BethFromVA

Apparently only for some on the left. If those things were listed about anybody on the right, you know dang well she would be all up in arms -- and THEN the printed word would be a viable source of information!

You mean I made ya do it? :thumbup: So what is it, I have that much power or you have that little self control? :thumbup:

How well we know, BJean. We've been saying it about your kind for some time now. :frown:

LOL, nice to see your sense of humor. :thumbup: But still, is marriage even a civil right? And I know tons of people who are NOT religious who don't want to see marriage changed. As a society, the PEOPLE have a right to vote on what is acceptable and what is not. You keep saying it is the government that is in the business of denying people these so-called rights, but it is society as a whole who either has or is in the process of specifically defining what they accept as marriage. If the PEOPLE don't want it (and I am all for a state-by-state vote), then I am for the PEOPLE deciding and the government (via the judicial branch) keeping out of it and letting the PEOPLE speak.

But to continually harp on marriage as a "right" is, well, WRONG (no pun intended). However, if you can prove otherwise, I'd LOVE to see it. And for what it's worth, on tax day, the married people are more discriminated against than those who are not. :frown:

I guess it was a slow news week. Yes, Obama did come out afterward to say it wasn't as bad as once thought, but I was very broad when I said "government" said we should never waste a good crisis. In actuality it was Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. However, I do see that government hypes things up like Henny Penny screaming, "The sky is falling!"

I agree, Wasa. Let's not also forget how our government recently admitted that they should never waste a good crisis. Nowadays I believe they try to create crises through fear mongering in order to control people even more.

BJean, for the umpteenth time, marriage is not a right. If you can prove otherwise, I'd love to see it.

It's been so obvious from the beginning that these "bailouts" were nothing but rewards for democratic cronies. And the left bitches and moans about what they thought Bush was doing! This takes it up a notch. Where Bush allegedly gave contracts for the war to his big business buddies, THIS loser is outright stealing our hard-earned money and financially rewarding unions who voted for him. This guy makes organized crime bosses look like child's play.

ALL of these bailouts are illegal! Since when is it deemed legal to steal from Peter to pay Paul? I already knew these people were a bunch of scheisters and crooks, but now they're blatantly doing it!

What that tells me, Jack, is what I've been saying all along -- and this list proves -- is that this dolt isn't qualified to run a group of Boy Scout much less the United States. The guy is a bigger idiot than Bush was.

Actually she'd have to get the rest from DH cuz I don't smoke. I think I heard him on the phone earlier, come to think of it... and I saw him walk outside with a crowbar and plumbing snake.

Today's R party is the D party of 20 years ago.

Happy Mother's Day to all our moms! I've been spending the last two days attempting to organize nearly four years' worth of filing (crap was just stuffed in boxes, ugh), and DH is outside trying to "cultivate" some wild blackberries so that he can have him a stash. Kiddo couldn't understand why dad wasn't taking me out for Mother's Day, and I asked her WHEN in her entire existence has he EVER done anything for me for Mother's Day? After all, "I'm not his mother" (thank GOD). Speaking of which, I think Slim's MIL just called me and asked if I had any extra toothpaste, caulk, and pink glitter. I have no idea what that's all about...!

I learned some time ago that she is not.

Do you? What is it about you that, when faced with facts or, worse yet, an opinion that differs from yours, you resort to such infantile tactics? Maybe you should stay off debate-style threads because you most certainly can't keep up.

I bought Lavin's book but haven't started it yet. I look forward to doing so.

What BJean seems to lack understanding about is that corporations don't really "pay" taxes. They incorporate those taxes into the costs of doing business. The TAXPAYING PEOPLE pay those taxes -- on top of the enormous taxes many already pay (and many others pay none of). :tt2:

You're right, it IS amazing. It is amazing that you don't see that STRONG CORPORATIONS HIRE AMERICAN WORKERS -- or should. If they were given incentives to hire Americans over outsourcing these jobs, even better. Stupid people who take on more than they KNOW they can afford are thieves, pure and simple. If I was offered a hot item that is likely stolen because it's just too good to be true, am I simply some poor soul with NO responsibility in the matter, or am I culpable as well? I say I am culpable. If the numbers don't add up (i.e. I make $30,000 a year and am being "offered" a $500,000 house), then yes, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING MYSELF THERE and then having to declare bankruptcy. If people are so effin' stupid that they can't see the logistics in this, then they have NO BUSINESS buying homes at all. They are just as guilty as the lenders who offer up some bullshit loan that 1) the people can't understand or 2) they can understand but will worry about later when the terms change. You keep talking only about corporate greed, but HUMAN greed in the form of buyers has also caused this collapse. The lenders were told they MUST make loans available to people who had horrible credit ratings and were high risk. High risk people are not entitled to the low-risk interest rates that I, who has been careful with her credit and worked hard to pay her bills, is entitled to. These people didn't deserve to buy houses if they had already proven they couldn't pay off their big-screen television sets. WHO don't I fault?? I have constantly and consistently say I blame ALL involved here: Government first for making it a requirement that the industry come up with some scheme to get these people into houses; the PEOPLE who took advantage of this situation and bought things they knew they couldn't afford; and the lenders for creating such insane schemes to get them approved. Who did I miss?? Sleeze tactics are not acceptable, but simply making profits is not inherently evil either -- so long as you have done so legitimately. Holding Congress up to any level where anybody must answer to them is laughable, especially since the lot of them are crooks, thieves, and liars themselves. They are NOT honorable men and women, and that very Congress that you believe must be answered to is the same Congress that helped make all of this come about. Depends on what you feel is a "fair share," now, doesn't it? However, I AM all for giving them breaks for hiring Americans and keeping the jobs IN America and hitting them where it hurts if they choose not to do so. If a company who keeps jobs on American soil and hires ONLY Americans is able to do so unfettered and not taxed to death, well then that frees up more money to hire employees. It happened in recent history under Reagan, and businesses thrived, as did the economy. Libs seem to feel the only way to keep things going is to tax people to death. The problem with that is the money eventually dries up, and as usual, our idiotic government has essentially killed the Golden Goose. Liberalism does NOT work. It's been proven time and again, and not just in our civilization. Liberalism gone unchecked and unhindered smothers the very economy it claims to try to enhance.

What does one have to do with the other?? That sentence makes about as much sense as saying, "If you don't like eating brussels sprouts, then get a Chevy."

Government is the ONE entity that consumes the most amount of money while showing the least amount of viable, usable, worthwhile output.

You're right, it IS amazing.

The sad thing is that anybody feels the states need to reclaim that which was always theirs since the founding fathers made it so. It was never intended that the federal government would dictate what different states would do.

You've got it only partially right. The government, including the congress, didn't just "encourage" banks to make more loans, they demanded it. It was considered a "fairness in lending" crap sandwich that wasn required by the government, abused by the lenders AND the borrowers, and now the government goes, "Wow, you banks were all greedy." There is enough blame to go around. The government certainly played ITS part as did the borrower who KNEW they were getting way in over their heads. To constantly harp on the lenders as the only reason this all went to hell in a handbasket is inherently dishonest.

You know, I was so ticked about my ex not having anything to do with my DD that I never really took into account that my ex's family NEVER saw her after we split. She had a grandmother and aunts and uncles, and they never ever once saw her or, as far as I know, even inquired about her. The grandmother thing for me is almost worse than her own father not seeing her.