Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Anne Bonney on December 01, 2010, 12:42:10 PM
-
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/smi ... t-exhibit/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/smithsonian-lgbt-exhibit/)
Smithsonian Museum Removes An LGBT Art Exhibit After GOP Threatens To Defund It
Last month, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery (NPG) unveiled “the first major museum exhibition” exploring gender and sexual identity in American culture. With 105 major works by artists like Georgia O’Keeffe and Andy Warhol, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” the NPG pioneered a show that “celebrates gay and lesbian art and delineates its place in the history of American painting and photography.”
But it appears that a celebration of anything LGBT-related cannot exist without inciting right-wing backlash. In yesterday’s release of its expose, the conservative CNS News complained that the exhibit featured images of “male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, [and] Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts.” The report saved particular scorn for a four-minute video exhibit that included a depiction of ants on an image of Jesus. Entitled “A Fire in My Belly,” the exhibit was intended “to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim” but, instead, set off a firestorm of religious indignation and outcry over the Smithsonian’s federal funding.
After the Catholic League deemed the exhibit an “assault on the sensibilities of Christians” and demanded the government defund the NPG, the Republicans were quick to pile-on. Decrying the exhibit as an “in your face perversion paid for by tax dollars,” House Appropriations Committee member Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) demanded a look at the NPG’s budget, advocating for “calling them up in front of the Appropriations Committee, asking for some resignations, auditing all their budget – all their books.” The House GOP leadership seconded the outrage and Kingston’s call for a Congressional probe into the museum’s funding:
And Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., called it an “outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season.”
“When a museum receives taxpayer money, the taxpayers have a right to expect that the museum will uphold common standards of decency. The museum should pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time,” Cantor said through a spokesman.
Incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he condemned the use of taxpayer money for the exhibit but would not call for the removal of the exhibit.
“American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy,” Boehner said…”Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington.”
In the face of such right-wing brow-beating, the NPG has decided to remove the video exhibit. In a statement released this afternoon, the NPG Director Martin Sullivan said, “I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious. In fact, the artist’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.”
It is important to note that, as is common with recent GOP arguments, Republican bluster over NPG’s federal funding doesn’t actually hold water. While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to “pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff.” Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including “Hide/Seek.” But regardless these facts, history proves that, despite the NPG’s hope, conservative outrage will lead institutions to remove whatever is deemed offensive, regardless of what it may celebrate.
-
http://wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2182930 (http://wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2182930)
Va. lawmaker claims pat-downs part of 'homosexual agenda'
November 30, 2010 - 3:30pm
WASHINGTON - A conservative Loudoun County lawmaker says controversial airport pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration are part of a "wide-scale homosexual agenda."
Eugene Delgaudio, a Republican representing Sterling on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, made the comments in a widely distributed e-mail sent in his capacity as president of the conservative nonprofit Public Advocate of the United States.
In the e-mail -- reported by WUSA9 -- Delgaudio also says the TSA's non-discrimination hiring policy is "the federal employee's version of the Gay Bill of Special rights."
"That means the next TSA official that gives you an enhanced pat-down could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission," he wrote.
Delgaudio confirmed the quote to WTOP. He was first elected to the Loudoun board in 1999 and has previously been criticized by his colleagues for anti-gay comments.
In a petition urging opposition to The Student Non-Discrimination Act introduced in Congress by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, Delgaudio said the bill would turn America's "playgrounds into homosexual breeding grounds."
In a fundraising and survey appeal, Delgaudio also reportedly said the homosexual agenda in Congress promotes same-sex marriages and adoptions, which will lead to "men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to 'pick out' a little boy for themselves."
Delgaudio's Public Advocate organization says it supports ending same-sex marriage and pro-life initiatives, along with "equality under the law, regardless of one's sexual orientation."
The group says it has 100,000 members.
-
I don't know but since they always quote the Constitution, where is their support of 1st?
I am so sick of theocrats. If there is a god, he ain't peering in 6 billion people's bedroom windows. Unless he's a peeper. Some are like that ya know.
Whatever it says in Leviticus, it doesn't warrant a mention in the Top Ten.
-
You miss the point entirely.
Its tax dollars. My money. Our money. Taken from us to subsidize worthy causes and supply the needs of government and society. Because it is tax payer dollars it should not be used in ways that denigrate and insult said tax payers, while doing no demonstrable public good.
This is the kind of exhibit that should be supported with private donations by those who value it - not public money.
No one is saying the artist don't have the right to make it; or that you don't have the right to view it. I would argue it does not belong in a public museum like the Smithsonian. In my opinion having such a display greatly diminishes the stature of the Smithsonian; not unlike the diminishing of the Nobel prize by granting it to Obama and Gore; but my objection is over a tax supported museum displaying porn and blasphemy as if it were art. Such exhibits belong in privately owned studio and galleries.
And folks, take a moment to think on this - What if the figure being eaten by ants were Mohamed? How tolerant do you suppose the powers that be at the Smithsonian and with academia and the media would be with such a display? Should all the peaceful Muslims who pay their taxes be forced to support something like that? Wouldn't that be seen as intolerably intolerant and hateful?
-
No one is saying the artist don't have the right to make it; or that you don't have the right to view it. I would argue it does not belong in a public museum like the Smithsonian. In my opinion having such a display greatly diminishes the stature of the Smithsonian; not unlike the diminishing of the Nobel prize by granting it to Obama and Gore; but my objection is over a tax supported museum displaying porn and blasphemy as if it were art. Such exhibits belong in privately owned studio and galleries.
And folks, take a moment to think on this - What if the figure being eaten by ants were Mohamed? How tolerant do you suppose the powers that be at the Smithsonian and with academia and the media would be with such a display? Should all the peaceful Muslims who pay their taxes be forced to support something like that? Wouldn't that be seen as intolerably intolerant and hateful?
One should concede that there is sometimes a fine line between porn and art...
That's an interesting hypothesis there with the Mohamed thing. I agree a veritable shit-storm would erupt over a thing like that, if they ever allowed it (which they probably wouldn't).
-
One should concede that there is sometimes a fine line between porn and art...
That's an interesting hypothesis there with the Mohamed thing. I agree a veritable shit-storm would erupt over a thing like that, if they ever allowed it (which they probably wouldn't).
Sure, I will concede that. But there is little doubt many tax paying American's would think much of this exhibit qualifies as the former - and so tax monies should not go toward supporting it. The same can be said of the blasphemy part - opinions will differ - and yet there is no question a lot of tax paying Americans are upset and offended by it.
Also too - as a nation we are going broke. No one questions that cuts must take place. This is in my mind the place to start - this and a whole lot like it.
As to the Mohamed thing - heads would roll - literally.
As to the GOP and its outreach to the gay community: They elected a vice president with a gay daughter whom he ( the VP) is clearly proud of and loves very much, and whom the Prez had no problem with and seems to like and respect. Also - Bush did a great deal to help the fight against AIDS; so much so, even some liberals are allowing him a few kudos for this effort and out reach. This is far more worthwhile than a gay "porn" "art" exhibit. This is the kind of outreach that provides demonstrable good and I know of no GOP member who opposes such outreach.
-
I dunno, why are democrats so afraid of private firearm ownership? :nods:
-
I dunno, why are democrats so afraid of private firearm ownership? :nods:
:rofl:
-
http://wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2182930
Va. lawmaker claims pat-downs part of 'homosexual agenda'
November 30, 2010 - 3:30pm
WASHINGTON - A conservative Loudoun County lawmaker says controversial airport pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration are part of a "wide-scale homosexual agenda."
