<p>DRJ4: thank you.</p>
<p>It’s like Bush’s attempt to frame Iraq with “there are some who think we’ll be safe if we leave the extremists alone.” I don’t know <em>anyone</em> who believes that or supports that point of view but it’s cheap rhetorical device to cast any opposition as being looney tunes. To hear some Republicans talk, Democrats believe in as much promiscuous sex as possible as part of an effort to maximize the number of pregnancies that can terminated by abortion.</p>
<p>I think you can make an argument for parental consent if there are work arounds. I think if one totally reorganized our education system there are ways I could support vouchers. And I have no problem for what I, solidly middle class, pay in taxes, but I think the wealthy - say $200,000+ - are woefully undertaxed and overpaid.</p>
<p>And we’d have plenty of money for all of this if we weren’t spending billions in Iraq - for a war that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.</p>
<p>Invading and occupying Iraq is still the single worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. I am constantly amazed and in disbelief that any sane (and yes, I do think SJ and Zoos are sane) individual can possibly believe we are “safer” as a result of Bush’s maniacal decisions.</p>
<p>“say $200,000+ - are woefully undertaxed and overpaid.”</p>
<p>I have to say that the picture of those people (of which I am one) can be complicated. As you all know, hubby is a garbage man for NYC who also works a second job and I’m a recruiting person (i.e., lowly adminisrator) at a law firm. We make over $200,000 between the three jobs and I don’t think we’re overpaid (because we work damn hard and long) or under taxed. I don’t think income is the same as wealth. My feeling is that if you want to work for it, God bless you, and the government should only ask for as much as is necessary.</p>
<p>“just more proof that liberals are bad”</p>
<p>Most liberals ARE bad, but they’re totally awful when in comes to conspiracies.</p>
<p>Oh, I don’t know about that, Mini. There has been quite a run on tinfoil of late.</p>
<p>I think that the problem with lowering taxes is that it inevitably (as is happening now) accompanied by lowering services and raising “fees” that virtually everyone pays. So you lower taxes but raise public college tuition. You cut taxes but build fewer parks, and close public pools. You cut taxes and raise the cost of campgrounds. You cut taxes but lessen governmental regulation of utilities, which raise prices. You cut taxes and cut anti-trust enforcement, so prices increase. Etc. The bottom line of cutting taxes and services is that the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, and the middle class pays more of their income for the same quality of life than they did before. Which, incidentally, is exactly what has happened in the US over the past 25 years.</p>
<p>You know what? This is the risk when you proselytize endlessly in public, and are a deviant in private.</p>
<p>Druggy Rush, Hot Tub Tom, Crybaby Cunningham, “I can’t help myself” Jimmy Swaggert, Gamblin’ ‘Book of Virtues’ Bill, and hotmilitarystud aka White House Press Corp member Jeff Gannon, Newt Divorce his Cancer Patient Wife, Man of Many Wives Rudy – they should have warned him!</p>
<p>Maybe the GOP should practice what they preach.</p>
<p>I really meant to say that I think parental nofication should be required.</p>
<p>I not sure that “I do think SJ and Zoos are sane” is a compliment. I’ve mentioned on other threads that I never voted for a Republican candidate until 2000. Instead of offering back handed compliments, you might ask, “Why would a seemingly intelligent person (zoozermom or Driver or DRJ4) argue so passionately for a conservative point of view?” If you spend all of your time talking to fellow liberals, you are likely to assume that all sensible people think that way.</p>
<p>After all, wasn’t it after Nixon’s election that someone commented, “I can’t understand how he won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”</p>
<p>If you don’t talk to people who see the same data and yet come to a different point of view, how can you defend your own position? Those of us who are “converts” to conservatism have usually spent a great deal of time reading and thinking about the issues. Most of the liberals I know, espouse those arguments because that’s what the “cool” people think or read in the NY Times. No one wants to identify with Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, because that’s too much like the establishment of our parent’s generation.</p>
<p>It’s also been my experience that anyone who is actually a career military person or involved in national defense or homeland security typically supports this administration. Those that don’t are the ones who stand out. So if you were to poll those military types on CC, I’ll bet you’d find most of them support the war on terror. They know what’s at stake.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That should be “Show Me The Money” Cunningham.</p>
<p>As far as taxes go, I really don’t trust other people to spend my money wisely. We live on one income, and have had to be careful in order to support our educational goals for our kids. I just don’t buy the argument that some bureaucrat in Washington or Boston is as good a bargain shopper as I am.</p>
