Let tax cuts expire
I am writing this letter to urge Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to vote for the
expiration of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. With this plan, if we define “the wealthiest” as those earning above $250,000 per year, we would raise a trillion dollars over the next decade to help with debt reduction and vital programs like education.
My husband and I are teachers and small-business owners. We work year-round at multiple jobs and still end up struggling to pay for basics: food, shelter, heat, college for our children. Yet I know we are lucky compared with other families who have harder struggles than our own.
The wealthy will say that they, too, struggle financially, but we know why: Luxury and frivolity costs a lot. Many people say that the rich deserve their toys and fun. They’ve worked hard — or they’re super-smart and they should reap rewards. Well, yes, they’ve worked hard (or not), and they’re smart (some of them), but mostly they’re lucky.
I think it would be great if those lucky people practiced what religions teach and shared just a little more of their good fortune with others. The ultra rich know that they can easily afford paying more in taxes. If they were honorable, they would offer to do so willingly. However, whether they
step forward or not, I hope we can count on our senators to allow Bush-era tax cuts to expire.
Kathreen Harrison
Camden
Conned by NRA
Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, and apparently a lot of other people, want to put an armed guard at every school in the nation. Here’s a little math. Let’s assume a security officer makes about $25,000 a year.
There are about 95,000 public schools in the U.S. That equals $2.375 billion dollars. That’s assuming one, average-salary cop or cop-equivalent. Schools are sometimes very large with multiple entry points, and one person would be easy to overcome by two even minimally organized shooters. Even one could get in and cause damage before a security officer even knew something was going on. So let’s call it at least two per school. That’s $4.75 billion.
Personally, if we are going to make the investment, I want highly-trained, well-paid security people specifically trained in protecting a school full of children, so let’s bump the cost up to $50,000 per security guard. Now we are at $9.5 billion dollars. This does not include private schools. This does not include public universities, many of which already have whole police forces that don’t always prevent shootings. Basically, the NRA wants the taxpayers to spend anywhere from $2 to $10 billion in part to buy more weapons from its members to protect our schools from weapons that they themselves spend $2 million trying to keep on the streets. I feel like we are being conned.
Sean Hendrix
Bangor
My holiday wish
I don’t disagree that it’s time for some type of gun control, but fair is fair. Lets put the blame where it belongs.The mentally challenged young man who performed the deadly act wasn’t the one to blame. If the guns had been properly secured, so he couldn’t get them, then the awful
situation may have been avoided. In the military I received expert rife and expert pistol medals and have a great respect for weapons. If we really want to do something let’s make it a federal law that all weapons, domestic and military, be properly secured at all times. Lets curb the sale of violent video games, DVDs and high-capacity magazines. Also a little gun education for the general public would be recommended.
That’s my Christmas wish this year.
Earle M. Rafuse
Bangor
Gun control and suicide
The media distortion of the facts regarding gun issues is very clear. For example a recent BDN article on Dec. 18, reports that gun deaths may approach 33,000 by 2015 and exceed motor vehicle deaths.The article goes on the note that there are 85 gun deaths daily with 53 of these being suicides. Therefore, 62 percent of gun deaths are suicide. I dare say, far fewer vehicular deaths are suicide.
Suicides result from mental illness and can be carried out by a variety of methods. Are they inferring that changing gun laws will result in fewer suicides? This is unlikely to change. People who want to kill themselves will do so by some other means. Gun suicides should not be counted in gun violence stats.
They also do not delineate how many deaths are one criminal killing another over drug related issues. Substance abuse and other psychopathology likely are the bigger issues.
The number of truly innocent victims of gun violence would seem to be small. These are the most dramatic and exploited by the media to sell periodicals, promote an agenda and enhance TV ratings.
Peter Thompson
Hampden
Kathreen Harrison – For the umteenth time, the government doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Demonizing and punishing the rich will REDUCE the revenue and make things worse, because or spend-happy government has no intention of cutting spending as long as their out-of-control spending will get them re-elected.
Sean Hendrix – 5 billion is a drop in the bucket for our government. After all, they shell out 70 billion every year in earned income credits (you know, that money program that ensures that more and more people remain in poverty and beholding to the government). Which is more important: keeping people in poverty, or protecting our children?
If we stopped buying $300 toilet seats for the military
we might not be headed for the cliff.