"That means the next TSA official that gives you an enhanced pat-down could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission," he wrote.
That is funny Anne.
I paid for a first class ticket, I would like to submit to the enhanced pat-down prior to boarding in a private room. My friend would like to have his pat down performed without gloves on out in the open where people can watch. Is tipping allowed?
...
-
You miss the point entirely.
Its tax dollars. My money. Our money. Taken from us to subsidize worthy causes and supply the needs of government and society. Because it is tax payer dollars it should not be used in ways that denigrate and insult said tax payers, while doing no demonstrable public good.
This is the kind of exhibit that should be supported with private donations by those who value it - not public money.
Well, fwiw... this particular exhibit was, in fact, supported by private donations. From the above article, "Smithsonian Museum Removes An LGBT Art Exhibit After GOP Threatens To Defund It (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32024&p=388048#p387811)," emphasis added:
While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to "pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff." Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including "Hide/Seek."[/list]
-
You miss the point entirely.
Its tax dollars. My money. Our money. Taken from us to subsidize worthy causes and supply the needs of government and society. Because it is tax payer dollars it should not be used in ways that denigrate and insult said tax payers, while doing no demonstrable public good.
This is the kind of exhibit that should be supported with private donations by those who value it - not public money.
Well, fwiw... this particular exhibit was, in fact, supported by private donations. From the above article, "Smithsonian Museum Removes An LGBT Art Exhibit After GOP Threatens To Defund It (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32024&p=388048#p387811)," emphasis added:
While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to "pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff." Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including "Hide/Seek."[/list]
I had read that. I find myself wondering if the "artist" had received federal grants to produce their work and would like to know, but as to the issue of the Smithsonian putting such work on display, as I said: In my opinion having such a display greatly diminishes the stature of the Smithsonian; not unlike the diminishing of the Nobel prize by granting it to Obama and Gore; but my objection is over a tax supported museum displaying porn and blasphemy as if it were art. Such exhibits belong in privately owned studio and galleries.
-
You miss the point entirely.
Its tax dollars. My money. Our money. Taken from us to subsidize worthy causes and supply the needs of government and society. Because it is tax payer dollars it should not be used in ways that denigrate and insult said tax payers, while doing no demonstrable public good.
It's your opinion that it does no good. Regardless of whether or not you "approve" of them, they ARE a part of America. A very large part and have contributed greatly to society. I don't want my tax dollars going to fight foreign wars, but...
This is the kind of exhibit that should be supported with private donations by those who value it - not public money.
Nobody seemed to be bothered by it until.......After the Catholic League deemed the exhibit an “assault on the sensibilities of Christians” and demanded the government defund the NPG, the Republicans were quick to pile-on
And there we have it. It offended the delicate sensibilities of the Christians.
(http://http://www.bartcop.com/christians-oppressed.gif)
No one is saying the artist don't have the right to make it; or that you don't have the right to view it. I would argue it does not belong in a public museum like the Smithsonian. In my opinion having such a display greatly diminishes the stature of the Smithsonian;
How?
not unlike the diminishing of the Nobel prize by granting it to Obama and Gore; but my objection is over a tax supported museum displaying porn and blasphemy as if it were art.
Eye of the beholder. What you call "porn" and "blasphemy", others call art. Why should a group of religious people get to decide what's ok for public funding?
Such exhibits belong in privately owned studio and galleries.
In your opinion.
And folks, take a moment to think on this - What if the figure being eaten by ants were Mohamed? How tolerant do you suppose the powers that be at the Smithsonian and with academia and the media would be with such a display? Should all the peaceful Muslims who pay their taxes be forced to support something like that? Wouldn't that be seen as intolerably intolerant and hateful?
The same thing would apply. Separation of church and state. Who gets to decide what's "decent" and what's not? I was just as upset over all the flak over the cartoon of Muhammad. It's silly. If you don't like it, don't look at it.
-
Sure, I will concede that. But there is little doubt many tax paying American's would think much of this exhibit qualifies as the former - and so tax monies should not go toward supporting it. The same can be said of the blasphemy part - opinions will differ - and yet there is no question a lot of tax paying Americans are upset and offended by it.
That's why there is such a thing as separation of church and state.
Also too - as a nation we are going broke. No one questions that cuts must take place. This is in my mind the place to start - this and a whole lot like it.
This is a drop in the bucket. Start with the defense spending and maybe we can get somewhere.
As to the Mohamed thing - heads would roll - literally.
And it would be just as ridiculous.
As to the GOP and its outreach to the gay community:
:rofl: :rofl:
They elected a vice president with a gay daughter whom he ( the VP) is clearly proud of and loves very much, and whom the Prez had no problem with and seems to like and respect.
It was swept under the rug as much as possible. When people finally did start talking about it, he supported his daughter. He did NOTHING to support gay people in general.
Also - Bush did a great deal to help the fight against AIDS; so much so, even some liberals are allowing him a few kudos for this effort and out reach.
Gay does not equal AIDS.
This is far more worthwhile than a gay "porn" "art" exhibit. This is the kind of outreach that provides demonstrable good and I know of no GOP member who opposes such outreach.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.
-
I dunno, why are democrats so afraid of private firearm ownership? :nods:
I wasn't aware they were. I think you're using a pretty broad brush there. The article I posted came directly from the GOP. I'm a registered Dem (although only because the only other choices are to throw away your vote or the GOP, who has gone completely off the rails....if the Repubs stuck to what they're supposed to be, I'd probably be one) and I fully support the second amendment.
-
You miss the point entirely.
Its tax dollars. My money. Our money. Taken from us to subsidize worthy causes and supply the needs of government and society. Because it is tax payer dollars it should not be used in ways that denigrate and insult said tax payers, while doing no demonstrable public good.
This is the kind of exhibit that should be supported with private donations by those who value it - not public money.
Well, fwiw... this particular exhibit was, in fact, supported by private donations. From the above article, "Smithsonian Museum Removes An LGBT Art Exhibit After GOP Threatens To Defund It (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32024&p=388048#p387811)," emphasis added:
While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to "pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff." Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including "Hide/Seek."[/list]
:nods:
-
I dunno,that utterly useless brady bill was yet another clintonista fiasco, i dont like the idea that government,no matter which group of idiots is in office,tells me jack shit about whats "best" for me. Dont like that somebodys freedom to express themselves gets the strong-arm quash from anybody......period. I had a co -worker tell me I was "un-patriotic" as Im pretty ceartain that my definition of patriotism and his are pretty far apart, it kinda made me laugh......he was an idiot in many other ways as well.He tried to get in my shit for questioning the almighty president( I believe at the time ,Bush,mk2) I told him that contrary to his bs that in a DEMOCRACY its NEVER ,EVER wrong to question a goddamn thing.Censorship as a whole really chaps my ass,no matter if i like/dislike or agree/disagree with the position or subject of that censorship.
