by 150% and the schools are still getting worse, the roads and traffic is terrible...on a road I travel often, it took a crew 4 seperate trips to fix a bump in the road over a 8 month time period...and the spot now is worse then when they started..govt involvement in anything doesn't produce the best possible outputs, as their is limitations, politician looking out for their supporters, bribes etc etc

Because being a cheapass like the rest of us, you would never donate that much money.

Good one...it is true I am a cheapass, but I do donate 15% to my church, a sizable amount from my financial situation to the Americain Diabetes Association, and my spouse and I paid for her niece xmass presents..yes some people won't donate, but that is their right and decision on where to send their money



Yes sacrifiices are made, and everyone will make different ones...but that doesn't mean the gov't should take 30% of my money, that is ma state and federal income taxes, and then take another 15% of our total income before taxes, in property taxes..

f you're worried about money, then you wouldn't be buying video games in the first place, now would you?

Try telling that to a young mother whose husband left her or was gunned down, and is trying to raise two kids at the same time with little outside help. Do you know how much daycare is? Try $150 a week for one child. Working a second job wouldn't offset that cost anyway. So she needs to work her job while the kids are at school, then care for them at night. No time for night classes.

The more money you have, the more you have to lose.


That is how I decide to spend my additional money, and yes your example of a young mother is terrible..but the amount of people that have that problem compared to those who don't care is minimal...The families that make under 30k a year, who are deemed poor
70% have cable tv
over 75% have cell phones
100% have a tv
around 60% have a car
around 35% have 2 cars
around 70% have a dishwasher and washer dryer
95% have a microwave..

These are all luxuraries that one doesn't need to get by, calling americain poor citizens as people without hope or living terribly, is an insult to poor people in other nations..yes their is exceptions all across the country, and that is terrible, but I don't see how this is the role of the gov't to help them out constantly, with programs that are not succesful..

Take a look at Russia these days, they have switched to a flat tax, of 15%, rather then gouging their citizens...their economy is flourishing, and their govt is working better then ever..I don't see why everyone can't pay the same..at a flat tax..yeah the guy making 100k (which is 10% of the population) will only be paying 15k...and that won't hurt him as much as someone making $15k a year, and paying $2,250 a year in taxes...the poor get more benefits from the taxes they are paying then someone making $100k...their isn't 2 classes in america, over 80% are middle class..the amount of people that need the govt help is minimal compared to those who don't need the gov't help...and of that small group that needs the help, the majority don't care...your case that you pointed out about the young mother is tragic, but for every one of those people their is 20-30 people milking the system

[Javery]

I strongly oppose gay marriage ... Gay sex is gross

What difference does it make to you? This is the kind of crap your grandkids are going to be ashamed of in 50 years just like I cringe when the phrase "colored people" comes out of my grandfather's mouth. Grow up.

Jesus, get over it. It's the same thing as saying "Bugs are gross" I find it gross. Just because I accept it doesn't mean I have to like it, kinda like rap music and Bologna. It's the kind of "I'm mature because I don't speak like that" attitude that sparks those kinds of "Anti-Gay/Pro-Gay" debates. It's gross, I'm sorry, I find it gross. EWWIES (You obviously didn't take that with a grain of salt, as intended)

No, it's not the same. I think it's "gross" too but I am not opposed to gay marriage - I strongly favor it. Why can't people just mind their own business? Whether someone wants to marry someone else is really none of my business (or yours) and it is certainly not the business of the government. I also think bologna sandwiches are gross but I'm not about to support a Constitutional Amendment banning them.

[jmcc]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where's all this bologna hatred coming from? It just wants to love, it's never hurt anyone.

[Reality's Fringe]

GRAIN OF SALT(Read between the lines). Eh, you obviously didn't catch it, So I'll give you my lowdown. I don't like it, but I'm not opposed to unions. the problem comes, not with the granting of equal rights, but the fight for MORE rights because they exist in minority. Ex. Wanting gay mariages but wanting to change the rules of their types of marriages (Marriage tax, ease of divorce, cheaper insurance). Now, if they're willing to accept everything as is, then, eh, what the hell ever. Maybe if people didn't call it a "marriage", then there wouldn't be so much controversy. As for the act itself. I indeed find it gross, and I guess I just don't understand it. I'm not afraid to admit that. It's not as if I homo bash over it, but I can't see the reasoning behind it. A girl's body fucking ROCKS(for a lack of better words). Smooth skin, small-frame, higher voice, and a vagina. I think that's what clenches it for me; the vagina.
At anyrate, I hope that clears up the confusion

