How can these people live with themselves, do they actually beleive this guys should LIVE ? Great job Corzine, you encated a law that benefits the people that perform heinous crimes, hooray for the liberals! Think with their hearts and not their minds.....

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- The man who raped and killed 7-year-old Megan Kanka -- the 1994 crime that inspired "Megan's Law" -- is one of eight men whose sentences were commuted to life in prison this week as part of New Jersey's new ban on execution.


Megan Kanka's killer, Jesse Timmendequas, is among eight men whose sentences were commuted to life.

1 of 2 The Garden State on Monday became the first state in more than three decades to abolish the death penalty after a commission ruled the punishment is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."

Gov. Jon Corzine the day before commuted the sentences of eight men sitting on the state's death row. They will now serve life in prison without parole, according to the governor's office.

Among the eight is Jesse Timmendequas, 46, who was sentenced to death in June 1997 for Megan's murder.

Prosecutors said Timmendequas lured Megan to his home by saying he wanted to show her a puppy. He then raped her, beat her and strangled her with a belt. A day later, he led police to her body.

"Megan's Law," introduced after her death, requires that authorities notify neighbors when a sex offender moves into an area. Timmendequas had twice been convicted of sex crimes -- on 5- and 7-year-olds -- before he murdered Megan.

In signing Monday's bill, Corzine called it a "momentous day" and made New Jersey the first state to ban capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.

Don't Miss
Lawmakers vote to abolish death penalty
"It's a day of progress for the state of New Jersey and for the millions of people across our nation and around the globe who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous, crime of murder," Corzine said.

Makes me sick, that SOB was sentenced to death, his sentence should be carried out. :lossinit:

That's funny, the reason that I have learned to hate most pubes the last few years is that they tend to show their classlessness by posting articles entitled "Why I hate democrats".

Well,
As a Dem. I favor selected death for crimes.
Rape/kill a child is one, shooting cops, and others. I have no problem with it.
Don't lump us all in Jim, some of us get 'it'

But you'd never see that thing happen on the dark side Bryan.

That's funny, the reason that I have learned to hate most pubes the last few years is that they tend to show their classlessness by posting articles entitled "Why I hate democrats".

pube? If the word "hate" is too strong for you....try talking to the parents of the that girl, hows that for harsh. Maybe you can go on Oprah and complain about "classlessness"? Sorry, I have NO tolerance for the BS I've seen lately.
- banning tag at school
- banning boy scouts from collecting for soliders
- stopping kids from going to see Miracle on 34th
ALL liberal ideas that sounds all mushy and nice but in the end wind up being wrong in so many ways.
That guy that murdered and raped that girl should be skinned alive. Period. Instead he was allowed to live, read books, watch tv, write letters etc, that my friend was signed by a Dem and gets to teh core of why I LOATHE (ok, I'll compromise) MOST democrats.

All that hate inside you is going to eat you up!

Take it easy man.... Sure, the childkillers should die. However, there have been innocent people on death row. I think the logic behind Corzine's decision is based on letting the convicted serve life rather than execute someone wrongly convicted. Lots of innocent people have been sentenced to life...and death, only to have later been exonerated. And life in prison without the possibility of parole is no Embassy Suites by any stretch of the word. Believe me, that childkiller, is not going to have and easy time.

I forgot how much republicans want to kill people. kill kill kill.. If they are bad kill kill kill... if you think they are going to do something bad... kill kill kill...

that guy is going to spend a long time thinking about what he did.. and i am sure his life is going to be miserable. Why put him out of his misery??

RIJIMMY, you're pretty much off of the deep end here. It's almost as if you actually believe NJ Dem's passed this law to let a convicted child killer off the hook :hs:

When you're against the death penalty you're against it no matter what, and it's a good flipside to the staunch pro-lifers like JoeP :bl::lasso:

Sounds like the pro-death penalty crowd is just using this poor childs memory to further their cause, when in reality I'm sure her killer isn't exactly enjoying his time in prison. You do know what usually happens to child abusers in jail don't you?

-spence

You do know what usually happens to child abusers in jail don't you?

-spence

the same thing you tried to do to me at black rock at 1:00 am???

:yak6:

just kidding....

Democrats

uffah is it possible for you to speak your own thoughts or are you just stupid? flashcards went out of style when i was in the 2nd grade.

