Birthers ..... it's over.

[nikki2200 4]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html

 

except for the fact her example highlighted the truth, and yours was just another liberal smokescreen,.

 

Bill Gates.

[Frank M 181]

http://taxprof.typep...osity_inde.html

 

except for the fact her example highlighted the truth, and yours was just another liberal smokescreen,.

 

No, it's an example of what happens in your immediate circle has very little relevance to the big picture and only illustrates that you tend to associate with people of your type and stereotype everyone else. Her example has as much validity as it would if someone came on here and said "Black people are all criminals" and then TNG came on here and said "This is my experience, too. All the black people I know are criminals and all the white people are law abiding citizens."

 

Which is to say none.

[parrot 789]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html

 

except for the fact her example highlighted the truth, and yours was just another liberal smokescreen,.

 

"comparing each state's average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income"

 

That's all you need to know about that statistic right there. Those states with this high ratio are also way down the average income list and will have more taxpayers taking the standard deduction. So you're taking as a numerator charitable donations from your higher income taxpayer - i.e. those who itemize - and putting it over a low average income number. Now it may be that those states do have a higher average of charitable contribution (which as already mentioned doesn't mean a whole lot in regards to "helping the needy"), but this is one bullsh!t statistic.

[congressmanreality 1]

The liberals I know are all booger-eating morons. The conservatives I know are all elite commandos in Delta Force with Ph.D.s in nuclear physics.

[DankNuggs 305]

That's all you need to know about that statistic right there. Those states with this high ratio are also way down the average income list and will have more taxpayers taking the standard deduction. So you're taking as a numerator charitable donations from your higher income taxpayer - i.e. those who itemize - and putting it over a low average income number. Now it may be that those states do have a higher average of charitable contribution (which as already mentioned doesn't mean a whole lot in regards to "helping the needy"), but this is one bullsh!t statistic.

So its

 

Avg what they give/Avg what they make

 

I don't understand the problem... Seems to show the liberal elite don't give as much to me...

[penultimatestraw 473]

I would have to disagree with you on that one. No religious affiliation here. At all.

Of course this is not a universal truth, but would you argue that church/religion does not promote charity? What political ideology stereotypically is more religious? What about the religious leanings of the most generous states in Danknugg's link? An association doesn't prove causality, of course, but neither do personal anecdotes.

 

FYI I am a relatively liberal, godless individual and give $ and time through my job and outside of work as well. Are liberal atheists now generous?

[penultimatestraw 473]

The liberals I know are all booger-eating morons. The conservatives I know are all elite commandos in Delta Force with Ph.D.s in nuclear physics.

Hard to argue with this, as well as the erudite uber-conservatives on this board.

[DankNuggs 305]

Of course this is not a universal truth, but would you argue that church/religion does not promote charity? What political ideology stereotypically is more religious? What about the religious leanings of the most generous states in Danknugg's link? An association doesn't prove causality, of course, but neither do personal anecdotes.

 

FYI I am a relatively liberal, godless individual and give $ and time through my job and outside of work as well. Are liberal atheists now generous?

So you are blaming religion? You people are NUTS...

 

Not a hard argument that religious people are more charitably-focused ....religion provides a base of morality for people and helping the needy is part of that... And you know what...Good for them.

 

Says alot when the poorest people voluntarily give the most.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So you are blaming religion? You people are NUTS…

No - see post 228. Now, are you sitting down?

 

I can find redeeming qualities in those with different ideologies

[DankNuggs 305]

No - see post 228. Now, are you sitting down?

 

I can find redeeming qualities in those with different ideologies

I must have read your post wrong, I thought you were implying they were crazy religious nuts and their donations should be discounted...

[parrot 789]

So its

 

Avg what they give/Avg what they make

 

I don't understand the problem... Seems to show the liberal elite don't give as much to me...