Ever been to the Bangor Airport lately and noticed all
the TSA agents milling around , salivating when they make you take off your shoes ??
What a scam.
And they are rude.
Every one of them Little Hitlers.
TSA is the largest expansion in government in the last 10 yrs, at a huge cost both now, and when those federal employees retire with benefits. And we are NO safer than we were 10 yrs ago.
Closing the military golf courses around the world would save a couple billion.
Having been in many airports and encountered many TSA’s, I believe you are right. The Bangor TSA are the grimmest, least pleasant and most officious of any I’ve encountered.
You need to go to Miami then….
Ah, yes, Miami. I was there once. Ghastly. I’d put it out of my mind. You’re right Miami is worse than Bangor. The Bangor cafeteria does have good egg salad sandwiches. LOL
Last time I was in Miami airport it took me 6 tries to find someone who spoke English.
I love a good egg salad sandwich. Mayo … not Miracle Whip.
The food at the Calais Hospital cafeteria is pretty good , also.
And the BBQ wagon in the Calais True Value/IGA Plaza in Calais is great.
Pulled pork : A-1
But my favorite is Rosies Hotdogs on the pier in Eastport.
Cooked in Pnut oil makes the difference.
….I hope they are open for the New Year Party.
You have to hand that bag of goodies to Congress.
WE have both spending and revenues problems.
As for protecting our children, I think the NRA and the gun industry need to fund this high intensity “solution” to low risk situations.
Giving the rich tax breaks for the last 30 years has resulted in what?
I got a suggestion. The federal government taxes everyone at a 100% and then gives out what the government decides that each and every citizen needs. That way everyone pays their fair share.
After all the government knows best, right?
You must have read Obama’s book.
I waited for the movie, “Obama’s 2016”.
You mean the Communist Manefesto?
Oh my, even wilder allegations. Again.
I simply asked a question, I made no allegation. I am not you
Let me guess? In denial over Ndaa fast and furious and the murder of innocent women and kids via drone?
Conservatives love communism. Hell, they are willing to sell the country to Communist China.
Dont be obtuse, Republican Progressives will sell the country not conservatives.
I didn’t know that there were any Republican Progressives. I thought that the radical right had exterminated them. Oh they might have a few RINOs in zoos for exibition, but for the most part they have been eliminated.
Larry your argument just went back the the Trump gulag.
I made no argument, and would not waste time arguing with you. Your only response is just plain BS.
As the top marginal rate under Reagan for the first six years of his presidency was 50%, I presume you would condemn him as a “communist.”
The tax change at issue raises the rate on taxable income over $250,000 by just 4.6%, from 35% to 39.6%. A taxpayer with $1,000,000 in adjusted gross income has taxable income of about $850,000, so his tax burden will increase by just 4.6% of $600,000, or $27,600. That represents 2.76% of his adjusted gross income.
Larry, stop worrying about the few extra dollars I might pay in taxes: I can afford it. You can’t afford a reduction in your veterans benefits that would occur if we adopted the chained CPI for inflation adjustments to all federal benefits.
That was then this is now. Our economy was recovering from Carter and Reagan was reducing tax rates for most of his two terms.
As usual your opinion is totally specious.
No, Reagan never said that the government is the answer to the problems of the country as does our present administration.
Reagan was not totally against government anymore than Nixon was . If you think so, you ought to re-educate yourself. Also, why are chenard’s opinions “specious” and yours are not!
Of course No one intheir right mind says that the government is totally bad, there are things that only a government can do, but there are things that the government CAN NOT do too. and our government is trying to do thins that it is not possible for any government to do without becoming totalitarian, or fascist in your terms.
Reagan endorsed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. According to a Treasury Department analysis, it raised taxes by close to one percent of GDP, equivalent to $150 billion per year today, and was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Don’t you just hate facts?
As I said it was over 30 years ago and we were recovering from Carter’s administration.
Interesting that you first say”probably” and then say “Fact” a suposition is not a fact.
I predict that that “piddiling” $150 Billion will be dwarfed by the tax increases by Obamacare and the result of the Democrats taking us over the cliff. Yes the Democrats, because they refuse to make any spending cuts.
You are arguing around the head of the pin and missing the forest for the trees–even the CBO’s numbers aptly demonstrate that you cannot tax your way out of a 16+ trillion deficit regardless of how much you “tax the rich”. Sure, go ahead and raise taxes on them. It might make you feel better and appease the class warfare clarion calls, but like the proverbial siren you’re still headed for fiscal ruin.