Id also like to point out that Spence has every so subtle man boobs. :fishslap:

the same thing you tried to do to me at black rock at 1:00 am???

:yak6:

just kidding....

no you're not.

:hee:

One other comment;
N.J. hadn't executed ANYONE since JFK was in office, so this was likely more than anything a PR move; if so, nothing more than stupid politics at play.
Whatever side you fall on, this is a crappy bunch of candidates...

I look at it this way, the families of those people suiffer everyday. Those in prison, while life is miserable, can still have some pleasure,read books, whack-off, write poetry, whatever.....they should not have that right
so you dems are FOR other inmates torturing them?sounds cruel and unusual to me...
I believe some people should die and are not fit for living.
For the record, I am NOT a republican. I want the government to protect me and my family, plow my roads, empty my garbage (that includes prisons), and give me the OPPORTUNITY to live as I see fit. I'd vote for any party that stands for that.

I look at it this way, the families of those people suiffer everyday. Those in prison, while life is miserable, can still have some pleasure,read books, whack-off, write poetry, whatever.....they should not have that right
so you dems are FOR other inmates torturing them?sounds cruel and unusual to me...
I believe some people should die and are not fit for living.
For the record, I am NOT a republican. I want the government to protect me and my family, plow my roads, empty my garbage (that includes prisons), and give me the OPPORTUNITY to live as I see fit. I'd vote for any party that stands for that.
I love it.

Don't label ME a Republican, but I'm free to whitewash an entire party, if you belong or not (my choice) with my HATE because we differ on an issue.

Boy, you got problems.

Sounds like your beef is with the prison system for being too much of a cakewalk and not the Democratic party (who's walking in step with the rest of the industrialized world.)

I personally don't see how killing someone is in any way payment to society for their ill ways. I also don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

Considering the cost of execution under our legal system is so incredibly high, that there does exist the potential to kill an innocent person and that the vast majority of countries who do still allow it are led by oppressive dictatorial regimes...Who's company do you want to keep?

It seems like the Dems in NJ had the opportunity to get this through and so they took it. Considering the considerable pain these cases do cause how infrequent they may be (TX aside), why not just remove it from the books and save everybody the cost and headache?

-spence

I did not think republican was a label, it was a political party someone chooses, actually registers for. Its a black and white thing, you are or you arent. Since the responses to my thread targeted republicans, I just stated that I am not one, which everyone assumed. So target me, fine, but lumping me in with republicans is 100% incorrect. My voter registration ( part of the public record, not a label) is independant. Just like rudolph and hermie, I am in - dep-en-dant.
The funny thing Spence, if I remember correctly, you ARE a republican, no?

as far as whitewashing an entire party, maybe thats not fair, I should have said Democrat politicians. I hate 95% of everything they stand for on every issue. I hate 65% of what Repubs stand for, so I usually lean that way.

I also don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

-spence

1) It deters that individual from ever killing again (crime)
2) It deters that individual from escaping (crime)
3) It deters bleeding heart politicians from commuting that indivduals sentence (should be a crime)

Anyone know how people those those great republican states like Kansas, Kentucky, Georgia, etc have executed in the last year?

1) It deters that individual from ever killing again (crime)
2) It deters that individual from escaping (crime)
3) It deters bleeding heart politicians from commuting that indivduals sentence (should be a crime)
What a lame response :bounce:

Yea, you really got me a good one 'eh? :soon:

-spence

What a lame response :bounce:

Yea, you really got me a good one 'eh? :soon:

-spence

You're wrong. Do the right thing and admit it.

The funny thing Spence, if I remember correctly, you ARE a republican, no?

as far as whitewashing an entire party, maybe thats not fair, I should have said Democrat politicians. I hate 95% of everything they stand for on every issue. I hate 65% of what Repubs stand for, so I usually lean that way.
I was a registered Republican for the majority of my voting life, although I'm currently not affiliated with any party.

And I'd wager you don't disagree with Dem politicians 95% of the time. Just like the GOP there's a spectrum that's represented by elected leaders. The more liberal Democrats get most of the press as they're in opposition to the more right-wing Republicans...hey, it makes for better news don't it?

Did you know that 47 Democratic House members are part of the Blue Dog Coalition, officially stating their beliefs in fiscal conservatisim?

A lot more goes on in Washington besides what's on Rush or reported by Moveon.org.

-spence

I was a registered Republican for the majority of my voting life, although I'm currently not affiliated with any party.