 

It doesn't average what they give, it averages what they itemize. There's a difference there. Lower income states will have fewer people who itemize, thus they apparently aren't included in the averaging the rate of giving, but they apaprently are included in the AGI average.

 

 

Example;

 

Two states, each has five tax payers

 

Red State has one tax payer who makes $100k and itemizes a charitable gift of 10k, and four taxpayers who make $25k and do not itemize. Average itemized charitable donation is 10k and average income is $40k, so they would have a donation "generosity rate" of 25%.

 

Blue state has five tax payers who all make $100k and all have itemized charitable deductions of 10k, just like Red State guy. So their average itemized deduction is $10k as well, but their average income is $100k, giving them a "generosity rate" of 10%, even though they have given far more in total.

[Frank M 181]

No - see post 228. Now, are you sitting down?

 

I can find redeeming qualities in those with different ideologies

 

Nuggs finds it difficult to listen to anything other than the chanting "I hate liberals! Liberal suck! Liberals are the root of all evil!" voice inside his head.

 

Plus he's a little thick.

[parrot 789]

The church in which I'm a member has several mission trips at any given time. All my kids have participated in yearly mission trips since they were old enough to go. This is all done on a volunteer basis, with money donated by the church and expenses paid by the parents.

 

That's nice. I don't believe I ever said churches don't do any charitable work or give to the needy. What I said was that a lot of money that is given as a charitable donation is used to service churches' expenses.

[DankNuggs 305]

It doesn't average what they give, it averages what they itemize. There's a difference there. Lower income states will have fewer people who itemize, thus they apparently aren't included in the averaging the rate of giving, but they apaprently are included in the AGI average.

 

 

Example;

 

Two states, each has five tax payers

 

Red State has one tax payer who makes $100k and itemizes a charitable gift of 10k, and four taxpayers who make $25k and do not itemize. Average itemized charitable donation is 10k and average income is $40k, so they would have a donation "generosity rate" of 25%.

 

Blue state has five tax payers who all make $100k and all have itemized charitable deductions of 10k, just like Red State guy. So their average itemized deduction is $10k as well, but their average income is $100k, giving them a "generosity rate" of 10%, even though they have given far more in total.

nice point, be interesting to see what % of each state does itemized deductions...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's nice. I don't believe I ever said churches don't do any charitable work or give to the needy. What I said was that a lot of money that is given as a charitable donation is used to service churches' expenses.

 

Define "a lot".

 

How else would you have a church cover their expenses?

[DankNuggs 305]

Nuggs finds it difficult to listen to anything other than the chanting "I hate liberals! Liberal suck! Liberals are the root of all evil!" voice inside his head.

 

Plus he's a little thick.

On a very base level liberalism is oxymoronic as a political philosophy. It is basically a poison pill...

 

All Frank M does is hurt personal insults cause he's dumb, but apparently not poor.

[Frank M 181]

On a very base level liberalism is oxymoronic as a political philosophy. It is basically a poison pill...

 

All Frank M does is hurt personal insults cause he's dumb, but apparently not poor.

 

What is it with you right wingers? You guys can dish it out but you surely can't take it.

 

How do you go through life with sand in your vagina constantly?

 

"All Frank M does is hurt personal insults"

 

 

Focking give me something other than dumb bullshiot and I'll have a reason not to insult your dumb ass.

[DankNuggs 305]

What is it with you right wingers? You guys can dish it out but you surely can't take it.

 

How do you go through life with sand in your vagina constantly?

 

"All Frank M does is hurt personal insults"

 

 

Focking give me something other than dumb bullshiot and I'll have a reason not to insult your dumb ass.

Liberalism is like tying an anchor to the back of the car, tossing it out as its moving, then arguing that by doing so the car will speed up.

[Frank M 181]

Liberalism is like tying an anchor to the back of the car, tossing it out as its moving, then arguing that by doing so the car will speed up.

 

Try again.