[TomCloud9]

I wish the fcc and goverment would just leave everyone in radio along, the never bitch about the taxes they get from the sales of ads. They pick on stern because he targets a diverce group of people, Not old farts in congress. I listen to howard Stern almost every day at work it get me through half the day. I would be very pissed if those F'in right wing son of a bitchs take him off the air. I just wonder how long the soccer moms and political f's listen to him, they seem to know all about the content of his show. If you dont like whats going on email these people and let them know. thanks for your time. Chairman Michael K. Powell: Michael.Powell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov

[Gothic Walrus]

I strongly oppose gay marriage ... Gay sex is gross

What difference does it make to you? This is the kind of crap your grandkids are going to be ashamed of in 50 years just like I cringe when the phrase "colored people" comes out of my grandfather's mouth. Grow up.

Jesus, get over it. It's the same thing as saying "Bugs are gross" I find it gross. Just because I accept it doesn't mean I have to like it, kinda like rap music and Bologna. It's the kind of "I'm mature because I don't speak like that" attitude that sparks those kinds of "Anti-Gay/Pro-Gay" debates. It's gross, I'm sorry, I find it gross. EWWIES (You obviously didn't take that with a grain of salt, as intended)

No, it's not the same. I think it's "gross" too but I am not opposed to gay marriage - I strongly favor it. Why can't people just mind their own business? Whether someone wants to marry someone else is really none of my business (or yours) and it is certainly not the business of the government. I also think bologna sandwiches are gross but I'm not about to support a Constitutional Amendment banning them.

Not having read the whole thread, I'm not sure where this began. Seems off-topic, but it's time to throw in my two cents...

What's wrong with gay marriage? Perhaps a better question: how will it hurt you?

I'm straight, and I hate the idea of the amendment - it seems completely unfair. Some are pushing for a ban on marriage and approval of "civil unions." Is it just me, or does the term "seperate but equal" describe that perfectly? We all remember how well THAT worked back in the first half of the 20th century...

[Javery]

I don't like it, but I'm not opposed to unions. the problem comes, not with the granting of equal rights, but the fight for MORE rights because they exist in minority. Ex. Wanting gay mariages but wanting to change the rules of their types of marriages (Marriage tax, ease of divorce, cheaper insurance). Now, if they're willing to accept everything as is, then, eh, what the hell ever. Maybe if people didn't call it a "marriage", then there wouldn't be so much controversy.

I get it - and I agree (sort of). If they want marriage they should be able to have it and everything that comes along with it. As for not calling it marriage, that just does not work and is not an acceptable solution. In America's history, it has never worked. You can ride the bus but go sit in the back. You can go to school but don't go to mine. You can drink out of a fountain, just not the one I drink out of, etc. Seperate is NOT equal.

[Javery]

Wow Gothic_Walrus - same idea in our posts! :D

[suprsaiyanMAX]

I have no problems with gay marriage, however the San Fransisco ordeal is wrong in my view. This is only because the mayor and city hall is breaking state law and just ignoring the system.

[TomCloud9]

People get this gay marriage is gross from thier parents, they are so oppressed they cant speak for their selfs. I am the straightest hillbilly son of a bitch ever ,but if it makes you happy no one should be able to stop it. not even george w bush. this is supposed to be the land of the free, but our president thinks since he is catholic everyone is. But thats one major reason for america, free worship. Not to be brought into goverment decitions.

[Reality's Fringe]

I didn't mean that -I- didn't think it should be called marriage, I was making the observation that the label is what a majority of the controversy centers around.

[moiety]

I saw Bush mentioned a few times, so this is for you anti-Bush people:

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

:wink: That's all.

[The-Bavis]

This, the longest off-topic thread ever, has made it clear that free speech is alive and well. People discussing social and political issues. Some rationally, some not. It doesn't matter. This type of discussion is what free speech is about. Free speech is not about being able to show your right boobie on TV. That type of "speech" has no place in the moral and responsible society that our Constitution was intended to protect.

[E-Z-B]

true they are supposed to pay for that...but I live in MA, our state budget over the past 5 or so years has gone from 4 BILLION to 6 Billion a year...the state population is approx million people...the budget has raised by 150% and the schools are still getting worse, the roads and traffic is terrible...

Again, blame that on Bush, not MA. His tax cuts mean that the states are getting much less in federal funding, thus your STATE taxes must now make up the difference. There really is no such thing as a "tax cut". More like a "reallocation of taxes".