It was pretty late when you posted this … did it get posted in the right place it seems that we agree. Without drastic cuts in expenditures the deficit, never mind the debt, will never be fixed.
It’s just one cog. Negotiating Medicare scripts would be another and there are many more.
You both miss the point entirely!! The illegal and unconstitutional and non federal federal reserve IS the problem. Period.
I do not disagree with your point, I was more arguing that because it was done before does not make it right to do it again.
Our Federal government has been operating against the Constitution for at least 100 years and I believe that it has been unconstitutional for 150 years.
Yes it has…and it’s time to end that reign..
You conveniently forget that Reagan agreed to those tax increases because congress promised at least $2 if not $3 in spending cuts in exchange for the tax increases.
None of the spending cuts happened. And Reagan later stated that agreeing to the tax increases and trusting congress to make cuts was one of his worst mistakes while in office.
Reagan was told by David Stockman that trickle down was a failure and he wrote it so up went taxes.
Government had better be an answer to our problems. They are to be handled without it!
What the hell are you trying to say???
Who is to be hand led and by whom?
Or you trying to say that someone has to be handled?
Maybe that the citizens have to lied to (handled)and taken by the hand and shown what to believe?
Kathreen, Its not surprising that someone who works as a teacher (and I presume public school teaching) in which income is derived from taxing people would rally to tax the rich. I dare say if both you and you husband work as teachers, own a small business, and work other assorted jobs and are still struggling, then maybe you should scale back your own spending and stop trying to do the dishonorable thing and “take” from others. To say rich people are just lucky is ridiculous. A fellow professional friend of mine who is generally perceived as well off once said to me “The harder I work, the luckier I get”. Everyone makes their choices and should have to live with them.
What a brilliant posting! Life according to you is simply a matter of choosing the right jobs, etc., and thereby the rich are devoid of any moral if not legal obligation to the rest of America. Those born into wealth and privilege deserve it, as in Social Darwinism. The various tax laws that allow the wealthiest often to pay far smaller taxes, if any, than ordinary folks–as epitomized by Warren Buffet vis-a-vis his secretary–is presumably your idea of “The Way Life Should Be.” What planet do you live on?
More to the point, what kind of a job does clifford have?
Oh-you mean the one that was given to me when I was born? I was originally assigned a burger flipping job at a popular fast food place but managed to work my way out of it eventually.
I wish life was as easy as simply “choosing the right jobs”. More correctly, it should be making the “correct choices” and not expecting others to pay for bad ones. I sense some obsession to level the playing field from those born into wealth from you. Envy is a nasty emotion you may want to work on. That Buffet tax fallacy you’re perpetuating needs work. Let me help you out: http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/12/pf/taxes/buffett-rule/index.htm?iid=Popular
So, the Waltons didn’t get lucky when they were born with the right last name? How about the Koch brothers being born millionaires? Shrewd planning and good choices? lol. Buffett screwed the town of Dexter when he closed down a profitable shoe company putting hundreds of central Mainers out of a job and moved it to China. I have been advocating that we put up a bill board with his mug on it on the side of the roads coming into town with a big red circle around it and a line through it. We need to start teaching our kids who NOT to be like. That greedy little worm Buffett would be a great one to start with.
Here we go-another liberal obsessed with the wealth of others. I never said good choices would make anyone a multimillionaire. I was lucky enough to have my job go foreign back in 2000 after almost two decades of loyalty. It took me five more years to work my way back up to where I left off. Maybe you should direct your wrath at the politicians who got us into these free trade agreements (which I don’t care for and yes it was both sides). I would guess Buffet never heard of Dexter, Maine so don’t take it personally. You can always stop shopping at Walmart if you don’t want to support those born with the right last name.
Jealosy is a terriblly debilitating disease if left undiagnosed.
You should get that checked out.
Let me help push it off the cliff.
Stop making laws.
I believe that if an agreement to tax the top 2% isn’t approved than it will be the demise of The Republican Party and the NRA isn’t far behind with their spokesman’s idea’s. This is almost 2013 and we need changes as our old 2 party system is outdated and as of late it has proven so over and over. I like the 20% flat tax so all pay the same percent and that is the fairest of all, eliminate tax shelters and loopholes and simply our taxes.