 

Hey, maybe you and Mensa can start a support group called "Survivors of Liberal Insults". You guys can meet in adjacent bathroom stalls and tap your toes underneath to indicate your willingness to allow another right winger to cry on your shoulder.

 

While boning you up the poop chute, of course.

 

 

 

[parrot 789]

Define "a lot".

 

How else would you have a church cover their expenses?

 

I can't define it, but I know it's true. Father b!tches about the heating bill for our church all winter long.

 

I'm fine with churches covering their expenses that way. I also think people should recognize that that's what a decent portion of "charitable giving" goes towards.

[MDC 7,428]

I'm not sure what you want me to do, reconstruct the 7890177342301 individual events which led us here? All I can say is that his background led people to have questions, as they did with McCain, which they would not have with Powell or Jackson, as they did not with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan...

 

There were questions about McCain's birthplace / qualifications for being president? I don't think that was an issue at all. And I think you know the fact that Obama has a funny name and he's black is the big reason this non-issue has stuck around for three years.

 

You are making no sense. You say that wasn't his strategy, then explain how it is his strategy.

 

Scroll back - you said that Obama's "strategy" was as I described or something of the like, but I didn't describe a strategy. I don't think he had any plan at all for dealing with the birthers, and only released the long form because this issue gained some traction when Trump started talking about it.

 

And I think it was a major miscalculation, because the birthers can't be satisfied and they'll move on to some other crackpot conspiracy theory.

[DankNuggs 305]

Try again.

 

Hey, maybe you and Mensa can start a support group called "Survivors of Liberal Insults". You guys can meet in adjacent bathroom stalls and tap your toes underneath to indicate your willingness to allow another right winger to cry on your shoulder.

 

While boning you up the poop chute, of course.

Clearly you are a big supporter of the washington 'widestance' in the bathroom stall.

[DankNuggs 305]

There were questions about McCain's birthplace / qualifications for being president? I don't think that was an issue at all. And I think you know the fact that Obama has a funny name and he's black is the big reason this non-issue has stuck around for three years.

 

 

 

Scroll back - you said that Obama's "strategy" was as I described or something of the like, but I didn't describe a strategy. I don't think he had any plan at all for dealing with the birthers, and only released the long form because this issue gained some traction when Trump started talking about it.

 

And I think it was a major miscalculation, because the birthers can't be satisfied and they'll move on to some other crackpot conspiracy theory.

First, the house had to pass a resolution to make him 'natural born', google it... secondly, everything that comes out of a WH administration has been choreographed, to deny that is just fundamentally naive...

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Define "a lot".

 

How else would you have a church cover their expenses?

 

But let's look at those "expenses." For example, I went to visit my parents in their new house recently. Next door, in a 9,000+ square foot house, is the pastor of a large african american church. His house is a "parsonage" and was bought by the church for his use. It is, of course, tax free.

 

(My dad introduced me and said I was an attorney. He said "I better watch out then." I glanced at his house and said, "I dunno rev, looks like you are running a better game than I am.")

 

I would be willing to bet that that "parsonage" is funded through the charitable donations of a lot of poor people, based on that church. Probably a whole lot of little pieces of government checks in their too.

 

Religion is the biggest racket ever invented.

[Frank M 181]

Clearly you are a big supporter of the washington 'widestance' in the bathroom stall.

 

Just suggesting something that seems to be comfortable for Republicans, from what I hear.

[DankNuggs 305]

Just suggesting something that seems to be comfortable for Republicans, from what I hear.

That story was hilarious.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

First, the house had to pass a resolution to make him 'natural born', google it... secondly, everything that comes out of a WH administration has been choreographed, to deny that is just fundamentally naive...

 

It did not receive near the news coverage that Obama's birth is receiving. I do not remember this being an issue, and did not even know McCain was born in Panama until last week.

