Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Daisy, Nov 21, 2003.
Molly Ivins says it well:
Not exactly a Bush-hater, but my Gospel isn't and shouldn't be better news for the rich than the poor...
Yours in Christ
I have never been a fan of Molly Ivins. A stereotype of what a liberal is.
Consider her typical quotes,
I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida,
Boo hoo, boo hoo, whine, whine...The fact is Bush did win Florida and oh how I love Ivin's use of chilling! Maybe she should have been concerned about the Military votes the Democrats wanted tossed out in the Florida election.
One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal – milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese – is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago – attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there."
Oh, please. Maybe we need to review how the Liberals savaged and slandered Clarence Thomas or Clinton's private investigators digging up dirt on the Women that were accusing him. Al Franken, Carville are just a few Liberal mudslingers. What was funny in the 1988 election how Kennedy and the Democrats savaged Daddy Bush as a wimp one born with a spoon in his mouth etc...but then once Bush goes on the attack they call him a bully. Liberals are bullies. They are good at dishing it out but can't take it when it is dished back. James Carville is the only Liberal that has any fight to him that can take it.
H is entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, and he lied and said the tax cuts would help average Americans. Again and again, the "average" tax cut would be $1,000. That means you get $100, and the millionaire gets $92,000, and that's how they "averaged" it out. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the President. And more tax cuts for the rich.
I enjoyed my first tax cut (and I'm not rich). The second one I did not get any from but hey, I am for tax cuts however. All people are taxed to much be they rich, middle class, poor. Ivins like most liberals loves taxes, taxes, taxes to help socialist programs that benefit no one.
Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow!) but it turns out to be a cheap con, almost no new money. Bush comes to praise a job training effort, and then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy?
The government should not send $15 billion to Africa in the first place and AmeriCorps should end and private charity groups should run it. The government is not a charity organization. Bush was wrong but so are the Democrats.
I think it has been said that there are 2 major parties in the USA. THE STUPID PARTY (Republicans) and THE EVIL PARTY (Democrats). That of course is a joke but with a hint of truth and Ivins only gives ammo to that fact. Fortunately there are other options with the Libertarian Party.
Molly Ivans can't find her "Back Side" with both her hands!
How is Bush's Tax Cut unfair. If I pay 100,000 dollard in Income Taxes and get a 2% CUT - That's $2000. If I pay $10,000 and get a 2% Cut - That's $200. If I pay $1000 and get a 2% Cut - That's $20.00 If I'm Poor and pay 0 Taxes and get a 2% Cut that's $0. How is that unfair and How is that unbiblical?
If I earn £100000 a year and get a 2% cut, I get £2000 in my pocket. The poor guy who earns £10000 a year and gets a 2% cut gets £200 in his pocket. Matt, being already £90000pa better of than the poor guy and actually needs the handout far less than the poor guy, finds himself with £1800 more in handouts from the government than the poor guy gets. That is unfair and unbiblical. Next...?
Yours in Christ
Loving the Bush Haters
Is it wrong to take pleasure in the madness George W. Bush induces in his critics? Nope.
by Noemie Emery
11/07/2003 12:00:00 AM
I LOVE GEORGE W. BUSH. I worship the man. I wake up every morning glad he is president. When annoyed by small things--traffic, the weather, an overcharge--I say to myself, "President Bush," and at once feel better. I like his worldview. I like his dogs and his wife and his mother. I think he looks cool in his shorts and his t-shirts. But it isn't these things that make my heart flutter: It's that he drives the people I hate the most nuts.
The Germans created the word schadenfreude to describe the pleasure one might feel at the woes of one's allies, but no one has yet coined a word for the happiness that can come to a person when those who annoy him complain. Open the paper, and there they all are: the hard-faced women who refer to abortion as "choice," the soft-faced male writers who look a little too pampered, the actors, the artists, the faculty hotshots, the with-it, the urbane and the urban, the concerned, the refined, the sincere.
They are enraged that someone unlike them has power; enraged because they think he is dumb, and he always outsmarts them; enraged that he pushed back when the Democrats, backed all the way by the Supreme Court of Florida, flooded the state with lawyers after the 2000 election, armed with game plans to subvert the result.
Above all, they are enraged that they can't sell their wrath to the rest of the country, which calmly remains unenraged. So, they write the same book over and over (and buy it in job lots), write the same pieces over and over, and post the same things on the web. I read them all.