Oh, and Bush enacted those urealistic mandates for the "No Child Left Behind Act" and provided only 1% of the funding to the schools to meet those mandates. Know what that means? Your state taxes must increase!!! Again, blame Bush for your tax woes.

Good one...it is true I am a cheapass, but I do donate 15% to my church, a sizable amount from my financial situation to the Americain Diabetes Association

Assuming you make about $40,000/year, that means you must donate about $6,000/year to your church. If that's true, than I must commend you. But if you're misleading me, and using the "church donations" to win your arguement, than shame on you. And I, too, donate to my church, local food drives, salvation army, United Way, and even to our troops overseas, but nowhere to the amount you claim you contribute. But I still pay my taxes because that's what keeps this country the greatest. If you don't want to give your contribution, then no one is forcing you to live here.

The families that make under 30k a year, who are deemed poor
70% have cable tv
over 75% have cell phones
100% have a tv
around 60% have a car
around 35% have 2 cars
around 70% have a dishwasher and washer dryer
95% have a microwave..

These are all luxuraries that one doesn't need to get by,

The one I agree with you on is the cable tv. No one needs that. Cell phones are quickly showing how they can save lives, small tv's are relatively cheap nowadays and keep children occupied while the parents must fulfill their responsibilities at home, you and your spouse need a car to get to work to FEED your family, and I guess you expect people to not wash their clothes.

Take a look at Russia these days, they have switched to a flat tax, of 15%, rather then gouging their citizens...their economy is flourishing, and their govt is working better then ever..

Russia? Aren't they plagued with corruption? I wouldn't make a comparison there.

your case that you pointed out about the young mother is tragic, but for every one of those people their is 20-30 people milking the system

So it's easier to say f-em all rather than help those who need it. That's my problem with the Republican party - no compassion for their fellow man. Karma exists in this world, and everything WILL balance out in the end. Just wait and see.

[Arakias]

Dont buy crap at Walmart because half the CDs and DVDs have to be censored just to be put on the shelf (not quite accurate in numbers, but I hate that store).

[E-Z-B]

I saw Bush mentioned a few times, so this is for you anti-Bush people:

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

:wink: That's all.

Ha, ha! Funny because it's true.

[Arakias]

I didnt read it all, but gay marriage wouldnt be a granting of rights - technically the constitution doesnt oppose gay marriage. so they should be allowed to.
but taking away the right for gays to marry is taking away a right, and the last time we did that was to ban alcohol - and we all know that worked right?

[bmulligan]

I have no problems with gay marriage, however the San Fransisco ordeal is wrong in my view. This is only because the mayor and city hall is breaking state law and just ignoring the system.

There used to be laws that prevented women and blacks from voting or owning property. There used to be laws requiring importers to purchase tax stamps for their tea, there used to be laws requiring americans to quarter brittish troops in their homes. I'm sure there are better examples out there, but any case, it seems our history is replete with disobedience and, one could argue, founded upon the breaking of unjust laws in order to promote and protect the freedom of individuals.

'Marriage' is a religious institution and is different in most cultures and religions. Contrary to the current right leaning professors, it is not defined as the union of one man and one woman. Ask a a mormon from Utah what marriage means and you may get a different answer.

Irregardless, the only recognition government needs to perform for a 'union' between people is the protection of property arising from the death or dissolution of such mergers between people. There's no compelling reason government needs to 'recognize' marriage, it's none of their business.

[JSweeney]

Here is a mind twister for you...
Marriage is fundamentally a religious concept.
The first ammendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now, how can one take something from the domain of religion without making laws that respect an establishment of religion?

Now, there is still legal paperwork, and liscences that must be gotten, etc.. even civil cerimonies.
But are these marriages? Or just civil unions?

Marriages, in the eyes of most religions, joing two people together in the eyes of God. This is why most religous people take issue with gay marriage.. not because two people love each other and wish to be joined, but rather, that they see it as an affront to God, and contradictory to his plan.

If you just take the word marriage out of every government document and replace it with "Civil Union", and allow the same rights to everyone, the issue would die. The fact is that most of this isn't even about the issue of love or legally joining...
it's all about money. Participants of the alternative lifestyles want to be joined so thier partners can get benefits like any other spouse.

Of course, if gay marriage was allowed, how could one say that polyigamy was illegal? or Group marriages (3-4 husbands and 5-6 wives)?

[JSweeney]

I'm surprised oo one has said it, and I've tried to constrain myself from saying it... but any discussion of free speech must always have an offshoot of this in it...

Free speech does not mean that you can run into a crowded movie theater and yell "FIRE!!!"