[DankNuggs 305]

It did not receive near the news coverage that Obama's birth is receiving. I do not remember this being an issue, and did not even know McCain was born in Panama until last week.

it should have been the beginning of a worthy debate on the issue... Why have the rule if everyone who falls outside can just have a resolution passed to sidestep the constitution?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

But let's look at those "expenses." For example, I went to visit my parents in their new house recently. Next door, in a 9,000+ square foot house, is the pastor of a large african american church. His house is a "parsonage" and was bought by the church for his use. It is, of course, tax free.

 

(My dad introduced me and said I was an attorney. He said "I better watch out then." I glanced at his house and said, "I dunno rev, looks like you are running a better game than I am.")

 

I would be willing to bet that that "parsonage" is funded through the charitable donations of a lot of poor people, based on that church. Probably a whole lot of little pieces of government checks in their too.

 

Religion is the biggest racket ever invented.

 

 

Key word in your little rant is "donations". If a member doesn't like how his donations are being spent he can stop giving. He is also free to leave that church.

[The Next Generation 10]

Religion is the biggest racket ever invented.

 

[BunnysBastatrds 2,442]

That's nice. I don't believe I ever said churches don't do any charitable work or give to the needy. What I said was that a lot of money that is given as a charitable donation is used to service churches' expenses.

 

 

After Katrina, thousands of church groups came from all over the country to volunteer their time and give whatever they could to help. Four days after Katrina, a woman in a van filled with supplies and her teenage boys pulled in front of my house as I was cleaning up some tree branches. They came from Arkansas and were representing their Baptist church. She asked if I needed any food, water, or baby supplies. I told her I had everything my family needed and thanked her for the offer. She asked me what area of town she should go to provide the most help. I told her where to go but that it was very dangerous and she should wait until the bad guys stopped shooting at the police and National Guard. She said her faith in God needed her to help the people and she would be ok. This scenario played out hundreds of times the first few months after the storm. Most of the people that I met from out of town were there from their church groups. They slept on matts in school gyms and ate canned food or MRE's. They were there to give and it was needed.

 

I met a handful of people during the same time that remind me of you. They were there to save the animals. They were there so save Fluffy and Spot. A woman driving a brand new Mercedes with New York license plates pulled up to me while I was working in what was a really bad part of town. She asked me if I had seen any cats or dogs. I told her i'd seen a ferret running down the street a block away and she drove off. What she was doing was very noble, but different. Each group had a mission and they were very different.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,442]

 

 

Take a good look at your goverment. It's not even close.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I work for a living, but I get where you're coming from.

 

Do you? We'll see...

 

You right wing conservative dooshbags get confused at that notion that someone can believe that hard work is the way to get ahead in life as well as believe that some who are less fortunate than themselves might benefit from a helping hand.

 

Nope. You don't know where I'm coming from. You left wing cackgobblers think that the only way to help the "less fortunate" is through guaranteed forced contributions from each of us through taxation. Oh wait: not each of us, exactly.

 

No: mostly those of us who somehow - through sheer luck of being fortunate (by working hard; not blowing off schoolwork; not engaging in harmful behaviours like abusive drug use or alcoholism; not knocking up a chick and derailing our lives; not living beyond our means and depending upon Government assistance the minute we lose a job; not spending every dime on fun sh!t instead of retirement accounts...

 

...those fortunate lucky souls who find themselves in their circumstance strictly because of chance. Chance.

 

Personal Responsibility had nothing to do with it. Yes. Definitely. We shouldn't have a cultural mindset of promoting personal responsibility...instead we should just understand...and open our wallets. Again. But not all of us: just the top half. And more as you get higher on that top half. Because you were lucky. You were more fortunate.

 

Ugh.

 

Where I'm coming from? Taxing us to death to help those "less fortunate" creates far too many of them. Taxing us to death not only creates more of a dependence class, but it creates an increasingly larger Government, which then is responsible for all the bad sh!t that you don't like either. Taxing us to death makes those in society in a position to most improve the fiscal and social situation in society less able to do so.