And I'd wager you don't disagree with Dem politicians 95% of the time. Just like the GOP there's a spectrum that's represented by elected leaders. The more liberal Democrats get most of the press as they're in opposition to the more right-wing Republicans...hey, it makes for better news don't it?

Did you know that 47 Democratic House members are part of the Blue Dog Coalition, officially stating their beliefs in fiscal conservatisim?

A lot more goes on in Washington besides what's on Rush or reported by Moveon.org.

-spence

Now that I agree with.

I am staying out of this one. It is CHRISTMAS after all.:wave::wave:

I am staying out of this one. It is CHRISTMAS after all.:wave::wave:

yup, and for 8 murderers in jersey, what a wonderful gift they got this year!

:smokin:

http://www.engaged-zen.org/articles/Damien_P_Horigan-Buddhism_Capital_Punishment.html

Gee, if a bear, coyote or any other land "predator" attacks a human, it is usually "put down" because that animal has made a connection between humans and food/prey.
Now these are just animals that "don't know any better".

I would think that when considering a rapist/killer, you're talking about an "animal" that should know better, and should know the difference of right from wrong. If experience has taught us anything,
it would be that once a human has killed another human (except for self defense) they have little reservations about killing another.
This is the same basis for putting animals down (see above).

I know that there are innocent people railroaded by our glorious legal system that is driven more by fame and fortune than by the search for truth and justice, but there are also those convicted by their own confessions and stupidity, and some of these persons deserve to have the sentences they were given be carried out.

Libs are anti death penalty for murderers, yet they have no problem aborting innocent babies. Makes me scratch my head.....:doh:

Gee, if a bear, coyote or any other land "predator" attacks a human, it is usually "put down" because that animal has made a connection between humans and food/prey.
Now these are just animals that "don't know any better".Quite the opposite, the animals know exactly what they're doing. Instinct is telling them to survive. They're put down not just because they're a threat but also because their lives are not valued the same as people.

A human killer may know what they are doing or they may have mental issues. Regardless we do have a system to deal with these issues in place that when enforced, seems to keep them from commiting further harm. We do this because we value humans more than animals, even if the human is behaving as an animal.

The bigger issue are the situations where bad decisions let the wrong out at the wrong time.

-spence

Now as far as theory is concerned, an eye for an eye, sounds pretty logical and sure some heinous crimes warrant heinous penalties. But the practice and application is where my objections lie. Can any of you death penalty proponents guarantee with absolute certainty, that an innocent man will not be executed. If an innocent man is incarcerated, he can at the very least be released and the state can make amends. The inherent finality of a death sentence unreservedly obliterates any chance at righting a wrong. Now all of you, if you will for a moment, imagine the horror, dread and pained anguished of an innocent man, awaiting his execution at the hands of the State - and what about his family. Is he not a victim of a state sanctioned heinous crime?

The bottom line is, unless the courts can unconditionally guarantee (in practice, because as we know, theory does not guarantee equitable and fair application of law) that an innocent man will never be put to death, can one justify state sanctioned murder.

Anything else is just vindictive bloodlusting hog wash and quite frankly, is beside the point.

Libs are anti death penalty for murderers, yet they have no problem aborting innocent babies. Makes me scratch my head.....:doh:

...And the Conservatives are pro death penalty, and pro life. Hmmm. I think we're both scratching our heads on that one. :smash:

I thought is more about letting a women decide what she wants to do with her own within the realms of "privacy". It has nothing to with babies, more about the government overriding a women's decision to exercise self determination.

Libs are anti death penalty for murderers, yet they have no problem aborting innocent babies. Makes me scratch my head.....:doh:

I can't wait for Spence's reply on that....:yak:

No Lib for sure, but imho the better punishment is lifetime in prison.
Alone in a 6x8 cell with just enough food and water to keep them alive.
Maybe an hour outside each day but that's it.
Let them think about what they've done to the victim and they're family every day for the rest of their lives.

Death is too quick and not a deterrent, especially not in crimes of passion.

...And the Conservatives are pro death penalty, and pro life. Hmmm. I think we're both scratching our heads on that one. :smash:

I thought is more about letting a women decide what she wants to do with her own within the realms of "privacy". It has nothing to with babies, more about the government overriding a women's decision to exercise self determination.

so, killing for a heinous crime, bad
killing for a womans right to privacy, good?