I mean look what the fuck happened to us,as juveniles....Im not havin it(somebody dictatin a goddamn thing to me ) as an adult. besides it sets a frightening precident.......if you find something so horribly offensive that it threatens to shake your "morals" and or faith ,then id suggest that they wernt shit to start with....really pisses me of when some bored DC hausfrau decides to piss and moan from her ivory tower about moral fiber and shit like that.....Like that nonsensical shit Tipper Gore prattled on and on about back in the 80s,fucking congressional hearings on the lyrical content of twisted fucking sister? puuuullleeesssseee....... What a waste of energy.......im bettin the miller-lites of the world spanked all their little monkeys ever so furiously over that shit. Once apon a time there was a country called america......and people had freedom of choice... The banning of books ,art, music or the censorship thereof is tantamount to intelectual tyranny. The second amendment keeps teeth in the will of the people. shits pretty simple to me :nods:
-
I dunno,that utterly useless brady bill was yet another clintonista fiasco, i dont like the idea that government,no matter which group of idiots is in office,tells me jack shit about whats "best" for me. Dont like that somebodys freedom to express themselves gets the strong-arm quash from anybody......period. I had a co -worker tell me I was "un-patriotic" as Im pretty ceartain that my definition of patriotism and his are pretty far apart, it kinda made me laugh......he was an idiot in many other ways as well.He tried to get in my shit for questioning the almighty president( I believe at the time ,Bush,mk2) I told him that contrary to his bs that in a DEMOCRACY its NEVER ,EVER wrong to question a goddamn thing.Censorship as a whole really chaps my ass,no matter if i like/dislike or agree/disagree with the position or subject of that censorship.
I mean look what the fuck happened to us,as juveniles....Im not havin it(somebody dictatin a goddamn thing to me ) as an adult. besides it sets a frightening precident.......if you find something so horribly offensive that it threatens to shake your "morals" and or faith ,then id suggest that they wernt shit to start with....really pisses me of when some bored DC hausfrau decides to piss and moan from her ivory tower about moral fiber and shit like that.....Like that nonsensical shit Tipper Gore prattled on and on about back in the 80s,fucking congressional hearings on the lyrical content of twisted fucking sister? puuuullleeesssseee....... What a waste of energy.......im bettin the miller-lites of the world spanked all their little monkeys ever so furiously over that shit. Once apon a time there was a country called america......and people had freedom of choice... The banning of books ,art, music or the censorship thereof is tantamount to intelectual tyranny. The second amendment keeps teeth in the will of the people. shits pretty simple to me :nods:
:tup:
-
Good points seamus. I am not politically involved right now with the exception of helping some local people. I get a kick out of those people who are threatened by the Tea Party movement calling them anti- American. You cant get much more American than forming and participating in a grass roots movement. There are so many people that just dont get it. We need to get the Government out of our bedrooms and stop telling us what drugs we can take, weed we can smoke and which doctors to choose.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Mead
...
-
whooter wrote
"I get a kick out of those people who are threatened by the Tea Party "
That's because the tea party is just neo conservatism repackeged for today. Another way to distance themselves from w bush(but not really). It's still the same old wolf under the lambskin.
-
I get a kick out of those people who are threatened by the Tea Party movement calling them anti- American. You cant get much more American than forming and participating in a grass roots movement.
I agree with none-ya. In this particular case, we're talking 'bout KOCH grass here. It's a subspecies of crabgrass.
-
lol, I think you made my point. Always trying to knock down the little group trying to fight city hall. Why is everyone so threatened by grass roots movement? This is what our country was built on.
...
-
Timothy McVie, belonged to a grass roots movement. What to worry?
-
lol, I think you made my point. Always trying to knock down the little group trying to fight city hall. Why is everyone so threatened by grass roots movement? This is what our country was built on.
"The little group?" :roflmao:
"Grass roots movement?" :roflmao: :roflmao:
How can it be a "grassroots movement" when it's underwritten by billionaires, and who flagrantly use it to push their own agendas?
From the August 30, 2010, New Yorker article by Jane Mayer, "Covert Operations (http://http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer)":
...Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. "Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests," it said. "But you can do something about it." The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said, "What they don't say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens' movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires."[/list]
More from the same article:
A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It's like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they're our candidates!"
...Another former Koch adviser said, "They're smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves."[/list]
-
Timothy McVie, belonged to a grass roots movement. What to worry?
What does that mean? All people in grass roots movements will blow up buildings? Our country was built on grass roots movements. we should be happy that we are getting new people involved in the political process and getting them to vote. We need to motivate the young people to get interested. This is the way to do it.
Why would anyone be against this? What is so threatening to you?
...
-
lol, I think you made my point. Always trying to knock down the little group trying to fight city hall. Why is everyone so threatened by grass roots movement? This is what our country was built on.
"The little group?" :roflmao:
"Grass roots movement?" :roflmao: :roflmao:
From the August 30, 2010, New Yorker article by Jane Mayer, "Covert Operations (http://http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer)":
Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. "Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests," it said. "But you can do something about it." The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said, "What they don't say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens' movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires."[/list]
More from the same article:
A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It's like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they're our candidates!"
...Another former Koch adviser said, "They're smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves."[/list]
Thats an old argument Ursus. You obviously have never been active politically. Grass roots doesnt mean everyone is on public assistance. The supporters need money to make signs and organize. They approach the richest people in town to help contribute and support them. If they find sponsors then they can grow their movement and get even more people involved.
Then there are people like Ursus that points to the rich man in the back and say "Ah ha!!" There is the owner of the "Mercantile store" who contributed $18 to pay for all the signs and feed the people for 2 days. This isnt a grass roots movement at all"... lol, lets discredit them all!! Close our ears and not listen to them!!
...
-
Timothy McVie, belonged to a grass roots movement. What to worry?
That's McVeigh, isn't it?
And didn't pretty much everything McVeigh professed make sense in a sense of separating one's self from the man and all of that, it's just that he went a little overboard toward the end there with the bombing? (That's my limited take on it anyway.)
Anyway what the fuck does all of this really have to do with the GOP and gay people? :lala:
-
lol, I think you made my point. Always trying to knock down the little group trying to fight city hall. Why is everyone so threatened by grass roots movement? This is what our country was built on.
Because it wasn't a "little group" nor a "grass roots movement". It was calculated and financed by the Koch brothers. We've been over this before.
-
lol, I think you made my point. Always trying to knock down the little group trying to fight city hall. Why is everyone so threatened by grass roots movement? This is what our country was built on.
Because it wasn't a "little group" nor a "grass roots movement". It was calculated and financed by the Koch brothers. We've been over this before.
Link?
...
-
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... fact_mayer (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer)
Covert Operations
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.
by Jane Mayer August 30, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html)
Op-Ed Columnist
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
By FRANK RICH
Published: August 28, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... h-brothers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers)
The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires
By funding numerous rightwing organisations, the mega-rich Koch brothers have duped millions into supporting big business
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =129425186 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129425186)
The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win
http://theweek.com/article/index/206405 ... petmasters (http://theweek.com/article/index/206405/the-billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-puppetmasters)
The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters?
The New Yorker makes a case that a pair of wealthy brothers is the force behind the Tea Party movement. Here, 5 key assertions from a new article
posted on August 24, 2010, at 3:45 PM
-
Hmm...I'll be devil's advocate:
Let's face it -- in the political arena, money is power.. thank God someone with bank funded something sensible for a change!!
Ok...you go. :D
-
Hmm...I'll be devil's advocate:
Let's face it -- in the political arena, money is power.. thank God someone with bank funded something sensible for a change!!
Ok...you go. :D
Funding and manipulating a rabid mob for one's own political and financial gain ... is exactly how the Nazis manipulated the discontent and financial ruin of the Germans in the aftermath of World War I. I think we all know how that turned out.
-
Hmm...I'll be devil's advocate:
Let's face it -- in the political arena, money is power.. thank God someone with bank funded something sensible for a change!!
Ok...you go. :D
TeaBaggers and the word sensible don't belong in the same sentence.
You're it! ;D
-
There were some earlier Tea Party rallies which came out against George W. bush
Link (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement)
More recently, the anniversary of the original Boston Tea Party was commemorated by Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters who held a fund raising event for the 2008 presidential primaries advocating an end to fiat money and the Federal Reserve System, disengaging from foreign entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and upholding States' rights.