 

Less able to contribute to charity. Less able to build businesses with that money. Less helpful. Because those resources are wasted on a tumor of Government that does with it nearly exactly what all of us don't want it to do.

 

While you keep whining about stuff that Government is responsible for, and then actually saying that we need to tax MORE.

 

Ugh.

 

All because your ideology is that you won't donate to "the less fortunate" unless everyone does via taxes. All because you don't trust that people will take care of the truly needy privately (a problem that afflicts only liberals, as Conservatives are documented as being far more generous with charity regardless).

 

Now you know you were I'm coming from.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

After Katrina, thousands of church groups came from all over the country to volunteer their time and give whatever they could to help. Four days after Katrina, a woman in a van filled with supplies and her teenage boys pulled in front of my house as I was cleaning up some tree branches. They came from Arkansas and were representing their Baptist church. She asked if I needed any food, water, or baby supplies. I told her I had everything my family needed and thanked her for the offer. She asked me what area of town she should go to provide the most help. I told her where to go but that it was very dangerous and she should wait until the bad guys stopped shooting at the police and National Guard. She said her faith in God needed her to help the people and she would be ok. This scenario played out hundreds of times the first few months after the storm. Most of the people that I met from out of town were there from their church groups. They slept on matts in school gyms and ate canned food or MRE's. They were there to give and it was needed.

 

I met a handful of people during the same time that remind me of you. They were there to save the animals. They were there so save Fluffy and Spot. A woman driving a brand new Mercedes with New York license plates pulled up to me while I was working in what was a really bad part of town. She asked me if I had seen any cats or dogs. I told her i'd seen a ferret running down the street a block away and she drove off. What she was doing was very noble, but different. Each group had a mission and they were very different.

 

One of the mission trips my oldest daughter went on was to NO. They rebuilt the home of an elderly black lady. She was extremely grateful, and gracious, but I assure you my daughter and the others got far more out of the experience than she did

[The Next Generation 10]

Take a good look at your goverment. It's not even close.

 

My government, I thought it was OUR government.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd4ZbEATetg

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

I'm absolutely appalled that there's a faction who advocate limiting an American citizen's right to vote.

 

So life isn't perfect....and freedom can be messy. Deal with it. Don't take away people's rights. Pretty scary really.

 

Just as scary - creates the same sort of problems - when you also relieve people of their responsibilities. With rights, come responsibility.

 

Take voting, for instance. The responsibility with voting is to be fiscally responsible for the outcome. If you have voters who are not fiscally responsible, you have a very dangerous group of voters.

 

Dangerous to those who are responsible.

 

Would you agree?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Meh....so conservatives throw money at a problem to try and fix it.

 

Who donates more of their time in actually trying to help folks?

 

 

You made an assertion that Conservatives just throw money at a problem, and not time. Do you have any way to back that up? It would stand to reason that those two metrics are inseparable. Unless, that is, you have some reason to think that they are.

 

Do you?

[Mike Honcho 5,281]

First, the house had to pass a resolution to make him 'natural born', google it... secondly, everything that comes out of a WH administration has been choreographed, to deny that is just fundamentally naive...

 

 

The House & Senate passed a resolution recognizing he was "Natural Born", not making him natural born. It was a basic feel good, silly bill that was passed that carried absolutely no weight.

 

 

RESOLUTION Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that,to be eligible for the Office of the President, a personmust be a ''natural born Citizen'' of the United States; Whereas the term ''natural born Citizen'', as that term ap-pears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Con-stitution of the United States; Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framersor any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of chil-dren born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country'sPresident; Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the pur-pose and intent of the ''natural born Citizen'' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term ''nat- ural born Citizen''; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States ispreserved and enhanced by the men and women who areassigned to serve our country outside of our national bor-ders; Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outsideof the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to Americancitizens on an American military base in the PanamaCanal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ''natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Con-stitution of the United States.