How about going Pro-choice on Both...The woman can choose and the Victims Families can choose

If a woman is raped, she gets knocked up. Should she not be able to exercise self-determination? The government should tell her what to do. Ohhh, I forgot were assuming that whats been growing for a mere 3 or 4 weeks within HER OWN BODY can survive outside the womb right?

and back to the original topic of the thread, killing as a heinous crime = LIFE IN PRISON

PRISON = no cakewalk and definitely no county jail, washing clothes, brushing teeth in the same toilet you s***. Colder in the winter, hotter in summer. Sure, your family can come visit you and your wife can come see you, too bad you can't smell her perfume through the 4 inch thick plexiglass. Sure, chokin the chicken a few times a week for the rest f one's life is very appealing, to bad memories of a women's touch fade. And god forbid you can't fight....

Anyone who believes that killers get off easy when they go to prison, has never been inside one. And when people say, prisoners thrive in jail, does that mean an extra hot plate for condensed tomato soup for your queen.

I can't wait for Spence's reply on that....:yak:
Pretty simple really. There's not much argument that someone commiting a crime is a person, while there is much argument as to when a collection of rapidly growing cells constitutes the same.

The irony isn't on the Left here as much as it's on the Right who proclaim a social burden to protect life, then push for executions domestically and don't flinch a bit at the rampant use of military might around the globe that causes tremendous suffering of the innocent...perhaps several orders of magnitude than what they see at home...when it's spun to be in the interest of their own.

-spence

Anything else is just vindictive bloodlusting hog wash and quite frankly, is beside the point.
How about the Texas prosecutors who were (and still might be) awarded a plaque with two crossed syringes for a successful death sentence verdict?

Pretty sick IMHO.

-spence

Now that these sob's death sentences have been made life without parole sentences means that they now can come up for parole hearings. There is no such sentence as life without parole anywhere. Look at Chuck Manson, comes up every two years, doesn't get out, but comes up every two years. Isn't New Jersey the same state that the cop killer was on death row that all the celebs have been trying to get out of jail? Walked up to the cop laying on the ground, who had been shot, and pumped two more shots into him. Abu Mumia Jamal. Or do I have the wrong state?
That knock the governor took on the head is going to get him voted out of office. People are going to stop putting up with this bullchit.

Death is too quick and not a deterrent, especially not in crimes of passion.[/quote]

Death is a deterent, true punishment, no more no less.

Now that these sob's death sentences have been made life without parole sentences means that they now can come up for parole hearings. There is no such sentence as life without parole anywhere. Look at Chuck Manson, comes up every two years, doesn't get out, but comes up every two years....
That knock the governor took on the head is going to get him voted out of office. People are going to stop putting up with this bullchit.
I'm sure there will be a legal argument (as it will put some attorneys in the spotlight) over the validity of his commutations, but I doubt there's much chance a paroll board would let these guys go.

Don't expect Corazine to take many lumps over this. While many don't support aboloshing the death penalty, there are far fewer who would actively seek it's reinstatement.

Oh, and Jimmy...I just read that the bill had a Republican co-sponsor. I guess you must hate them too :hee:

-spence

1) It deters that individual from ever killing again (crime)
2) It deters that individual from escaping (crime)
3) It deters bleeding heart politicians from commuting that indivduals sentence (should be a crime)

No Lib for sure, but imho the better punishment is lifetime in prison.
Alone in a 6x8 cell with just enough food and water to keep them alive.
Maybe an hour outside each day but that's it.
Let them think about what they've done to the victim and they're family every day for the rest of their lives.

Death is too quick and not a deterrent, especially not in crimes of passion.

I have no problem with either of the above quotes. :cheers:

It would take me too much time here to list all my reasons.

It would take me too much time here to list all my reasons.
Perhaps you could write them down on your own (fuming the entire time of course) and submit a summarized list for us to make fun of.

-spence

Perhaps you could write them down on your own (fuming the entire time of course) and submit a summarized list for us to make fun of.

-spence


:rotfl:

Decades of: living in a cage, little fresh air, little exercise, crappy food, tedious 'jobs', constant fear of prison reprisal, the occasional brutal sodomization....

VS

a quick and painless end.


He'd be better off dead.
A life time of fear, suffering and pain is what he deserves.

Killing others, for any reason, makes us weak. Wrong is wrong.