I was in agreement until you got to the “fairest of all” flat tax. No way, Jose.
The constitution clearly states; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This matter of killings in our schools is being turned into a call for ending this right of Americans. There is another commonality between these shootings and this common factor is found present in many deadly crimes all over the world. It is prescribed mind altering drugs issued for mental depression and other emotional reasons. see this link, http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=410
The constitution can be amended. Our elected personnel are sworn by oath to uphold the constitution. Not just the parts they agree with but in entirety. If they take action contrary to constitutional law they then become domestic enemies of the constitution. I say stop this “knee jerk” reaction to a serious problem and we can all come together and solve it. We gun owners are just like you. We are parents, grandparents, great grand parents, students, and your neighbors in all walks of life.
It was not until 2008 that your interpretation was sanctified by the then Supreme Court. That ruling can be overturned. The constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is related only to a well regulated militia. We have an unregulated free-for-all going in this country when it comes to guns at this point in our history. There is nothing well regulated about it.
Hey Momma, why don’t you get in your kayak and paddle far far away. I hear the upper North Atlantic is nice this time of year.
Well, WTF I suggest you pack your NRA mentality and take it far, far away. I hear Texas thinks well of people like you.
Sorry, you’re stuck with me, but give it a chance and I’ll grow on ya.
So does fungus.
Well, then we’ll put up with your ramblings and try to understand your point of view. However, it would help if you were more articulate and less censorious.
Mississippi sounds like a good place for you.
See response to msallyjones.
After you.
You don’t really want the SCOTUS to start flippantly overturning rulings. The next thing they will go for is Roe vs. Wade, so be careful what you wish for.
The second amendment actually states, “The right of the people……”. We have thousands of gun laws on the books so don’t tell me about an “unregulated free for all” because it’s plenty regulated.
But first it states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Our Constitution clearly states that we have the “right” to free speech. That right has been both expanded and restricted in the last 5 years. It is perfectly constitutional to regulate our rights. And the right to firearms ownership can be regulated without amending the constitution.
Along with rights for individuals are the rights of the public and one of those rights is the right to be safe from mass killings in public places. When, as in the past 5 years there have been incidences of mass killing in public, we, the people have a compelling interest in directing our government to restrict ownership of these kinds of weapons. These restrictions in no way curtail your right to own a rifle or a pistol.
“It is perfectly constitutional to regulate our rights”.
In that case, I’m sure you won’t complain when and if government decides to sensor things like new papers and networks who aren’t aligned with governments agenda.
That has happened already, will probably happen again. If it becomes too egregious the issue will be brought before the Supreme Court just as will the coming restrictions on gun ownership.
The constitution and bill of rights were intended to be restrictions on government, not the people. What good are these documents when government throws them out whenever it seems convenient? We shouldn’t have to wait until things get so bad and turn to the supreme court, the constitution and bill of rights should stop government dead in its tracks. Lastly, I don’t need a panel of judges to tell me what the constitution says. When these supposed “experts” of the constitution can’t even agree (hence 5-4 or 6-3 decisions) that tells me that a good percentage of them, either don’t understand the constitution or are legislating from the bench.
Captain Pain, jurist par excellence. You even disown your buddy Scalia?
Who said he was my buddy?
Your comment indicating that the Constitution is inerrant and immutable are the same beliefs Justice Scalia espouses.
Scalia thinks that states should be able to criminalize homosexuality (Lawrence vs Texas). He and I do not share the same beliefs. I simply believe that the constitution and Bill of Rights are the foundation of our government, that they are the supreme law of the land, and that they mean what they say.
They are the foundation of our government. They are the supreme law of the land and they also mean what they say. But when a situation arises in which it is not clear whose rights are which then someone wise and trusted has to look at the Constitution and try to figure out the puzzle while still preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the rest of the citizens. The Constitution gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court.
LOL ” jurist par excellence” good one.
You are wrong Mr. Pain. Neither the Constitution nor the bill of right or the rest of the amendments are “restrictions” The constitution is an outline of how we will structure our government and what actions are appropriate for the citizens and which are appropriate for the government.
I see the bill of rights as restrictions of government, just my perspective. I view it as the supreme law of the land and I view any unconstitutional law to be illegal and invalid.
You don’t seem to have a very good understanding of what a constitution is, how it is used, who uses it, how it should be interpreted. You appear to think you have been empowered to not only interpret our Constitution but also to judge it.