 

 

John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station^{[36][48][49][50][51][52][53]} in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact-checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who wrote "a senior official of the McCain campaign showed me a copy of [McCain's] birth certificate issued by the 'family hospital' in the Coco Solo submarine base".^[50] A lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander in 2008 alleged that McCain was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon City, Panama.^[54][55] Dobbs wrote that in his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain wrote that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. "The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club. The birth was announced days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper."^{[56][57][58][59]} The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,^[60] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.^[61] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.^[62] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.^[63] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.^[64] The U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.^[65] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".^[66] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status.^[67][68] Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".^[69] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".^[70]

[Frank M 181]

Do you? We'll see...

 

 

 

Nope. You don't know where I'm coming from. You left wing cackgobblers think that the only way to help the "less fortunate" is through guaranteed forced contributions from each of us through taxation. Oh wait: not each of us, exactly.

 

No: mostly those of us who somehow - through sheer luck of being fortunate (by working hard; not blowing off schoolwork; not engaging in harmful behaviours like abusive drug use or alcoholism; not knocking up a chick and derailing our lives; not living beyond our means and depending upon Government assistance the minute we lose a job; not spending every dime on fun sh!t instead of retirement accounts...

 

...those fortunate lucky souls who find themselves in their circumstance strictly because of chance. Chance.

 

Personal Responsibility had nothing to do with it. Yes. Definitely. We shouldn't have a cultural mindset of promoting personal responsibility...instead we should just understand...and open our wallets. Again. But not all of us: just the top half. And more as you get higher on that top half. Because you were lucky. You were more fortunate.

 

Ugh.

 

Where I'm coming from? Taxing us to death to help those "less fortunate" creates far too many of them. Taxing us to death not only creates more of a dependence class, but it creates an increasingly larger Government, which then is responsible for all the bad sh!t that you don't like either. Taxing us to death makes those in society in a position to most improve the fiscal and social situation in society less able to do so.

 

Less able to contribute to charity. Less able to build businesses with that money. Less helpful. Because those resources are wasted on a tumor of Government that does with it nearly exactly what all of us don't want it to do.

 

While you keep whining about stuff that Government is responsible for, and then actually saying that we need to tax MORE.

 

Ugh.

 

All because your ideology is that you won't donate to "the less fortunate" unless everyone does via taxes. All because you don't trust that people will take care of the truly needy privately (a problem that afflicts only liberals, as Conservatives are documented as being far more generous with charity regardless).

 

Now you know you were I'm coming from.

 

Nice rant.

 

Unfortunately, none of what you're saying has anything whatsoever to do with how I live my life. But if you can somehow point to where I said anything about what the government is responsible for and followed that up by saying we need to tax more to pay for those responsibilities, I'd appreciate it. I'd also like to see where I said you or anyone else was "lucky" to have what they have, or that I don't donate to charities because the government does it for me. I would also like to see where I said anything about taxing anybody for anything or that we should increase the welfare state. All I said was I've never taken a handout in my life and you seemed upset by that, I guess because in your small world, that's what liberals do.

 

The phrase "less fortunate" is a way to describe someone in worse circumstances than you, it doesn't mean that the only reason you have what you have is because you are fortunate or lucky. That type of reasoning makes me think you're like a focking woman who gets pissed when you say "That Halle Berry is really good looking" , and she says "What, are you saying I'm not good looking?" Focking grow a sac, you defensive b1tch!

 

In other words, I fully understood where you were coming from. Mostly out of your ass, as far as I can tell.

 

The bottom line is, you have no idea how I or any other liberal lives their lives. You, on the other hand, are simple to figure out. You don't give a shiot about anything other than what you have or what you're going to acquire. It's sad, really.

[DankNuggs 305]

The House & Senate passed a resolution recognizing he was "Natural Born", not making him natural born. It was a basic feel good, silly bill that was passed that carried absolutely no weight.

 

They did so for a reason whetehr you feel its 'silly' or not... Perhaps even with the NB res he would have been open to attack, and if so I'm sure he would have by the dems...