UNLESS YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN AND YOU AND/OR YOUR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS CAN PROFIT FROM IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1/20/09 1/20/09 1/20/09 1/20/09 1/20/09 1/20/09


Woody

Well how about this one to start off with.

1. I like keeping MY Money. If you and your lib buddies feel guilty about not supporting the career welfare, drug addicts, sex change candidates, etc, etc types then by all means write a check. I already loose 45% of my income to various taxes Hillary is not getting a penny more.

#4 06-08-2007, 10:54 AM
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mass
Posts: 2,638

I was going to craft a lengthy reply but just dont have the energy. Nothing POs me more than stereotypes.


:shocked:

Isn't hating ALL DEMOCRATS stereotypical thinking? :wave:


Woody

PS 1/20/09 :buds:

Well how about this one to start off with.

1. I like keeping MY Money. If you and your lib buddies feel guilty about not supporting the career welfare, drug addicts, sex change candidates, etc, etc types then by all means write a check. I already loose 45% of my income to various taxes Hillary is not getting a penny more.

Sounds like your so miserable you might consider a new country to live in.

Given that NC receives back about $1.10 for every $1.00 in taxes they pay to the fed, does it suck to collect welfare and not pay your own way?

PaulS- Like I said if you feel as though you are not paying your fair share in taxes you can always write additional checks to the IRS or maybe to the RI democratic house and senate. I am sure both will find very creative ways to spend your money. After all the Democrats have done such a fantastic job in RI why not give them more cash?

BTW- I lived my whole life in RI up to about 3-yrs ago great state, horrible political landscape.

As far as me moving out of country isn't that a Democratic tactic?

Are you ready for No. 2

Are you ready for No. 2
No, sorry but I haven't made fun of number 1 yet. Been busy with work...soon.

-spence

PaulS- Like I said if you feel as though you are not paying your fair share in taxes you can always write additional checks to the IRS or maybe to the RI democratic house and senate. I am sure both will find very creative ways to spend your money. After all the Democrats have done such a fantastic job in RI why not give them more cash?

BTW- I lived my whole life in RI up to about 3-yrs ago great state, horrible political landscape.

As far as me moving out of country isn't that a Democratic tactic?

Are you ready for No. 2


I wasn't complaining about the amount of taxes I pay, you were. The amounts that I pay to this great country is nothing compared to the amount of benefits I receive. To bad you hate the country as much as you do (now isn't that a repub. tactic - tell someone they hate the country?)

I don't know of anyone who moved out of the country to avoid taxes but then I really haven't met anyone who sounded as miserable as you.

1. I like keeping MY Money. If you and your lib buddies feel guilty about not supporting the career welfare, drug addicts, sex change candidates, etc, etc types then by all means write a check. I already loose 45% of my income to various taxes Hillary is not getting a penny more.
You know, upon reflection I'd say I have to agree with your thoughts.

Our welfare state has got to end. We're giving food stamps to US military families, tax breaks to an oil industry making record profits and subsidies to help farmers grow corn for ethanol. And this notion of a "safety net" to help someone at the bottom become a more productive, taxpaying self sustaining member of society? Rubbish, it's simply not the American way. The world needs ditch diggers too.

Granted the taxpayer money spent on helping drug addicts recover is extremely small, but if we just let them kill themselves the money could be better put to use to buy body armor for Guardsmen in Iraq or perhaps earmarked to fund a badly needed highway project between Mohall and Upham North Dakota.

The sex change issue really rubs me the wrong way. Yes, again the money here is pretty small, and usually granted by the State rather than the Feds. Also, I guess you should rightly ignore the fact that there are real medically diagnosed disorders regarding to gender, and that many bills to provide such services also cover babies born with multiple sex organs...

But enough of all that. Legal recognition of someone who may be medically transgendered is akin to morally justifying sex with sheep, rabbits and any other member of the phylum Chordata. This slippery slope must be fought will wild abandon lest we all succumb to the gay agenda. Hell soon they'll be legislating homosexuality among our children!

And you're right on that it's your money.

It's not like your opportunity to be successful was built on the backs of others. Servicemen from poor families who fought to keep us free simply because it was the right thing to do, factory workers who have been poisoned or injured to produce the goods that we consume and trade in, wealthy investors risking entire fortunes, service workers living below the poverty line who clean the crap from your hotel room toilet or pick the lettuce for your salad, Middle Class tax dollars that have helped to build your roads, defend you in wars, insure the banks that loan you money, educate your kids, fight to regulate those polluting your children,

I see that you are insulated from the environment in which you live. Is it your money, you've done it all on your own and you owe nobody nothing.