Early local protest events
On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes", over 100 other taxes proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out of control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes.[28]
Some of the protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[29] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[30][31] and a series of healthcare reform bills.[32]
New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used.[33] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic[34] and NPR’s Martin Kaste,[35] credit Carender as, "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and state that she "organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests."
Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law.[36] Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[37][38]
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog.[37] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009, reporting "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."[33] On Tax Day, six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.
...
-
There were some earlier Tea Party rallies which came out against George W. bush
Link (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement)
More recently, the anniversary of the original Boston Tea Party was commemorated by Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters who held a fund raising event for the 2008 presidential primaries advocating an end to fiat money and the Federal Reserve System, disengaging from foreign entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and upholding States' rights.
^^^^^^^^^This was before it was co-opted by the Koch brothers and actually DID involve protestation of taxes.
Below, is when it went nuts and became all about "git dem dirty Dems" & "git dat darky soshulist outta the WHITE house"
Early local protest events
On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes", over 100 other taxes proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out of control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes.[28]
Some of the protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[29] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[30][31] and a series of healthcare reform bills.[32]
New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used.[33] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic[34] and NPR’s Martin Kaste,[35] credit Carender as, "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and state that she "organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests."
Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law.[36] Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[37][38]
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog.[37] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009, reporting "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."[33] On Tax Day, six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.
-
Everything evolves over time. Some in a good direction some in a bad but its good to see people getting involved from the grass roots level. Anything that grows in popularity is going to get the interest of the wealthy eventually.
I hope they can keep it going and push for change.
...
-
Teabaggers are Astroturfed by the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. There's no grassroots there anywhere.
-
And here I thought Teabaggers were led by Bret Michaels contestants on Rock of Love.
-
Question for anyone:
What is the best 3rd party going right now?
(Then maybe we can get back on the topic of the GOP being so scared of gay people?)
-
There is no viable third party. We are locked into a two party system. Which means nothing gets done except mudslinging. I guess an independent could be viable in a climate were people are sick and tired of the alternative... I don't know if libertarianism is as viable as some would claim though.
-
There is no viable third party. We are locked into a two party system. Which means nothing gets done except mudslinging. I guess an independent could be viable in a climate were people are sick and tired of the alternative... I don't know if libertarianism is as viable as some would claim though.
Well, f the gov't then...I'm sick of it all!
-
OK. So as bad as government is, what would happen with NO oversight at all? I mean, it would NOT be a Utopia. In fact, the would be no infrastructure, clean air, clean water, etc. Corporations would be more powerful than ever. If you are comfortable with annihilation, I guess that is one direction to go toward.
-
OK. So as bad as government is, what would happen with NO oversight at all? I mean, it would NOT be a Utopia. In fact, the would be no infrastructure, clean air, clean water, etc. Corporations would be more powerful than ever. If you are comfortable with annihilation, I guess that is one direction to go toward.
Fuck the economy, the dollar, the federal govt, airplanes (and the TSA bs), but most of all -- fuck the IRS and FUCK WALL ST!!
Bartering will come back into play...difficult to tax transactions like that..
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
-
OK. So as bad as government is, what would happen with NO oversight at all?
Somalia
I mean, it would NOT be a Utopia. In fact, the would be no infrastructure, clean air, clean water, etc. Corporations would be more powerful than ever. If you are comfortable with annihilation, I guess that is one direction to go toward.
:tup:
-
What about people who are anti-government but also have no problem being supported by it?
-
What about people who are anti-government but also have no problem being supported by it?
Rock and a hard place.
-
Ultimately, I support it but only because I can't stand to think of children being cold, hungry and uninsured. Same with those experiencing real difficulties. But as a single Mom, working, tutoring on the side, doing my thesis, with no family close by (and I'll say it, deaf), it is hard to be as unequivocal as I used to be. About 20-30% of my students are pregnant or parents and they are just back on the welfare cycle as their parents, and so are their kids.
But there are many types of welfare: corporate, international, etc.
I just don't know what the alternative is.
But what I do know is that if one is philosophically opposed to government or corporate dependency - than they should take it upon themselves to be self reliant and off the grid.
-
What about people who are anti-government but also have no problem being supported by it?
Red Staters:
(http://http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/red-state-socialism.jpg)
-
I find the chart interesting, but not too sure how to read it.
Many of the red states are where our military bases are. They would tilt the scales as far as costs go and the state is not expected to shoulder the financial burden. So these states would take more than they receive.
The Democratic states are driving out businesses because they feel "Profit" is a dirty word so our businesses are going overseas where they are appreciated. Businesses are leaving the urban areas because who wants to run a business in a high crime area where people dont want to work. So the money has to go to support bad decisions by local democratic leaders to try to sure up the infrastructure which use to be supported by local small businesses which fled.
...
-
I find the chart interesting, but not too sure how to read it.
Many of the red states are where our military bases are. They would tilt the scales as far as costs go and the state is not expected to shoulder the financial burden. So these states would take more than they receive.
The Democratic states are driving out businesses because they feel "Profit" is a dirty word so our businesses are going overseas where they are appreciated. Businesses are leaving the urban areas because who wants to run a business in a high crime area where people dont want to work. So the money has to go to support bad decisions by local democratic leaders to try to sure up the infrastructure which use to be supported by local small businesses which fled.
...
Driving out businesses? Are you high? You mean the businesses that pay virtually NO taxes, but still somehow get refunds? The infrastructure used to be supported by the tax base, the corporate part of which has gradually disappeared since the Reagan administration. The bad decisions were the ones that allowed corporations to weasel out of their obligations to their country. What was the corporate tax rate under Eisenhower? Or Nixon? Highly paid lawyers and accountants have been chipping away at those tax codes, finding ever more creative loopholes and shelters, for DECADES. An acceleration occurs whenever someone named Bush is anywhere near the White House;
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corpora ... lummet.php (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php)
I don't know why the Republican party is so terrified of homosexuals, but my guess is they think that queers are somehow costing them money.
-
I find the chart interesting, but not too sure how to read it.
Many of the red states are where our military bases are. They would tilt the scales as far as costs go and the state is not expected to shoulder the financial burden. So these states would take more than they receive.
The Democratic states are driving out businesses because they feel "Profit" is a dirty word so our businesses are going overseas where they are appreciated. Businesses are leaving the urban areas because who wants to run a business in a high crime area where people dont want to work. So the money has to go to support bad decisions by local democratic leaders to try to sure up the infrastructure which use to be supported by local small businesses which fled.
...
Driving out businesses? Are you high? You mean the businesses that pay virtually NO taxes, but still somehow get refunds? The infrastructure used to be supported by the tax base, the corporate part of which has gradually disappeared since the Reagan administration. The bad decisions were the ones that allowed corporations to weasel out of their obligations to their country. What was the corporate tax rate under Eisenhower? Or Nixon? Highly paid lawyers and accountants have been chipping away at those tax codes, finding ever more creative loopholes and shelters, for DECADES. An acceleration occurs whenever someone named Bush is anywhere near the White House;
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corpora ... lummet.php (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php)
Democrats are taxing the crap out of them and as a result are moving overseas. I think we both agree that democrats dont like the word profit and want to tax them more. this results in increased corporate layoffs to help pay for the democrats bigger government and spending.
If Democrats could just let the companies grow and hire people without interfering we could get more people employed and reduce the burden of unemployment on the txpayers. We need to get this economy going again. Forcing companies to move overseas to avoid the tax increases isnt the right answer.