And in them I find a perverse satisfaction. If, as Churchill maintains, it is exhilarating to be shot at and missed, it is also enlivening to have your opponent empty both barrels, to more or less meager effect. I read Sidney Blumenthal's mournful account of the Florida recount. I read junior writers at policy journals proclaim with no proof they are smarter than Bush is. I read them all, and I wickedly grin.
I grin because I have been once where they are, and have stood in their sandals myself. Liberals insist Bush exists in their minds as a vast malign presence, a huge psychic drag on their consciousness. I know, I know--I felt exactly the same way about Clinton, back in l999. Shortly later, I was told by a dentist that during the eight year reign of the Clintons, I had been grinding my molars to dust. "I've been grinding my teeth less since Clinton left office," I said, thinking he'd think it was funny. He didn't. His office is on Capitol Hill, and his practice is filled with political people, all gnashing their teeth in a frenzy of outrage.
It's your turn, now, fellas. Grind on!
Noemie Emery is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.
Uh, let me see. If I earned, honestly, a hundred grand this year, my tax of course will be much greater than the guy who earned seventy five grand whose taxes will be much greater than the guy who earned thirty six grand this year, therefore, our cuts will be proportional to the amount of taxes we paid. That's fair.
Why should the lower income groups have more in cuts than the higher income groups. That's a handout, I think.
To make himself happy, Matt can just donate all of his money to the British government to help fund the dole. Or he can just give it to some wino who does not want to work. That's fair and quite Biblical.
Wait a minute, isn't there someting about throwing pearls to swine???
What is unfair is small businessmen being taxed to death with a self employment tax and barely able to survive. What is unfair is estate taxes that force middle class people to sell family property after the death of their parents. The government has no money and people need to realize that. Only those who hold to Theonomy should believe the government is a benevovelent organization that redistributes the wealth. OT Israel is the only Theocratic nation God ever ordained and Israel is a picture of the Church. No writings in the New Testament rebuked Imperial Rome for not having Welfare.
The poor often take advantage of the welfare system as much as the rich take advantage of the Corporate welfare given to them. That does not to mean that all poor and rich people are crooks but greed among some of them takes advantage of the Socialism in place. The Government is not discerning enough to be benevolent. Churches and charity organizations can do a much better job and it is their place not the government. We don't need Government trying to make us charitable people. That is not the goal of Government to moralize people. Both the Religious Right and the Left are unintential allies in this area. The Religious Right thinks Government should be used to advance moral issues. The Left thinks the Government should be used to force people to give to charity through taxation. Government cannot effect the hearts of people. Only Christ can and Government in doing these things does a poor job and uses it to take advantage of civil liberties.
Get rid of the Income Tax and replace it with a National Sales Tax. That way both rich, poor, middle class will have more. Privatize Social Security. Why do you need Big Brother deciding what to do with your hard earned money when you can invest it in something more stable? What you make at your job you should be able to take home.
Run for office Kiffin
poor people are swine?
Will Catholic church-persons be voting for President Bush now that he has signed into law a strong measure in banning 'partial birth abortions?' One would think that they all would especially when the pope and the Catholic Church is so strongly opposed to the abortion of babies. Will Catholics still vote for a Democrat even though they 'sit on the fence' and push to pro-choice position?
poor people are swine? </font>[/QUOTE]Somehow, I don't think that context was referring to pigs or necklaces... I'm sure you've read it, what do you think it is about?
Actually, I was referring to
Which was why my comment directly followed his
would you say then that people who are unemployed in general:
a) are winos
b) don't want to work
would you then also conclude that wino's who don't want to work are employed?
no I wouldn't - plenty of people that don't want to work are employed and plenty of employed people have drinking problems
Thanks, Jul, for the nice article from the Weekly Standard, that Murdoch rag. Fred Barnes is terrific in my book, but the rest of them I am less interested in so I do not buy that magazine any more. That Bill Kristol irked me a few years ago when he went for McCain. I think that he is still in the White House dog house.
It is mostly the extreme left that hates Bush so much. I never tried to show disrespect toward any Democrat who was President. Once the election is over, I support the President to the best of my ability, and I want his critics to be fair towards him. Forty years ago, Americans realized how important and how fragile the President is. For the President's security, criticism of him should be just.
God is still in charge! One is happier by trying to be content in all circumstances, good or bad. As for the President, I think that he is trying to do everything that he can for the USA. I pray for all those in authority.
"No writings in the New Testament rebuked Imperial Rome for not having Welfare."
Imperial Rome had an extensive Welfare system. you never heard of Bread&Circus?
Maybe the quality of education in the US is as bad as my mother always claims.