<p>Very true, sjmom; it’s never been hip to be a conservative. I think that may be changing now with the generation of kids now in high school and college. Many of them see through their parents’ and teachers’ hypocritical–ironically–pieties.</p>
<p>How 'bout “Randi Rudy” and “Naughty Newt”.</p>
<p>“Newt Divorce his Cancer Patient Wife” (that’s old news: his second one had multiple sclerosis. He likes 'em “healthy”.)</p>
<p>Of course you know how to spend your money better than some bureaucrat, SJMom. It’s just that it wouldn’t make any sense for you to spend it on a highway in Fresno, or research into sickle cell anemia, or any of a million other things that may not touch your life personally, but which need to be paid for anyway. That’s why we have those pesky bureaucrats making those decisions about how to spend our money. Doesn’t make a great bumper sticker, though, I’ve got to admit.</p>
<p>See what I mean? Heaven save us from the liberal pieties. Remember the study that said Republicans actually gave more of their own money to charity than Democrats (Al Gore?- close to nothing, but he CARES about global warming!). kluge CARES about sickle cell anemia and all those other things that don’t touch his life personally (how much he gives the cause out-of-pocket we wouldn’t be crass enough to ask).</p>
<p>There are no heroes or fallen heroes just little men doing low things. Foley has been laid low–he now appears pathetic, week and scared: a man alone.</p>
<p>It should hurt Republicans and it will. In this case you cant even call it irony.
It should hurt congress and it will–though as far as I can see, no one in particular (Hastert etc.). Thats just happy thoughts for Democrats and mini-malcontents. </p>
<p>And while were at it, Id think we should all rethink what it means to have another gay congressman messing himself in the hot-light. There are a lot of Republicans in congress, but there are but a few homosexuals. To me, in this instance, the latter point is more salient. In the end, it will be the worst for high profile gay men in positions of authority; even low profile gay men elbowing their way through the dregs of prestige and position. </p>
<p>It saddens me, because Foley has brought as much, if not more, shame on being a gay male than he ever could on being a Republican. The former will have greater consequences for gay men in America than the latter will for Republican men in America. </p>
<p>The brouhaha may affect the election, and that would change some things in general, but if you are a gay male, I would think, what Foley has done will change your life in far more specific and immediate ways than it will if you are simply a Republican.</p>
<p>Beyond that, I think the celebratory attitude of some of the liberals and the castrati here to be without shame. But they should be ashamed. But they havent shame. And it surprises no one that they lack it.</p>
<p> shame is bad, you see still, I wonder if Foley has discovered such a natural and corrective force as shame in this existential moment I hope he doesI have no such hope for some of those posting here).</p>
<p>If Foley had been able to be a gay man in that world he put himself in, I wonder if all this would have happened</p>
<p>If he is gay, and with people who approach minors, that is not a given, but if he is indeed gay, it is sad that he could not be who he was because of the place he was at</p>
<p>As for shame, I feel no shame, I feel no glee, I feel just sad that our leadership behaves as they do</p>
<p>Placing blame on the messengers, wondering why the Dems didn’t do more, the leadership changing their stories, being dishonest…that is cowerdous </p>
<p>That being said, the chips will fall where they may</p>
<p>And this should not reflect on gay men, it should reflect on men that go after minor- straight and gay, and the preponderonce of adult males going after minors- boys and girls, are straight…</p>
<p>Someday, gay people will not have to fear the Republican party and can be who they are…that should be a lesson in this</p>
<p>I admit it. I am gleeful about the Fall of Foley. I do take pleasure in having hypocrites unmasked. If it causes young people to lose faith in government all the better. These people are pitiful and I hope it is just a little more clear now.</p>
<p>FS “There are a lot of Republicans in congress, but there are but a few homosexuals.”</p>
<p>That is one of the things we do not know for certain. I’m not sure at this point that we could swear to the sexual orientation of everyone in public life anymore.</p>
<p>"
I have to say that the picture of those people (of which I am one) can be complicated. "</p>
<p>Okay change the number to $400,000. I don’t care. We make a quarter of that more or less and manage to own a house, live in high tax Westchester and have no major debt (besides the house of course!) I wouldn’t want to pay more taxes than we do, but we aren’t in the poor house by any means.</p>
<p>This year the richest men on the Forbes list this year are all billionaires. Does any one really think anyone needs to make that kind of money? I like the causes Buffet and Gates support, but should we trust our richest men to voluntarily support good causes?</p>