The magic words that show your true agenda:
“how it should be interpreted.”
And of course people like you, who think and believe like you are the only ones who should be doing the interpreting. Right?
Not at all. As a citizen I abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court as the lawful interpreters of the meaning of the Constitution.
If you read the history of the constitutional convention and of the adoption of the constitution then you would know that the bill of rights was definitely intended to be permanent restrictions on the power of the federal government.
That you deny this fact shows how little you really know about the bill of rights.
You call the Bill of Rights restrictions on government. I say the Bill of Rights is an outline of appropriate behavior for the government. You use judgmental terms because you appear to think government is something imposed on you by outside forces. I think in terms of organization and behavior because I think of our government as the framers of the Constitution thought of it: a document by all of us, for all of us and of us: ” We the People”
You should see the original document in the National Archives. Those three words are hugely written. The rest of the document is written in tiny script. But you can see the words “We the People” from the other side of the room.
I think you need to dig out your textbooks from U.S. History and American Government class.
What parts of my opinion do you think are historically incorrect?
Before the addition of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution was, by and large, an outline of how the federal government would operate. The only individual right mentioned was trial by jury for criminal matters. The only prohibitions placed on the federal government in actions against individuals were regarding the definition of treason and passing ex post facto legislation.
The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, solidified individual rights.
The Antifederalists opposed the Constitution because it didn’t list individual rights. The Federalists claimed rights of individuals were “understood” and didn’t need to be memorialized.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you will easily see that it recognizes the rights of individuals.
First Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to associate, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition the government.
Second Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to bear arms.
Third Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to privacy in the home during peace.
Fourth Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to privacy not only in the home, but in all belongings, without reason, and without a warrant that has been issued based on probable cause.
Fifth Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to due process insofar as indictments, multiple trials, and surrender of property are concerned, and confirms an individual’s right to remain silent in criminal cases.
Sixth Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and further affirms an individual’s right to due process and right to confront witnesses.
Seventh Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to a jury trial in civil cases.
Eighth Amendment: Confirms an individual’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail.
Ninth Amendment: Confirms that individuals have rights not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Tenth Amenment: Confirms that powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and individuals.
Each of the original 10 amendments recognizes individual rights and restricts the federal government in what it can do to individuals and, at least with the 10th Amemdment, the states.
Prohibiting a class of firearms based primarily on their appearance does, in fact, have the effect of infringing the individual’s right to bear arms. In Heller, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ordinance that banned all handguns because there was no compelling interest to ban handguns that overrode an individual’s right to choose a handgun over a rifle or shotgun.
The same holds for proposals to ban “assault” rifles. From 2007 through 2011, rifles were used in 1,874 murders in the United States. That’s all types of rifles, not just so-called assault rifles. During that same time, 4,058 murders were committed using knives, hands, and feet. That’s a ratio of more than 2-to-1. The fact is, the use of “assault” rifles in murders is almost non-existent. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to prohibit them.
Oh my, another bogus conspiracy.
What conspiracy?
“The government” doesn’t just decide to amend the constitution… There’s a lot more to the process than that. Administrations come come and go that do things that dishonor the constitution, like domestic spying or ignoring habeaus corpus protections, but actually amending the document… Nope… The corporate media is wholly in bed with govt… So no need to sensor the news… It happens minute to minute already. Anyone with an Internet connection can find evidence of that.
Making up more rights I see. You progressives are good at inventing rights that YOU want but infringe on others.
Of course the public has a right to be safe. It’s the very heart of our Constitution. You have, in your fervor to advance your individual rights over public rights forgotten this.
From: “Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties
The classic definition of “natural rights” are “life, liberty, and property”, but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of “personhood”, not “citizenship”. These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.
Ask yourself this Mr. Trickle-up: If there is not a public right to safety and security why does ever city, county, state, and country have police forces?
More people die each year from knives, hands, and feet than from so-called assault rifles.
How come you ignore the first half of the second amendment? Which “well-organized militia” do you belong to, in order to justify your gun ownership? Cherry-picking the portions of the constitution that you like while ignoring their context makes you look like a fool.
The Second Amendment enforces an individual’s right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia if the time comes for one. Please read the Supreme Court’s background on the Second Amendment in its Heller decision. Additionally, the Bill of Rights affirms individual rights, not rights of the federal government.