I don't know why the Republican party is so terrified of homosexuals, but my guess is they think that queers are somehow costing them money.
They do cost more money.
...
...
-
We need to get this economy going again. Forcing companies to move overseas to avoid the tax increases isnt the right answer....
I agree completely, I think we should impose penalties that would make it financially prohibitive to move an american corporation to another country. Why are our biggest companies so horribly unpatriotic?
-
I don't know why the Republican party is so terrified of homosexuals, but my guess is they think that queers are somehow costing them money.
They do cost more money.
...
Really? How?
-
We need to get this economy going again. Forcing companies to move overseas to avoid the tax increases isnt the right answer....
I agree completely, I think we should impose penalties that would make it financially prohibitive to move an american corporation to another country. Why are our biggest companies so horribly unpatriotic?
Patriotic is doing what is best for the country. If companies stayed and allowed themselves to be out-competed by foreign companies then that would be unpatriotic and would cause massive unemployment and cause a huge trade deficit. If they are forced out of the country by high taxes at least they are still American based companies out there which could be easily brought back home with some tax incentives.
Maybe at some point in the future a new president may feel it worthy to keep the companies on US soil and employ Americans instead of foreigners.
...
-
Q: Why are gay Saudis a big dilemma for Republicans?
A: Because they're gays with oil.
-
Driving out businesses? Are you high? You mean the businesses that pay virtually NO taxes, but still somehow get refunds? The infrastructure used to be supported by the tax base, the corporate part of which has gradually disappeared since the Reagan administration. The bad decisions were the ones that allowed corporations to weasel out of their obligations to their country. What was the corporate tax rate under Eisenhower? Or Nixon? Highly paid lawyers and accountants have been chipping away at those tax codes, finding ever more creative loopholes and shelters, for DECADES. An acceleration occurs whenever someone named Bush is anywhere near the White House;
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corpora ... lummet.php (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php)
:notworthy: :notworthy:
Jobs started going overseas when Reagan started his "trickle down" theory.
(http://http://gerardwhyte.net/images/misc/reaganomics.jpg)
http://www.majorityleader.gov/content/r ... g-business (http://www.majorityleader.gov/content/real-republican-agenda-send-jobs-overseas-helping-big-business)
The Real Republican Agenda: Send Jobs Overseas, Helping Big Business
Today Republicans unveiled their agenda to go back to the failed economic policies that led to the deepest recession in generations. Just as we expected, the focus is on help for the wealthy over the middle class and big corporations over small businesses. A rundown of the Real Republican Agenda:
Outsourcing Jobs
Republicans have voted several times against stopping the outsourcing of American jobs. And despite the fact that stopping outsourcing received the most votes on the “America Speaks Out” website, Republicans did not include it in their agenda unveiled today.
Fighting for Big Corporations
Republicans continue to fight for policies that favor big corporations over small businesses. Republicans are fighting for an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, claiming they want to protect small businesses. But many of the “small businesses” they say they want to protect are actually billion dollar firms that structure themselves as partnerships, billionaire hedge fund managers and movie stars. Additionally, many of the 3% of “small businesses” in the highest bracket aren’t small at all – they’re big, Fortune 500 corporations. Many of these corporations actually filed regular corporate taxes before 2001, and are now exploiting a loophole by changing their tax status to pay as “individuals” specifically because Bush cut individual rates.
No Help For Small Businesses
Republicans have voted against measures that would help small businesses, including:
* The Small Business Tax Relief Act, would have strengthened our economy in two ways: reducing the paperwork burden on small businesses, leaving them more time and resources to invest in job creation; and ending the tax loopholes that encourage large multinational corporations to ship jobs overseas.
* Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, which boosts lending to small businesses by investing capital in community and smaller banks under terms that become more favorable to participating banks as they increase their total loans to small businesses
* Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act allows a 100% exclusion from gross income of gain from the sale of qualified small business stock acquired after March 15, 2010, and before January 1, 2012 and increases the tax deduction for business start-up expenditures in 2010 and 2011
* Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act provides tax incentives for hiring new employees that were previously unemployed and extends the Recovery Act provision that would allow small businesses to write-off capital expenditures up to $250,000
* FY 2010 Appropriations increases funding to revitalize the SBA after eight years of Bush-era budget cuts and provides $28 billion in new SBA lending
Click here to read in pdf. http://www.majorityleader.gov/docupload ... siness.pdf (http://www.majorityleader.gov/docuploads/realrepublicanagendajobsoverseasbigbusiness.pdf)
I don't know why the Republican party is so terrified of homosexuals, but my guess is they think that queers are somehow costing them money.
My theory, two reasons:
1. They think the Big Bad Bible doesn't like it
2. So many of them are gay and in the closet and need to come out heavily against the gays to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Fundies.
-
Business Experts Have Explained That Barbara Boxer’s and the Democrat Party’s Job-Killing Policies Are To Blame For Jobs Leaving America:
Job-Killing Policies, Including Higher Corporate Tax Rates And More Regulation, Are To Blame For Companies Outsourcing Labor To Other Countries.
The list of companies who have given up on the United States as a viable place to successfully run their business’ both small, medium and large is mind numbing.
Additional reasons U.S. companies outsource is that our own government pursues policies that drive investment and job creation offshore: excessive taxes, needless regulations, lengthy permit processes, a decreasing supply of U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees, and a general governmental misunderstanding of how to support private-sector jobs.
Neither Obama or his current administration have a clue on how to create jobs in the private sector and equally important driving them out of the country.
Link (http://http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-santa-ana/jobs-are-shipped-overseas-are-democrat-tax-policies-and-over-regulation)
...
-
Business Experts Have Explained That Barbara Boxer’s and the Democrat Party’s Job-Killing Policies Are To Blame For Jobs Leaving America:
Job-Killing Policies, Including Higher Corporate Tax Rates And More Regulation, Are To Blame For Companies Outsourcing Labor To Other Countries.
The list of companies who have given up on the United States as a viable place to successfully run their business’ both small, medium and large is mind numbing.
Additional reasons U.S. companies outsource is that our own government pursues policies that drive investment and job creation offshore: excessive taxes, needless regulations, lengthy permit processes, a decreasing supply of U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees, and a general governmental misunderstanding of how to support private-sector jobs.
Neither Obama or his current administration have a clue on how to create jobs in the private sector and equally important driving them out of the country.
Link (http://http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-santa-ana/jobs-are-shipped-overseas-are-democrat-tax-policies-and-over-regulation)
Comment below from your linked op-ed piece, which basically just quoted huge business owners that the GOP is trying to protect. They could give a shit about the little guy or middle America. They just held up tax cuts for 90% of the people to ensure that the top 10% get to keep their Bush era tax cuts as well.
Sure - because the Bush regime was so all-fired hell-bent on keeping American jobs in America, too (i.e: NOT)!
It's the corporate gangs which OWN the government, not the other way around!
Who do you think lobbies whom, to ensure that they CAN legally out-source all the domestic jobs and so down-size the domestic labor force, in order to "save money" on OUR "expensive" salaries, and so to "increase THEIR corporate profits"?!
Corporations hardly pay ANY taxes as it is, and they are ALL owned by the Banksters, who pay absolutely NO taxes at all!
Recently, starting with Salesman Bush and then quickly doubled by his equally corporate-sponsored replacement, Salesman Obama, we saw OUR tax monies GIVEN away to both the banksters as "Bail-outs" AND to their copororate minions as "Stimulus funds!"
"OUR" government pays OUR taxes TO the Banksters and to the Corporations!!!