Perhaps more importantly, we need to do everything to keep Hillary from office. Instead we need to preserve the Republican legacy of the Bush Presidency. Extreme fiscal restraint, limited Government power and a foreign policy founded on a respect of rule of law.

Let them libs in office and I tell you, these good times are going to end.

-spence

You know, upon reflection I'd say I have to agree with your thoughts.

Our welfare state has got to end. We're giving food stamps to US military families, tax breaks to an oil industry making record profits and subsidies to help farmers grow corn for ethanol. And this notion of a "safety net" to help someone at the bottom become a more productive, taxpaying self sustaining member of society? Rubbish, it's simply not the American way. The world needs ditch diggers too.

Granted the taxpayer money spent on helping drug addicts recover is extremely small, but if we just let them kill themselves the money could be better put to use to buy body armor for Guardsmen in Iraq or perhaps earmarked to fund a badly needed highway project between Mohall and Upham North Dakota.

The sex change issue really rubs me the wrong way. Yes, again the money here is pretty small, and usually granted by the State rather than the Feds. Also, I guess you should rightly ignore the fact that there are real medically diagnosed disorders regarding to gender, and that many bills to provide such services also cover babies born with multiple sex organs...

But enough of all that. Legal recognition of someone who may be medically transgendered is akin to morally justifying sex with sheep, rabbits and any other member of the phylum Chordata. This slippery slope must be fought will wild abandon lest we all succumb to the gay agenda. Hell soon they'll be legislating homosexuality among our children!

And you're right on that it's your money.

It's not like your opportunity to be successful was built on the backs of others. Servicemen from poor families who fought to keep us free simply because it was the right thing to do, factory workers who have been poisoned or injured to produce the goods that we consume and trade in, wealthy investors risking entire fortunes, service workers living below the poverty line who clean the crap from your hotel room toilet or pick the lettuce for your salad, Middle Class tax dollars that have helped to build your roads, defend you in wars, insure the banks that loan you money, educate your kids, fight to regulate those polluting your children,

I see that you are insulated from the environment in which you live. Is it your money, you've done it all on your own and you owe nobody nothing.

Perhaps more importantly, we need to do everything to keep Hillary from office. Instead we need to preserve the Republican legacy of the Bush Presidency. Extreme fiscal restraint, limited Government power and a foreign policy founded on a respect of rule of law.

Let them libs in office and I tell you, these good times are going to end.

-spence

Over the top sarcasm. Verbal shell game on social programs. Cash grab from successful corporations. Pity for "lettuce pickers" and "hotel maids"(See Criminal Aliens). Inability to control Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Reading right from the handbook are we?:laugha:

"The amounts that I pay to this great country is nothing compared to the amount of benefits I receive"

PaulS then you really need to get the checkbook out today and write that check we have been talking about, why do you have to wait for Hillary or Obama to take it from you? I think you would sleep better tonight and feel better about yourself in the morning if you just do it now on your own. I think 10-20% above what you will pay this year would be the magic number to please them.

I do have a quick question for you. Are tax increases okay across the board or should only the wealthy be punished? Is it ok for you to ante up the money for the Dems proposals or should it be paid for on the backs of others?

After all Hillary has a dream of building a Woodstock museum somebody has got to pay for it.

Are tax increases okay across the board or should only the wealthy be punished? Is it ok for you to ante up the money for the Dems proposals or should it be paid for on the backs of others?
More nonsense...

Why do you put this on the shoulder of Dem proposals? President Bush and the Republican Congress have been on a spending bender for most of his Presidency. There are "big government Republicans" just like "big government liberals" just like there are "fiscal conservatives" and "Blue Dog Democrats".

Your continued fixation on liberalisim as the source of an intrusive and excessive government simply isn't founded in reality.

And punishment is a silly rhetorical device. We have a progressive tax system precisely because the middle class doesn't generate the revenue to sustain the government that we all benefit from. And guess what? Those with wealth have a better ability to use their money to make money off of the improved infrastructure.

Hell, would we even have a Middle Class without the rich paying an oversized percentage of the federal budget? What would the wealthy have done without a growing Middle Class the past century to drive our consumer driven economy and staff the factories that generated such incredible wealth and prosperity?