Furthermore, the Maine Constitution is quite clear that individuals have the right to bear arms.
Kathreen, do you tax your good students a letter grade and redistribute it to those that don’t study on the basis that the successful students are just lucky?
And the analogies get wilder and less relevant.
When the rich contribute as much blood in wars to protect their interests, I will feel a little empathy for the rich.
Kathreen, find another profession and stop whining about what someone else has. Oh I forgott, you must be part of the ‘take it away from them and give it to me’ crowd. I deserve it and they must have stolen it from someone anyway. Jealous much?
Jealousy seems to come from the conservative clique. Many teachers, on spite of the flack and unwarranted denouncement, actually care for kids and education.
‘on spite’, maybe you should attend her class. Get the basics down at least, then you may be marginally qualified to join an intellectual discussion. But I doubt it.
So tell us, Mr. Bird-rider, in what class did you learn that the basics of intellectual discussion were misquotes and innuendoes?
K. Harrison, S. Hendrix, E. Rafuse: Good letters
Give up your guns and its all over folks. Look at history. Every nation that has been taken over by fascists started with the gun grab. This is no joke. Inform yourselves—- sandy hook shooting begs for your independent research, too many things don’t add up. Too many…look for yourselves before crying tin foil hat or whatever makes you feel better. The mainstream media should be ashamed! So should we for listening! Critical thinking has never been more important..
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” MAHATMA GANDHI
The proposed laws do not require you to give up your guns, any of them. Everything you now own is grandfathered. These laws in no way resemble the British laws disarming India after the Sepoy Rebellion. They simply try to control the additional sales of semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity magazines. There is no need for citizens to have firearms designed to kill as many people in as short a time possible.
Additionally I suggest you re-read your history. Those countries that banned gun ownership voted themselves into fascism long before they banned gun ownership. Fascism does not start with “gun grab”. It starts with an overwhelming influence from industrial or corporate owners.
There are ALREADY laws regarding semi autos in CT.! No one seems to be reporting that? Hmm?
And thank you, I’m well aware, ” …voted in fascism long before they banned gun ownership…it starts with overwhelming influence from industrial and corporate owners.”
Ya think? You mean to tell me you can’t even see what you just described! in denial much? No kidding they voted fascism in—- uh, hello, Barak Obama? The nobel peace prize winning constitutional expert who drone murders children and kills our constitution and bill of rights? Do you mean to tell me we arent in the grips of a corporate/industrial nightmare right now? are you kidding me? gmo foods? aspartame? vaccines? big pharma? six corporations control all of our “news”! Yeah, thanks YOU voted him/ fascism in! Unbelievable…get a clue, please..this is insulting…..
All the institutions, laws and culture you are riling against existed long before President Obama was elected.
Genetically manipulated foods are the result of Republican laws. Big Pharma is protected by Republicans. Most news corporations are owned by corporations controlled by Republicans. And nobody is trying to control anyone with vaccines and Aspartame. That is just loony thinking
Mitt Romney was supported by corporate interests bent on controlling not just the Presidency and the Legislature but also our culture and religion. Adelson and Koch and Rove and all their many dissembling organizations tried to manipulate the electorate by blanketing the airways with outright lies and attempts to pass laws that would curtail minority and lower income voters. Fascism is coming straight from the conservative Supreme Court and the Republican heart.
President Obama is not a fascist. You need to look up the definition of fascism. Clues abound. Use them.
President obam not a fascist? Fast and furious? Pleas explain? Ndaa? Which he was sued for, and lost, and immediately appealed, please explain?
You demonstrate the exact problem. There is no left and right. It’s a joke. It’s called the dualistic paradigm and you’ve been played. When you think of someone like Obama as liberal, despite reality, which includes the murder of innocent women and children, well, your argument kinda loses any validity. Obama has intensified the agenda of bush, but label him a liberal and it’s ok? Seriously? Again, you insult free thinking Americans who see beyond the two party joke. You realize the media is owned by corporations? Do I need to connect the dots? Wake up. Please. Stop wining about Koch, and Romney and aderson. You’re missing the point! Obama is as guilty if not more! Get it?
I need to look up fascism? Really? Hahaha, yup…lets see, drone murders, Ndaa, wiretapping, refusal to reinstate Habeous corpus, etc. sounds fascist to me?