SO It's pretty darned obvious who owns whom!
...and THEN, tards like you come along and write trashy sales-pieces like this for your sales-masters!
Who do you think you're kidding?!
;-(
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/n ... 138494.ece (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1138494.ece)
Mr. Explainer Guy tackles the Bush tax cuts
By Howard Troxler, Times Columnist
In Print: Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Q. Hey, Mr. Explainer Guy, this was so much fun the other day that I thought I'd go for a bigger topic. Can you explain this "Bush tax cut" business?
A. Sure. But you mean the Bush tax hikes.
Q. Hmm, no, I don't think so. Everybody's talking about the Bush tax cuts.
A. It's the same thing. They made a deal in Washington a few years ago to cut taxes on everybody — then to jack them back up on Jan. 1, 2011.
Q. That sounds like a tax cut to me.
A. Yeah, they were cuts then. But now they're tax hikes. Hey, I'm just telling you the deal they made.
Q. All right, sheesh, you want to call it something different than everybody else in the world, go ahead. But what does it mean?
A. Under the 2003 deal, everybody's tax rate got cut by a few points, no matter what bracket they were in.
The lowest rate dropped from 15 percent down to 10 percent. The highest rate dropped from 39.6 percent down to 35 percent. Everybody in between got a cut, too.
Q. Anything else?
A. We also got higher deductions, a better break for having kids, lower taxes for selling our assets ("capital gains") and other goodies, too.
Q. Why did they cut taxes then, but say they had to go back up on Jan. 1, 2011?
A. Because the Republicans didn't have enough votes to do it permanently. So they did it under funky rules that allowed it for just a few years.
Q. So now the deadline is here, and Congress is fighting over whether to keep these lower taxes?
A. Actually, the Democrats have already caved on the main point and agreed that most people should be able to keep these tax cuts.
But the Democrats have still been trying to let the tax cuts expire for the richest 2 percent of Americans.
Q. And the Republicans?
A. They insisted that the top two brackets keep their tax cuts, too. That's everybody making more than $200,000 a year as an individual and $250,000 as a couple.
Q. So the Republicans were holding up the deal to stick up for rich guys?
A. That's the Democrat spin, but it didn't catch fire. Class warfare isn't working.
Q. If we keep these tax cuts, doesn't that make our debt worse?
A. Yep, by an extra $3.7 trillion over the decade. Or just a mere $3 trillion if we stick it to the rich guys.
Q. On the other hand, wouldn't it hurt to let tax rates go up in a bad economy?
A. That's exactly what the Republicans say. Makes sense to me.
Q. So what's going to happen?
A. Looks like they'll make a deal in Congress for another "temporary" extension of these lower tax rates for a couple more years.
The Republicans will win the big fight now — they'll keep the tax cuts for the richest two brackets.
The Democrats will get some kind of consolation prize, like extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans that were going to expire.
Q. That doesn't seem too bad. We're still hittin' the rich guys for 35 percent, the rest of us get to keep lower tax rates, and as a side benefit, millions get more short-term help.
A. I agree. On the other hand, the debt keeps going up and the ship will keep sinking, unless we do something about spending.
Q. Can you fix that, too?
A. Yes, but I'm out of space.
Now, can we get back to the topic at hand? Why is the GOP so damn scared of gay people? And Whooter, how do you come to the conclusion that gay people cost more money? Although I concede that I'd pay good money for a great gay to come in and redecorate my house. Ever notice that whenever a certain area of a city/town starts to become populated by gays that the house values begin to rise?
-
(http://http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/11/30/this_modern_world/story.jpg)
-
The Democrats are particularly hypocritical when it comes to this. they almost uniformly promote policies that raise the cost of labor in the US - higher taxes, onerous regulations, card check, and the like. Yet they seem to be flummoxed by the fact that jobs are then being outsourced. Since they can't seem to recognize their fault in it, they blame Republicans - without proof. For the most part, Republicans support policies that make the cost of labor less expensive, which should tend to resist outsourcing.
...
-
The Democrats are particularly hypocritical when it comes to this. they almost uniformly promote policies that raise the cost of labor in the US - higher taxes, onerous regulations, card check, and the like. Yet they seem to be flummoxed by the fact that jobs are then being outsourced. Since they can't seem to recognize their fault in it, they blame Republicans - without proof.
:rofl: :rofl:
Projection if I ever saw it.
Yes, forget about the eight years Bush II was in office. Forget about what he did with a SURPLUS that we had. Forget about the ridiculous wars he got us into (which, incidentally, the GOP wasn't concerned AT ALL about the national debt then). Forget about the ruins that he left for other people to clean up. And while we're at it....Damn Obama to hell for not fixing it all RIGHT NOW!
Although I am pissed that, yet again, the Dems & Obama have NO BALLS! They should have stood up to this tax bullshit and forced the GOP to either filibuster it or go back to their bankers, oops - I mean backers and explain to the top 2% that they're gonna have to suck it up a little longer. I'm sure that 2% of the highest earners are really hurting right now! ::)
-
Whooter, please quit derailing the thread.
Now, can we get back to the topic at hand? Why is the GOP so damn scared of gay people? And Whooter, how do you come to the conclusion that gay people cost more money? Although I concede that I'd pay good money for a great gay to come in and redecorate my house. Ever notice that whenever a certain area of a city/town starts to become populated by gays that the house values begin to rise?
-
The Democrats are particularly hypocritical when it comes to this. they almost uniformly promote policies that raise the cost of labor in the US - higher taxes, onerous regulations, card check, and the like. Yet they seem to be flummoxed by the fact that jobs are then being outsourced. Since they can't seem to recognize their fault in it, they blame Republicans - without proof.
:rofl: :rofl:
Projection if I ever saw it.
Yes, forget about the eight years Bush II was in office. Forget about what he did with a SURPLUS that we had. Forget about the ridiculous wars he got us into (which, incidentally, the GOP wasn't concerned AT ALL about the national debt then). Forget about the ruins that he left for other people to clean up. And while we're at it....Damn Obama to hell for not fixing it all RIGHT NOW!
Although I am pissed that, yet again, the Dems & Obama have NO BALLS! They should have stood up to this tax bullshit and forced the GOP to either filibuster it or go back to their bankers, oops - I mean backers and explain to the top 2% that they're gonna have to suck it up a little longer. I'm sure that 2% of the highest earners are really hurting right now! ::)
I think if democrats could start supporting their local businesses more and not viewing profits as a dirty word the businesses may start to stick around and put more Americans to work.
I do see your point Anne, but lets move onto the gay issue. Do you think there is any validity in the comment that Gays are costing the taxpayers more money than heterosexuals?
...
-
Business Experts Have Explained That Barbara Boxer’s and the Democrat Party’s Job-Killing Policies Are To Blame For Jobs Leaving America:
Job-Killing Policies, Including Higher Corporate Tax Rates And More Regulation, Are To Blame For Companies Outsourcing Labor To Other Countries.
The list of companies who have given up on the United States as a viable place to successfully run their business’ both small, medium and large is mind numbing.
Additional reasons U.S. companies outsource is that our own government pursues policies that drive investment and job creation offshore: excessive taxes, needless regulations, lengthy permit processes, a decreasing supply of U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees, and a general governmental misunderstanding of how to support private-sector jobs.
Neither Obama or his current administration have a clue on how to create jobs in the private sector and equally important driving them out of the country.
Link (http://http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-santa-ana/jobs-are-shipped-overseas-are-democrat-tax-policies-and-over-regulation)
...