There's trickle up as well as trickle down. It's not about one idiology being right and the other wrong. That's ignorant.

It's about the right balance...

-spence

MAn, spence, you should have written for FDR. You might have had to tone it down little to frame it correctly.

Bill

MAn, spence, you should have written for FDR. You might have had to tone it down little to frame it correctly.
Wow, what praise!!! :humpty:

Thanks,

-spence

Oh excuse me FDR WAS A FRIGGIN DEMOCRAT!!!!

I take it back.

:cheers2:

:agree:

-spence

"The amounts that I pay to this great country is nothing compared to the amount of benefits I receive"

PaulS then you really need to get the checkbook out today and write that check we have been talking about, why do you have to wait for Hillary or Obama to take it from you? I think you would sleep better tonight and feel better about yourself in the morning if you just do it now on your own. I think 10-20% above what you will pay this year would be the magic number to please them.

I do have a quick question for you. Are tax increases okay across the board or should only the wealthy be punished? Is it ok for you to ante up the money for the Dems proposals or should it be paid for on the backs of others?

After all Hillary has a dream of building a Woodstock museum somebody has got to pay for it.

Hey, I write plenty of checks to charity - you should try it cause as I said you seem pretty miserable and seem to have a lot of hate. It might help your self esteem and cheer you up.

The ones who have more should be asked to do more. That's why people at different income levels should pay at different rates.

Good for Hillary - NY pays far more in taxes than they receive back from the Fed. Anything that she can do to level that field, I'm all for. States that don't pay their fair share should be ashamed of themselves and should admit that its basically welfare.

States that don't pay their fair share should be ashamed of themselves and should admit that its basically welfare.

Paul,
real 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond (Also wrote Guns, Germs and Steel).

Great chapter on Montana and how it stays afloat as a viable state b/c of fed input of money...

NY pays far more in taxes than they receive back from the Fed. Anything that she can do to level that field, I'm all for. States that don't pay their fair share should be ashamed of themselves and should admit that its basically welfare.
Typically the big "Blue States" like CA, MN, IL, NY, NJ, MA, CT, VT etc...pay more in Federal Taxes and get less in return while the "Red States" suck more from the Federal Government and return less in tax revenue. It's not a clear split, but there's clearly a trend.

This does make some sense for the most part. States with large economies like CA or NY are going to generate more taxable revenue streams, they also have a lot of wealth.

So when hurricane Katrina leveled LA, MS and AL...they can thank their stars there were states with a net positive revenue contribution to help them rebuild in a time of need. Is this socialisim? A waste of your tax money?

-spence

I read Spence's post and you get lost in all the blab. I like things simple.
An absoulte FACT, Hillary Clinton proposed a $5000 benefit for woman having children.
to 179's point - dont take my money and give it away. A child is a choice (right libs?) so dont make me pay for someones choice.
A govenments role is to provide opportunity and not charity. Some people need help, but for many that becomes a crutch.
My wifes family came here from India in the early 80s ( she is Chinese) her Dad died after a few years here, her Mom, who barely spoke English, raised 3 kids in San Francisco, all alone. All her kids are college educated (they put themeselves through school) and very successful. They didnt whine about race, they didnt whine about welafare, The got off there arse and got it done, which is what ALL immigrants did for years coming to this country. This is the land of opportunity, opportunity means HARD work.
The more money the governmetn takes in taxes, the less money I spend on landscaping, fast food, imports, etc. That takes money right out of the hands of the people, who as Spence says, are trying to get off the ground. The wealthy benefit the poor by "buying" goods and services, which in turn benefits those who work. Give a man a fish he eats for day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime.

An absoulte FACT, Hillary Clinton proposed a $5000 benefit for woman having children.
to 179's point - dont take my money and give it away.
Well, it's not really a fact that she proposed it. She mentioned that she "liked the idea". Having done no assessment of potential cost or return you can hardly call this a "proposal".

And while I can't say I would endorse this specific proposal, I can see the logic. We have a real problem today with funding higher education, and this may cause critical economic problems in the future as we loose our leadership position to other emerging nations in many fields. You don't think the Chinese government isn't trying to create an army of engineers and scientists to bump off the US system?

I could see a grant of a US Bond to be used for education as a means to help deal with this issue. This isn't an endorsement, but the idea that someone might consider it shouldn't be construed as socialisim.