But then again I employ critical thinking.
Fast and Furious is the extension of Operation Wide Receiver Bush’s gun walking program. NDAA was just reauthorized by the Republicans. Drone murders were researched and perfected under the previous administration.
Critical, yes. Thinking, nyah.
Again, you insult. Please gain a clue before trying to one up . Fast and furious? We’ll never really know because Obama invoked executive privledge! Hmmm, I wonder why he did that?? Goly Gee??
NDAA. No. He didn’t draft it. But he could have, and should have, stopped it. Talk about fascist legislation. Obama promised first not to sign it. Then said he would sign, but cut out that part about detaining American citizens. Guess what? He did neither! What’s more? He signed it on New Year’s Eve!! Clueless much? Do you know he was sued by Chris hedges and Noam Chomsky, et al, over Ndaa and LOST? What did team obama do after the defeat? Immediately appeal. What’s that tell you?
Drones. Again, conceived and first used under W. guess what? Obama has many more drone kills then W did. Many.
“President Barack Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan since he took office in 2009, more than four times the number of attacks that President George W. Bush authorized during his two terms, according to the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public-policy institute.”
And this is old info!!! Obama has murderd hundreds of innocent women nd chidlren!!
So, no, sorry, you are incapable of critical thinking yet you somehow think you aren’t? uhm,
I give up. Your critical thinking has generated such brilliant logic you have convinced me that: we are living in a fascist state; there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans; Aspartame is causing baldness in women, impotence in men and teens that don’t listen to good advice. Additionally vaccines are probably a liberal plot to lower the IQ of Libertarians. Isn’t it wonderful what critical thinking can do?
Wow. Deflection will get you no where.
You were obviously wrong in your previous posts in regard to:
Ndaa, drones and fast and furious. And you still avoid acknowledging that by trying cry conspiracy theory? Weak. You demonstrated you have not a clue regarding Obama and his administrations egregious actions. Weak. If you care to address the actually topics relevant to the post—- Ndaa, fast furious. Drones, go ahead.
I don’t care if you’re conceived or not. To deny that republicans and democrats aren’t corporately backed jokes is to deny reality.
As far as aspartame. Do your own research. Again, a weak attempt at defection and not answering questions….Vaccines? You want one? Go right ahead.
In summary, you haven’t a clue what you’re yapping about and this post proves it. Keep crying tin foil hat. It’s a lot easier than acknowledging realty I guess?
“I don’t care if you’re conceived or not.”
Critical thinking. Ya gotta love it. LMAO
Sorry, convinced, darn auto correct.
Wait! Not answering anything, yet AGAIN! LMAO!
Pathetic
Reality and facts, huh?
I’ll wait for an actual answer as to why you blame previous administrations for the actions of the current one. Or how it’s possible that you have not one clue as to what’s going on?
Seriously, inform yourself.
You’ve already demonstrated that you have no idea what’s going on.
You blame W for Obamas actions! Come on…You proved you know nothing about NDAA or fast and furious. Nothing. And instead of admitting that, you attempt this conspiracy theory angle? What is your deal? So transparent.
If you obama freaks would get over yourselves and simply acknowledge reality maybe we could stand a chance? But no. Keep playing pretend and thanks for absolutely nothing.
Back to tee vee and the pasture with you. Sheep
No, I give up. Your complete ignorance of the facts is astonishing as is you’re inability to answer questions.
Sorry, one more thing. Wen you realized that Obama has indeed dropped many many more drones in a much shorter time than W did over eight years what was your reaction? When you realized that Obama has the blood off hundreds of innocent little kids on his hands what was your reaction? Because nothing less than outrage speaks volumes.
How do you sleep at night?
“Like George Bush’s government in Iraq, Obama’s administration neither documents nor acknowledges the civilian casualties of the CIA’s drone strikes in north-west Pakistan. But a report by the law schools at Stanford and New York universities suggests that during the first three years of his time in office, the 259 strikes for which he is ultimately responsible killed between 297 and 569 civilians, of whom at least 64 were children. These are figures extracted from credible reports: there may be more which have not been fully documented.
The wider effects on the children of the region have been devastating. Many have been withdrawn from school because of fears that large gatherings of any kind are being targeted. There have been several strikes on schools since Bush launched the drone programme that Obama has expanded so enthusiastically..”
What’s that about critical thinking? Yeah, thought so.
Stop listening to corporate media. You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about
Nope. Way off and very irresponsible by the way. To blame GMO foods on republicans is absurd and part of the problem. As you yourself stated, fascism starts with the influence of industry and corporations—- do you know how many people from Monsanto are in the FDA? get a clue. It’s been a done deal for a long time. And of course it started long before Obama but its sickening to watch you so called liberals peddle this wolf in sheeps clothing with such zeal. Obama is a corporate puppet like W and Clinton. Get over yourselves, please.
Do you get the concept of divide and conquer? Because your posts say you don’t. One more time, there is NO difference between the two corporately backed parties anymore! It’s long over!
Big pharma is protected by republicans? Wheat on earth? Really? Uh, hello, they wrote obamacare! Unbelievable…
If fascism is coming from the “republican heart” please explain what I pave already mentioned: Ndaa, drone murders, unconstituional war in Libya, backing al quaeda in Syria, wiretapping, tsa, fast and furious, Habeous corpus, banker bailouts, executive privledge, transparency, etc etc…..
Oh, and ask brad manning how he’s doing?
Where do you get your facts? Republicans own news and media outlets? What? Do you realize how insulting this is? No they don’t. Six corporations control the media. Period.
By supporting the “democrats” you are supporting the corporate state. Same as the “republicans”. You are, indeed, one in the same.
You say Romney was supported by corporate interests bent on controlling not just the president and congress but our culture and religion?? Uhm, wow, I don’t how to break this to you, but, uh, this has already happened!!! Hello!!!!!
What color is the sky in your world?
No need for citizens to have semi autos? Really? Tell that to every corporately oppressed wage slave as the army knocks down their door..
.tell that to Che Guevara
If corporate oppressed wage slaves would organize instead of bashing unions they would no longer be corporate oppressed wage slaves. I’m sure you are about to tell me that unions are fascist organizations. It appears that anything you don’t like is fascism.
What are you talking about? Unions? Nope. not even close. And making gross assumptions? You know what they say about making assumptions?
Again, can you answer an actual question? Or admit you’re clueless about Ndaa and fast and furious? Seriously. Stop insulting with ignorance
Sean, I think it is safe to say Virginia Tech had a whole department of armed security guards that didn’t so much as fail to protect the students as they were unable to foresee the danger. The NRA USED to be about education and safety… To a degree they still are, but you are correct to say they promote gun sales and the big business of guns and weaponry. They have moved away from their original purpose. For a small rod and gun club to get a NRA grant the club must force all members to become NRA members… I’d like to see members quit in protest. I own a gun, am not a NRA member and will never be one. They have become an extremist organization. It is a shame.
Many competitive shooters do not agree with the goals and objectives of the NRA but belong because they must have membership in order to compete in official matches.
Earle M. Rafuse, I think we should prosecute Lanzas mother. Oh that’s right, she was murdered also. We don’t know if he murdered her to gain access to the guns he used.
Bingo Sean. LaPierre, Nugent, Norris; now there is a blue blood crosscut of the density that sits on the NRA Board. Same as it ever was; exclude them from the debate once and for all, and I think you will find many gun owners like myself glad you did!!!!!!!
The “My Rights-My Guns” (MRMG) crowd has apparently run completely off the rails about the Feinstein bill restricting further ownership and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. The amount of pure baloney the “MRMG” people have thrown out in cyber space about this bill is enough to keep the world in sandwiches for the next century.
We will, in the coming months, have a long overdue public discussion about gun laws and gun control. It would be helpful if people on both sides of the issue would read the bill, have a working knowledge of what is permitted and what is banned so that the coming debates can be rational and the laws developed are fair to everyone.
Hey anyone notice Congress got a pay raise this weekend? Yep – our tax dollars at work (secretly).
Whoa. Really? my holiday wish? So if this child murdering ahole had lived and you were on the jury, to charge him for his crimes? Would you have been the one person to cry he was innocent? He would have found a way to do what he wanted with or without a gun. A bomb, a knife, a rock, or anything else he could think of. The rock and the knife would have caused less death. But, the pain of those smaller losses would have been no less of a tragity. You have a horrible view point. I hope you are never on a jury or are any type of judge. You probably, think woman deserved to get raped if they wear a short skirt. You do not blame the weapon or looks of a person for the criminals crime. You blame the criminal. Period.