You can give birth at home in your bathtub instead of going to a hospital, it is much cheaper, but is it wiser? For that matter, is it morally acceptable to profit from the lack of human rights in less developed nations? Many companies have moved to China because the common people there are basically slaves who work for pennies an hour and have no rights. We have taxes and regulation and permit procedures for a reason. Maybe there would be more U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees if the government had the money to provide grants for them to people who otherwise could not afford college. But of course the government does not have money to do much of anything because the super rich corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES.
-
The Democrats are particularly hypocritical when it comes to this. they almost uniformly promote policies that raise the cost of labor in the US - higher taxes, onerous regulations, card check, and the like. Yet they seem to be flummoxed by the fact that jobs are then being outsourced. Since they can't seem to recognize their fault in it, they blame Republicans - without proof.
:rofl: :rofl:
Projection if I ever saw it.
Yes, forget about the eight years Bush II was in office. Forget about what he did with a SURPLUS that we had. Forget about the ridiculous wars he got us into (which, incidentally, the GOP wasn't concerned AT ALL about the national debt then). Forget about the ruins that he left for other people to clean up. And while we're at it....Damn Obama to hell for not fixing it all RIGHT NOW!
Although I am pissed that, yet again, the Dems & Obama have NO BALLS! They should have stood up to this tax bullshit and forced the GOP to either filibuster it or go back to their bankers, oops - I mean backers and explain to the top 2% that they're gonna have to suck it up a little longer. I'm sure that 2% of the highest earners are really hurting right now! ::)
I think if democrats could start supporting their local businesses more and not viewing profits as a dirty word the businesses may start to stick around and put more Americans to work.
I do see your point Anne, but lets move onto the gay issue. Do you think there is any validity in the comment that Gays are costing the taxpayers more money than heterosexuals?
...
It seems to me that gay people have less children, and therefore claim less deductions on their taxes, they also use the public school system less than heterosexuals. How do you think they cost us money?
-
Business Experts Have Explained That Barbara Boxer’s and the Democrat Party’s Job-Killing Policies Are To Blame For Jobs Leaving America:
Job-Killing Policies, Including Higher Corporate Tax Rates And More Regulation, Are To Blame For Companies Outsourcing Labor To Other Countries.
The list of companies who have given up on the United States as a viable place to successfully run their business’ both small, medium and large is mind numbing.
Additional reasons U.S. companies outsource is that our own government pursues policies that drive investment and job creation offshore: excessive taxes, needless regulations, lengthy permit processes, a decreasing supply of U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees, and a general governmental misunderstanding of how to support private-sector jobs.
Neither Obama or his current administration have a clue on how to create jobs in the private sector and equally important driving them out of the country.
Link (http://http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-santa-ana/jobs-are-shipped-overseas-are-democrat-tax-policies-and-over-regulation)
...
You can give birth at home in your bathtub instead of going to a hospital, it is much cheaper, but is it wiser? For that matter, is it morally acceptable to profit from the lack of human rights in less developed nations? Many companies have moved to China because the common people there are basically slaves who work for pennies an hour and have no rights. We have taxes and regulation and permit procedures for a reason. Maybe there would be more U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees if the government had the money to provide grants for them to people who otherwise could not afford college. But of course the government does not have money to do much of anything because the super rich corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES.
I agree, we need to figure out incentives to keep companies in the United States and create jobs, spend money on education etc.
...
-
It seems to me that gay people have less children, and therefore claim less deductions on their taxes, they also use the public school system less than heterosexuals. How do you think they cost us money?
Less deductions for kids thats a good point. They probably are a larger burden on our health care system then Heterosexuals. My guess would be that they would be more educated on average and therefore contribute more to taxes. But this is just a guess on my part from the gay people I have as acquaintances.
...
-
The Democrats are particularly hypocritical when it comes to this. they almost uniformly promote policies that raise the cost of labor in the US - higher taxes, onerous regulations, card check, and the like. Yet they seem to be flummoxed by the fact that jobs are then being outsourced. Since they can't seem to recognize their fault in it, they blame Republicans - without proof.
:rofl: :rofl:
Projection if I ever saw it.
Yes, forget about the eight years Bush II was in office. Forget about what he did with a SURPLUS that we had. Forget about the ridiculous wars he got us into (which, incidentally, the GOP wasn't concerned AT ALL about the national debt then). Forget about the ruins that he left for other people to clean up. And while we're at it....Damn Obama to hell for not fixing it all RIGHT NOW!
Although I am pissed that, yet again, the Dems & Obama have NO BALLS! They should have stood up to this tax bullshit and forced the GOP to either filibuster it or go back to their bankers, oops - I mean backers and explain to the top 2% that they're gonna have to suck it up a little longer. I'm sure that 2% of the highest earners are really hurting right now! ::)
I think if democrats could start supporting their local businesses more and not viewing profits as a dirty word the businesses may start to stick around and put more Americans to work.
Funny but it's only Republicans that I've heard say that Dems feel that way. I've not heard a single Dem state that. Ever. Profits are great, but when the top 2% of the nation holds the vast majority of the wealth, things are a tad bit out of balance. When Republicans stop seeing anything of a social nature as OMG-GAY AGENDA/SOSHULIZM/WELFARE STATE, we might get somewhere too.
I do see your point Anne, but lets move onto the gay issue. Do you think there is any validity in the comment that Gays are costing the taxpayers more money than heterosexuals?
No.
-
It seems to me that gay people have less children, and therefore claim less deductions on their taxes, they also use the public school system less than heterosexuals. How do you think they cost us money?
Less deductions for kids thats a good point. They probably are a larger burden on our health care system then Heterosexuals. My guess would be that they would be more educated on average and therefore contribute more to taxes. But this is just a guess on my part from the gay people I have as acquaintances.
How do you figure that?
-
It seems to me that gay people have less children, and therefore claim less deductions on their taxes, they also use the public school system less than heterosexuals. How do you think they cost us money?
Less deductions for kids thats a good point. They probably are a larger burden on our health care system then Heterosexuals. My guess would be that they would be more educated on average and therefore contribute more to taxes. But this is just a guess on my part from the gay people I have as acquaintances.
How do you figure that?
Some of my thoughts:
Although homophobia has dropped off over the years and continues to do so this puts much more stress on homosexuals particularly when they are young. They lack support systems and support from family members are targets of violence and feelings of not fitting in. They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts. This may manifest itself into a higher rate of depression. All of these would lead to a higher use of the health care system.
...
-
It seems to me that gay people have less children, and therefore claim less deductions on their taxes, they also use the public school system less than heterosexuals. How do you think they cost us money?
Less deductions for kids thats a good point. They probably are a larger burden on our health care system then Heterosexuals. My guess would be that they would be more educated on average and therefore contribute more to taxes. But this is just a guess on my part from the gay people I have as acquaintances.
How do you figure that?
Some of my thoughts:
Although homophobia has dropped off over the years and continues to do so this puts much more stress on homosexuals particularly when they are young. They lack support systems and support from family members are targets of violence and feelings of not fitting in.
That's the bullies costing us more, not the gays. You're blaming the victim.
They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts. This may manifest itself into a higher rate of depression. All of these would lead to a higher use of the health care system.
Citation please.
-
Some of my thoughts:
Although homophobia has dropped off over the years and continues to do so this puts much more stress on homosexuals particularly when they are young. They lack support systems and support from family members are targets of violence and feelings of not fitting in.
That's the bullies costing us more, not the gays. You're blaming the victim.
I am not blaming anyone Anne. We could argue that it is the families fault for not supporting them, the bullies fault for bullying them, societies fault for not doing a better job educating the bullies. The Republicans fault for not supplying the funding for education to educate the bullies etc.