-spence

see my solution would be, every parent, stops smoking ciggarettes, stops renting dvds, stops buying lunch and collects alluminum cans in order to save $5000 for their children. Its a unique idea called "sacrifice".

Paul,
real 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond (Also wrote Guns, Germs and Steel).

Great chapter on Montana and how it stays afloat as a viable state b/c of fed input of money...

Thanks, I may get the book at the library.

I really don't mind paying taxes to help areas/people who are less fortunate than me/us. However, it makes me laugh when people complain about taxes or welfare when they receive benefits more than they pay into the system.

see my solution would be, every parent, stops smoking ciggarettes, stops renting dvds, stops buying lunch and collects alluminum cans in order to save $5000 for their children. Its a unique idea called "sacrifice".


and a republicans view of sacrifice would be wasting american lives to fuel corperate profits. :hee:

see my solution would be, every parent, stops smoking ciggarettes, stops renting dvds, stops buying lunch and collects alluminum cans in order to save $5000 for their children. Its a unique idea called "sacrifice".
Easy to say for someone with even the slightest means. How many kids are out there right now with parents living paycheck to paycheck?

Certainly individual responsibility is important, but the reality is that our society is a balance between the individual and the group. A good question would be if States could deal with the broader educational issues on their own assuming the indivudual were more responsible? You might still have too much variation considering how the wealth and education is dispersed in our country. Perhaps, some Federal action would be for the better of the group, and our long term benefit as a result. At least the issues should be dealt with in real terms, and not just plastered with talking points meant for snippets on the nightly news.

-spence

and a republicans view of sacrifice would be wasting american lives to fuel corperate profits. :hee:

I think a better question might be...I was told that the Iraq war would cost about $150 Billion by those who were leading the charge. We now see it's real cost over $1 Trillion, largely due to mistakes and strategic error...caused not simply by unforseen challenges, but rather largely from judgement skewed by the radically liberal idiological disillusion of neoconservatisim.

In this case isn't President Bush taking MY MONEY to persue his radically liberal vision to restructure the Middle East via something so objectionable to the public as (not preemptive but) "preventative war"?

How is this any different than Hillary taking your money for healthcare or education.

Discuss.

-spence

I think a better question might be...I was told that the Iraq war would cost about $150 Billion by those who were leading the charge. We now see it's real cost over $1 Trillion, largely due to mistakes and strategic error...caused not simply by unforseen challenges, but rather largely from judgement skewed by the radically liberal idiological disillusion of neoconservatisim.

In this case isn't President Bush taking MY MONEY to persue his radically liberal vision to restructure the Middle East via something so objectionable to the public as (not preemptive but) "preventative war"?

How is this any different than Hillary taking your money for healthcare or education.

Discuss.

-spence

I agree. I dont want him doing that either.

I agree. I dont want him doing that either.
:cheers2:

-spence

PaulS- If you give more of your hard earned cash and time to local charities than I do hats off to you. The only problem is I am not talking about a charity. If you think that the IRS and Hillary are entitled to more money then write the check. Stop spending all your time and effort trying to explain why somebody else should have to pay and not you it is really getting old. It looks like the tax rebate will be voted on today, if passed you could always return your check when it comes in May it might help with your guilty conscious. If you return that check maybe Hillary will get her museum?

179,

Why do you have such a visceral issue with a Democrat asking for more of your money to spend, when 50% of the Government is Republicans already taking your money and spending it in wasteful ways?

It would seem as though the anger could be spread around.

-spence

he is brainwashed. poor soul. Maybe a good democratic victory will awaken his thought process.

PaulS- If you give more of your hard earned cash and time to local charities than I do hats off to you. The only problem is I am not talking about a charity. If you think that the IRS and Hillary are entitled to more money then write the check. Stop spending all your time and effort trying to explain why somebody else should have to pay and not you it is really getting old. It looks like the tax rebate will be voted on today, if passed you could always return your check when it comes in May it might help with your guilty conscious. If you return that check maybe Hillary will get her museum?


:cheers2:

anyone note the3 trillion dollar budget, courtesy of a Republican President Bush. He really gives the pubes a bad name. I believe, but I will refer to the fact checker, that this is the largest proposed EVER!!!

Among other things included are:

-28 billion for nuclear arms programs

-Education programs are expected to be frozen at 60 billion dollars with no increase to keep pace with inflation

Talk about priorities...let alone fiscal responsiblility