I hope Sara Evans reconsiders

[Scott J]

Really? I'd love to see documentation cause I keep hearing folks say this but I haven't seen any proof.

If you haven't been paying attention any better than that then I'm not going to take the responsibility to educate you. Liberal Dems have been pretty frank about opposing numerous Bush nominees because they believed in unborn rights... they have made it an absolute litmus test for the Supreme Court and have to basically be run over to get a pro-life justice seated.

Lower taxes? Can't tell it by my paycheck!(city, state, federal income taxes and SS) Can't tell it by my property taxes. Can't tell it by the sales and gas taxes.

That's funny because I sure can. I have three kids and the child credit has been great.

When did SS witholding go up? I missed it. BTW, another thing the Dems demagogued off the agenda- privatization of part of SS. Had they not stood in the way, by now you would have had an effective SS tax cut.

I can't account for any of your local or state taxes. You'll have to deal with that through those officials.

As far as I know, federal gas taxes are a flat amount per gallon and haven't risen under the GOP.

Liberals did this, how?

Yes. Liberals are totally responsible for the centralization of gov't that began with Lincoln but accelerated to become the bureaucratic monster we now see under FDR. Especially during the 60's, the idea that gov't should "do good" became the left's number one rule. It is their defining characteristic... it is just that they have a secular and perverse sense of "good" quite often. Their "good" is often accomplished at the expense of some other party's freedom or rights.

Are conservatives not also guilty of this by calling for laws against abortion and homosexuality(btw, sodomy laws have been on the books for centuries, how is it that those laws didn't amount to shifting social mores from the public to the government?)

The history of homosexuality is diverse. Yes there have been laws on the books in many states for years. Seldom have they been heavily enforced. Frankly, I don't know how you can justify them.

Abortion is it concerns gov't is not a moral issue. It is a human rights issue. Granted all human rights have a basis in morality but prohibition of abortion is no more an intrusion on the rights of the perpetrator than prohibition of murder, kidnapping, rape, extortion, assault, or any other crime where a victims legitimate rights are violated by the direct action of another person.

I am "pro-choice". People have the right to make moral choices for themselves so long as those choices do not harm another person. You can't harm someone much more than denying them life. Again, the woman has made her choice. Without responsibility, there is no freedom.

When you make a free choice you assume responsibility for the outcome. It has to be that way. A free choice does not yield an additional right to violate someone else's rights (in particular to kill them) just because you don't like the consequences.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You want a government that doesn't meddle in personal freedoms, but you just told this couple that Christians wouldn't help them (and by extension that God didn't love them) until they straightened up their act. Can you not see the contradiction in your own actions.

NO! There is absolutely no contradiction. It is immoral whether done by me or gov't to facilitate someone's continuation in self-destructive, immoral behavior.

The actual contradiction is in your extraordinarily convoluted interpretation. Yes. I told them that they had a responsibility not to continue to destroy themselves and behave ungodly if they wanted us to continue to support them. I didn't say they had to do it first. Just that they had to commit.

Jesus didn't save the woman from stoning then tell her to keep doing what she was doing... he told her to sin no more. We as Christians have a responsibility to help people... but not to save them from the consequences of their own sinful choices that they are unwilling to change.

Really, but yet you want laws to keep women from having abortions?

An abortion violates the right of another human being to live. If it didn't violate another person's rights then I would oppose laws against it.

I don't think there should be laws against fornication for instance. It is immoral but it is also a decision rightly left to the individuals so long as they assent to the incumbent responsibilities of their choices.

I have to pick on one more thing:

Even in this day of rampant illegal immigration I am hugely opposed to having to suppy an ID in order to vote. This is not communist Russia where everyone must have "papers" in order to subsist.

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever seen... and quite hypocritical too since you'd apparently be satisfied for state control of most business, education, and even religious expressions.

For the same reason I am againt a National ID to replace my drivers liscense. How free can a person be if they must have a card (think number or mark) in order to go about their daily business? (okay, end paranoid mini-rant)

Requiring them to have ID to prove who they are isn't even close to requiring them to have a National ID much less a "card (think number or mark) in order to go about their daily business".

All it does is ensure that the rights of honest people to vote and have their will accurately reflected at the polls is not violated by a wholesale corruption of the system by fraudalent votes.

Do you have a driver's license? That is a far more intrusive action by gov't than requiring a voter to have a gov't ID... and you might or more likely might not violate someone else's rights by driving without a license. OTOH, if you vote twice, you will have violated my rights.

Funny that only the Dems oppose measures to ensure that our polls are honest and that one-party dominated areas can't stuff ballot boxes, huh?

 

[menageriekeeper]

I'm way too tired and have too many thing to do to answer everything, BUT.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by menageriekeeper
Really? I'd love to see documentation cause I keep hearing folks say this but I haven't seen any proof.

If you haven't been paying attention any better than that then I'm not going to take the responsibility to educate you. Liberal Dems have been pretty frank about opposing numerous Bush nominees because they believed in unborn rights... they have made it an absolute litmus test for the Supreme Court and have to basically be run over to get a pro-life justice seated.

Actually, what I wanted to see documented was that Republicans lowered my taxes and that actual cuts were made in the public funding for abortion (and not just that said funding was provided under a different name, like "women health"). Now this child tax credit was nice, but overall it did not consititute a lower tax bill. Guess what, I pay state taxes on what the feds give me back! I'll bet you do too.

Now, Alabama already has the lowest taxes of any state in the nation, cause us folks down here tend not re-elect folks that raise taxes (at least not immediately). Ya have to sneak the taxes through as our Republican led state government is trying to do with a state wide referendum on "school funding inequitities". Which is a fancy way of saying that not all school districts recieve bring in the same amount of money from property taxes. The ammendment to "fix" things sounds pretty good on the surface. The state funds 90% of education with the counties kicking in the other 10. They HAVE TO kick in the other 10 % or they don't get the state funding.

Now, somewhere along the line about 10 years ago, it was decided but not made mandatory that the county money come from property taxes. Some of the counties (including mine) decided instead to use sales taxes to come up with a portion of their 10%.

Back to the ammendment to "fix funding inequities": This ammendment would force counties to collect the entire amount from property taxes. Why would there be a purpose in this and who would even care where the money came from so long as the counties paid their share? Let me tell you, it another way to sneak a tax increase over on the people of Alabama without them even realizing what is happening.

You think my sales taxes will go down if my property taxes go up? If you do I have some swamp land in Florida for sale.

And you think Republicans are inherently honest?

Now, lets talk about Social Security. It is true that witholding rates haven't gone up lately, but you know what has? The cap on the amount of your income they can withold from. It is a little known fact that SS witholding stops when you reach a certain income level. This year the cap is at $92,400. Ten years ago the cap was $62,700. Still want to tell me SS taxes haven't gone up? Not only that, but this way the folks who could use the break, aren't ever going to get it.

Of course this is all the fault of the liberal democrats who thought up SS at the start with.

Speaking of:

Yes. Liberals are totally responsible for the centralization of gov't that began with Lincoln but accelerated to become the bureaucratic monster we now see under FDR.

Lincoln was a liberal? That's a new thought. Hmmm, let me be like Lincoln then!

Jesus didn't save the woman from stoning then tell her to keep doing what she was doing... he told her to sin no more. We as Christians have a responsibility to help people... but not to save them from the consequences of their own sinful choices that they are unwilling to change.

Yeah...and you know this woman actually went off and didn't sin again, how? Christ saved the woman from stoning because He loved her, and hated the hypocrisy of those who brought her (and only her, btw, and not her lover). He did not save her because of her future sinlessness (which would have been an impossible task anyhow, we are none sinless!).

I told them that they had a responsibility not to continue to destroy themselves and behave ungodly if they wanted us to continue to support them. I didn't say they had to do it first. Just that they had to commit.

This sounds much more compassionate than your earlier comment, but, which of us has ever been able to lift ourselves out of our sin by simply committing not to repeat our mistakes? It takes a Savior to accomplish that feat. Simply telling them to commit does nothing. You are setting them up for failure! Will you then go off and say "well we tried our best, but some folks you just can't help"?

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever seen... and quite hypocritical too since you'd apparently be satisfied for state control of most business, education, and even religious expressions.

Now where have I ever said or implied any such thing? While I believe there are certain aspects of each that I believe should be controlled by law, the word most is a gross exaggeration. I believe public education should be available, but not necessarily required. I believe religious expressions of any kind should not be forced on any person by public officials and this includes a Christian teacher forcing prayers on her students as well as the wiccan teacher forcing "nature" chants on his students.

And I certainly believe that there should be laws seeing to it that big business is not taking unfair advantage over it's workers, including laws on worker safety, child labor and minimum wage.

None of this however constitutes "state control" over business, education or religious expression.

Huh, I've gone this far, I might as well finish:

How does one "stuff" a ballot box? Either you are registared to vote and your name is on the list or you are not. The lists are at the polling places with each name recieving one ballot. If one name ends up with two people claiming that ballot there are procedures in place to handle the occurance AND a proper place to report voting irregularities. Stuffing a ballot box does not happen when there are honest people running the poling place. If the procedures for such aren't in place, then you have a local problem that needs to be dealt with locally. But if the people are apathetic and don't care, then don't expect me to care that your locality can't run a fair election.