...
-
They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts. This may manifest itself into a higher rate of depression. All of these would lead to a higher use of the health care system.
Citation please.
I dont have a specific link to provide. These are thoughts I have from various reading on the subject.
...
-
This is totally ridiculous. I work with straight right wing nuts and believe me, they can start their own pharmacy with their various neuroses. I got gay friends who developed such strength of character through the outing process, they have more sanity than any of us.
-
They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts. This may manifest itself into a higher rate of depression. All of these would lead to a higher use of the health care system.
Citation please.
I dont have a specific link to provide. These are thoughts I have from various reading on the subject.
Then state it as your opinion instead of stating it as fact. "They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts." requires a citation to support the claim if you're gonna state it like that.
-
This is totally ridiculous. I work with straight right wing nuts and believe me, they can start their own pharmacy with their various neuroses. I got gay friends who developed such strength of character through the outing process, they have more sanity than any of us.
I would have to agree with you there, Samara. All my acquaintances who are gay seem to have their shit together much more than my straight friends.
...
-
Some of my thoughts:
Although homophobia has dropped off over the years and continues to do so this puts much more stress on homosexuals particularly when they are young. They lack support systems and support from family members are targets of violence and feelings of not fitting in.
That's the bullies costing us more, not the gays. You're blaming the victim.
I am not blaming anyone Anne.
Yes you are. You're saying that because they are "targets of violence" is one of the "reasons" they cost us more ::) Ridiculous on it's face, but also blaming the victim.
We could argue that it is the families fault for not supporting them, the bullies fault for bullying them, societies fault for not doing a better job educating the bullies. The Republicans fault for not supplying the funding for education to educate the bullies etc.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
-
This is totally ridiculous. I work with straight right wing nuts and believe me, they can start their own pharmacy with their various neuroses. I got gay friends who developed such strength of character through the outing process, they have more sanity than any of us.
:notworthy: :cheers:
-
Then state it as your opinion instead of stating it as fact. "They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts." requires a citation to support the claim if you're gonna state it like that.
Well, it isnt really my opinion. Its based on reading I have done on the subject.
...
-
Then state it as your opinion instead of stating it as fact. "They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts." requires a citation to support the claim if you're gonna state it like that.
Well, it isnt really my opinion. Its based on reading I have done on the subject.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
You can't be a real person. I mean, no one is this obtuse. You've got to be some kind of super spambot.
-
Then state it as your opinion instead of stating it as fact. "They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts." requires a citation to support the claim if you're gonna state it like that.
Well, it isnt really my opinion. Its based on reading I have done on the subject.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
You can't be a real person. I mean, no one is this obtuse. You've got to be some kind of super spambot.
I am sorry the conversation escapes you Anne. But I am happy that you can find some humor in the subject.
...
-
They (gays) started having sex with each other in San Fransisco which caused the Aids Virus which proved that homosexuality was unnatural and needed to be treated like a disease.
Maybe the GOP got their education about gays from Whooter? I'd be scared too if his ideas were pushed on me. Ignorant wretch that he is.
-
Then state it as your opinion instead of stating it as fact. "They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts." requires a citation to support the claim if you're gonna state it like that.
Well, it isnt really my opinion. Its based on reading I have done on the subject.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
You can't be a real person. I mean, no one is this obtuse. You've got to be some kind of super spambot.
:tup: :tup:
Whootbot!
-
Then state it as your opinion instead of stating it as fact. "They tend to use drugs and alcohol more often to cope and have higher incidences of suicide and suicide attempts." requires a citation to support the claim if you're gonna state it like that.
Well, it isnt really my opinion. Its based on reading I have done on the subject.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
You can't be a real person. I mean, no one is this obtuse. You've got to be some kind of super spambot.
I am sorry the conversation escapes you Anne. But I am happy that you can find some humor in the subject.
The conversation doesn't escape me. Neither do your attempts to present your opinions as fact. Cite your sources dude! Man up! What is this "reading" that has led you to these conclusions you state above?
-
The conversation doesn't escape me. Neither do your attempts to present your opinions as fact. Cite your sources dude! Man up! What is this "reading" that has led you to these conclusions you state above?
I will see if I can find the source of my readings on the subject. I think another point is that homosexuals are under a lot more stress because of societal pressures and stress typically can lead to a greater risk of health problems.
...
-
The conversation doesn't escape me. Neither do your attempts to present your opinions as fact. Cite your sources dude! Man up! What is this "reading" that has led you to these conclusions you state above?
I will see if I can find the source of my readings on the subject. I think another point is that homosexuals are under a lot more stress because of societal pressures and stress typically can lead to a greater risk of health problems.
:rofl:
Damn, you're really reaching now.
I think I made the right call about you. You just like to take the contrary position, period.
-
I think I made the right call about you. You just like to take the contrary position, period.
Well, maybe I do play devils advocate if there is no one to step in. but the subject is Gays and why the GOP is afraid of them. Then we got onto healthcare costs which could be a factor.
...
-
In response to Shady Acres.... Because big Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES.... welll, ahem... No CORPORATION, big or small, has ever , or ever will, pay taxes. They simply collect them and forward them to the Government. This is reflected as as a cost of doing business, and included in the price of doing business. Think 'cost-of sale'...Or gov't mandated markup.
We are unable to make accurate political decisions because we lack an accurate economic model. Hard to make good decisions based on bad or no information. Sorry, but that's what ya got!
J.O.M. ::unhappy::
-
in 200 years there will be a new name for timothy mcVeigh,patriot. same as leonard peltier.......fuckin government is too big for its fucking britches. In his day ,Christ himself was a CRIMINAL. as were our founding fathers (smugglers, tax cheats) What is called criminal today is legal tommorrow.200 years ago slavery was common practice ,try owning a person today. twenty years ago you could smoke damn near anywhere,now if you light up people look at you like you just strangled and ate a baby. Read the unibombers manifesto...seriously....its fairly truthfull and acurate about a world gone mad after the industrial revolution. The passion of christ when read thru less faithfull eyes is a story of a fucking lynching.Crime is at the bottom of many,many things.But then again criminality is based on social norms which are constantly in flux. The biggest downsizing needs to take place in D.C. Would I eliminate government entirely? of course not, but the government needs to learn its place. This is a democacy,my government is SUPPOSED to be me,or at very least representitve of me ,and its not.I ask myself if I would be better off with less or more government.not a hard answer.
-
This has been a most amusing thread to read, as I avoid watching Glee.
-
in 200 years there will be a new name for timothy mcVeigh,patriot. same as leonard peltier.......fuckin government is too big for its fucking britches. In his day ,Christ himself was a CRIMINAL. as were our founding fathers (smugglers, tax cheats) What is called criminal today is legal tommorrow.200 years ago slavery was common practice ,try owning a person today. twenty years ago you could smoke damn near anywhere,now if you light up people look at you like you just strangled and ate a baby. Read the unibombers manifesto...seriously....its fairly truthfull and acurate about a world gone mad after the industrial revolution. The passion of christ when read thru less faithfull eyes is a story of a fucking lynching.Crime is at the bottom of many,many things.But then again criminality is based on social norms which are constantly in flux. The biggest downsizing needs to take place in D.C. Would I eliminate government entirely? of course not, but the government needs to learn its place. This is a democacy,my government is SUPPOSED to be me,or at very least representitve of me ,and its not.I ask myself if I would be better off with less or more government.not a hard answer.
:notworthy: :rocker: :tup: