2004 Politics Thread: Are you going to VOTE??

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/6/2004 1:15:44 AM Icicles wrote:

Fire&Ice-- I have a genuine question for you since I do not own a business. For one of my high school friends, their parents were able to claim Mercedes for all 3 of their under-age kids as expenses. These kids never even worked at the store, so to me, it appears to be completely personal. They also claim numerous things that they use in their house as business expenses. I understand this is all legitimate as well?

Again, this is not meant to offend you in any way. I am starting to think that i just know bad people.

----------------

To vague of a situation to even begin to judge. How are they set up - sole proprietor? S corp? Corp? Who said they claimed the cars & if true, how was it listed. Yes, there are many legitimate ways to claim some things like this. Are they officers of the company? Are the cars part of a "fleet". There exists so many variables & you aren't privy to what they actually filed. Many people boast such things when in reality it's not true. Not cool anyway unless it is the rantings of a teen ager. They could be legitimate expenses. They may be pushing the envelope. If they are, people get caught eventually.

And, yes, seemingly simple household items can be deducted -for example, my calanders & daily planers. My iron - I soley bought it to iron some vintage linens. Doesn't mean I don't use it for my clothes (not that I iron alot - hence why I didn't have one to begin with)- Shelves to store items. Sissors, knives, my digital camera, computer - all deductible. All used in my business. If I can make claim that I utilize these things in my business on a regular basis (or special use), I can claim them as deductions. All things purchased with the intent of generating income (i.e. digitals to send pics of items to clients). Doesn't mean I don't use it for personal use. Who would buy a digital camera for business and another one for personal use? And, if I go preview an auction, I can deduct my mileage even if I included a ride to the grocery store en route. Even with all the deductions, plenty of taxes are paid.

Remember, our government encourages ownership. Small business have a vital role in our overall economy.

It's not that cut and dry from the outside looking in. Yes, some people do push the envelope. But, it's certainly not regulated to the rich. Middle America is doing the same thing - just maybe on a lesser scale.

And, most of the loopholes that existed in the past have been closed w/ the advent of material participation (active & passive distinction).

 

[Icicles]

They own a wealthy real estate company so all their family cars are supposedly "company cars" that their employees never get to drive. I do not know how it was listed and if it is indeed true, but I have heard their parents brag about how nice it is to be able to get away with these things.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 7/29/2004 6:06:44 PM Icicles wrote:

Limits aren't always good. Suppose the mother, who is in her late second-trimester, would die of complications if her extremely deformed child is born. Would you let her die to save the child? How about a child who would be born without a brain? Imagine the anguish the mother would have to endure to carry the child to term? Things aren't always so black and white.

Don't get me wrong. I don't approve of abortions either, but women should have the right to choose, and Bush is trying to take that right away....

----------------

Wow, I take a two week vacation and look at the the posts since....

Although sometimes, as mentioned above, deformities in pregnancies or immediate health risks happen, they are quite rare. These examples are always cited as the reasons why abortions should continue freely.

There SHOULD provisions in abortion laws should included to protect the immediate PHYSICAL health and life of the mothers. However, blanket "health protection" is just a loophole to continue abortions at any time. That's because these clauses include the MENTAL health of the mother. The "mental health" would be the reason used 99.5% of the time and is just a euphamism for the pregancy being inconvienent.

So you know, even the Catholic Church allows "abortions" if the immediate life of the mother is in danger. The main problem with abortion is that is championed in order to skirt any responsibility the comes along with sex. I think it just falls in line with todays Era of No-Personal Responsibility which is usually documented by the ingrevious number of lawsuits we see.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 7/30/2004 11:32:38 AM Icicles wrote:

....In his speech, Kerry said that he will be lowering taxes for middle class, and raising it for the richest of America. He will be closing the loopholes so that money stops leaking out. I don't know if he'll be able to do it, but that's enough to get my vote. ----------------

Two problems I have is that, first, no presidential candidate with half a brain, will tell the American public that he will raise taxes. Walter Mondale did and look what happened to him. Back in 1992, Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut, but instead raised them after being elected. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that Kerry would heavily raise taxes if elected. Secondly, what is the middle class exactly? Specifically, how much do they make? Many politicians that are tax-o-philes eyes consider you “rich” and not middle class if they make staggering low amounts about money….like $50,000 a year.

Besides the fact that Kerry tries to be all things to all people, the other problem is that is the quintessential limousine liberal. He has more money than he will ever know what to do with, because he has twice married very rich women, but he wants to raise MY taxes to squander on more beurocracy. I’ve never fully understood the mental attitude of the limousine liberal. Do they feel guilty for being rich? Perhaps it’s because it is income that is taxed, not wealth. How about proposing a wealth tax on people worth over $10 million? That would be funny to watch all of the politicians calling for higher taxes squirm! Kerry thinks he is part of the proletariat, but he is just an elitist Massachusetts liberal.

Although I don’t agree with Bush on several things, I have respect for him, because his word has a lot more credibility than Kerry’s. Integrity in leadership is a trait, which at least, I still admire.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 7/24/2004 11:01:27 AM AGBF wrote:

I think George W. Bush is a puppet who is not intelligent enough to do anything unless he is instructed to do so by his advisors, principally Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Karl Rove knows Bush's constituency and what it wants and he tries to advise 'W' to take actions most likely to make that constituency happy without offending any other segments of his constituency.

I have not yet seen 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and the infamous seven minutes after 'W' learns of the attack on the World Trade Center, yet sits there posing for photos with school children to whom he is pretending to read a book. I believed, until I heard about that episode, that 'W' really wanted to wage a war on terrorism. His affect, when he delivered his speech to Congress after the attacks, convinced me that he felt he had found a cause.

Of course, now we know what he did with that cause. We know (courtesy of the 9/11 Commission) that first, he didn't pay attention to intelligence about the attacks before they took place. We know that he is very friendly with many wealthy Saudi Arabians and that he helped the family of Osama bin Laden to leave the US (although NOT when all other air flights were grounded as was originally charged). We know that he not only attacked Afghanistan, which housed the Taliban (put into power by the US when it was fighting the Soviet Union), but also IRAQ. Why he attacked Iraq, one of only TWO secular Arab countries in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism, is something at which we can only guess. We DO know that Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, got some lucrative contracts there to rebuild Iraq...even before it was destroyed and without competitive bidding.

I could go on and on, but if one reads the papers one need not read about all this here on a diamond forum. I am disappointed that the level of discourse here is so uninformed, however. The people who read Pricescope are generally intelligent and well-read. If no one here is well-informed about Mr. Bush's record, I have little hope that the rest of the country is.

I always vote, as many of you do. However, like some of you, I do wonder what the use of voting is, if one remains totally uninformed.

Deborah----------------

Wow, my third post. I’m on a roll today. Quibbling over the 7 minutes that Bush sat in shock after 9/11 is so silly. I think a lot of us sat in shock. Was he supposed to jump up like Action Man, roll up his sleeves and starting planning a war? If he had done that the Left would be saying that he knew the attack was coming and it was proof that he is a war monger. It’s a lose-lose situation for Bush. How long do you suppose FDR sat in shock after hearing about Pearl Harbor? Would you begrudge anyone 7 minutes? Leadership is defined in the course of months, not for 7 minutes.

Similarly, the far Left, graciously represented by Michael Moore, want it both ways. They attack Bush for, somehow, not acting on vague warnings about the 9/11 attack, but criticise him for acting on substantially more numerous warnings regarding Iraq. Had Bush ignored Iraq and something happened, the Left would be screaming even louder that he ignored warnings and intelligence. Another lose-lose situation for Bush. Unfortunately, the Left keeps looking through their “20/20 hindsight” goggles.

As far as the rest of the post, it is unfortunately, filled with lots of spin. The US started training anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan during the late 1970s. What is right or wrong twenty years ago, shouldn’t change what is right today. It’s just like the bull about unilaterism. What is right or wrong should not depend on the opinions of other countries. As for Halliburton, they won a 10 year contract to do support for the military a couple of years before Dick Cheney was CEO. If you have a conflict and need support, you wanted to be able to do something right away, instead of having to bid contracts for 10 months. Fire lots of accusations and see what sticks.

The difference between the “secular” Iraq and fundamentalist Islamic states are so tiny. It’s like in the 30s, the difference between Hitler’s fascism and Stalin’s communism was really quite small… both were totaltarist states. I don’t think one was better than the other.

I could also go on and on. I think the finger pointing and the slander should stop. Both sides do it but it’s fruitless, especially regarding 9/11. Reps blame Clinton for not doing enough too. However, the people to blame for 9/11 are Al-Qaeda. The war on terror is not going to be short. Islamo-fascists have hijacked Islam on a widespread basis. They attacked America simply because we do not live under Sharia law. Similar attacks have happened in the Sudan, the Philippines, and Thailand. These have could certainly not be attributed to the US’s position on Israel. However, Al-Qaeda won’t be fighting conventional warfare. They will hide and attack and use our own political division and media against us. They will play the role of the victim, while continuing to plan their next attack. What really matter is what is going to happen in the future and who’s plan for America do you like better.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 6:32:43 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

----------------
There SHOULD provisions in abortion laws should included to protect the immediate PHYSICAL health and life of the mothers. However, blanket 'health protection' is just a loophole to continue abortions at any time. That's because these clauses include the MENTAL health of the mother. The 'mental health' would be the reason used 99.5% of the time and is just a euphamism for the pregancy being inconvienent.
----------------

I do not think any woman who goes through two trimesters of a pregnancy (constant headaches, nausea and fatigue are common throughout the first trimester) and has an abortion that is as painful or more than childbirth terminates a pregnancy because it is "inconvenient". Let's face it, the inconvenience has already happened by then!

When the reason a woman chooses abortion is that she does not want to bear a child, she has an abortion in the first trimester.

And who the hell are you to use a pejorative term like "inconvenient" about a pregnancy? That trivializes a life-changing event in a woman's life. I don't believe that a collection of cells at 6 weeks is a baby any more than I believe that every sperm is sacred (although I believe YOU may believe what you want and espouse your point of view). I am glad you are not able to choose whether my life should be radically changed by the addition of a child just because I "got myself pregnant". (I assume that's how you view this? After all, you don't make the man bear that "inconvenient" child!)

AGBF

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/10/2004 10:32:51 AM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 8/9/2004 6:32:43 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

And who the hell are you to use a pejorative term like 'inconvenient' about a pregnancy? That trivializes a life-changing event in a woman's life. After all, you don't make the man bear that 'inconvenient' child!)

AGBF
----------------

AGBF, this struck a nerve with me as well. And, it burns me that men make the legislation. Yep, this is always the senario. Got pregnant. Found it inconvenient. Aborted. That simple. Instead of got pregant (because no correct information was given about conception & contraception). Freaked out as an 18 year old college student w/ no viable means of support & parents who would disown me. But, there is a baby inside of me that I already feel love for. My love is great enough to realize I could not provide this child with a healthy situation. Coming to term with this baby, one could not give it up. ........Yep, it's inconvenient - pure & simple. Such a disconnect w/ what goes on.

To further blow my mind, the very same "anti-abortion" niche have little in the way of helping a single mother. The child is just deemed a bastard. The mother evil for having sex. Of course, these women *should* give the baby up for adoption, after all there are so many couples who *need* children.

Sometimes I wonder if I am a single issue voter. I am very passionate about a women's right to choose. I can not see how someone could dictate a women's reproductive rights. BTW, for the record, I am not pro-abortion. I have some moral problems with terminating a pregnancy; but, I don't think it is up to me to legislate someone's right to choose. Edited to add: I have never been the situation noted above; but, it was confided to me by a friend years after the fact.

On a lighter note, I do like Barbara Bush better than Kerry's wife.

 

[glitterata]

---------------On a lighter note, I do like Barbara Bush better than Kerry's wife.

----------------

Don't you mean Kerry's mother?

(Edited to say: What happened to my winking smilie?)
(Edited again to say: Oh, there it is!)

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/10/2004 11:35:04 AM glitterata wrote:

---------------On a lighter note, I do like Barbara Bush better than Kerry's wife.

----------------

Don't you mean Kerry's mother?

----------------

good grief! I mean Laura Bush. That's what happens to middle age mush head when multi-tasking when flossing.

 

[Genafrgh]

I must agree w/fire&ice, on all the issues she laundry listed about Bush. The biggie for me is the erosion of womens rights. It makes me feel like a second class citizen. I appreciated Kerry taking the time to include issues that concern women in his speech at the DNC. That's just one of many reasons I'm voting for him this election.

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 6:58:53 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

[kerry] wants to raise MY taxes to squander on more beurocracy.

----------------

hmm, you would prefer bush, who squanders money on more bureaucracy just doesn't pay for it? he inherited a $300 billion surplus and has turned it into a $500 billion deficit. non-defense spending (i.e., unrelated to iraq or 9/11) has risen faster under bush than any president since lyndon johnson. taxes are going to have to be collected to pay for all his politically-motivated extravagences at some point, he's just gambling that it won't happen until long after he leaves office.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 8/10/2004 11:12:53 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

I have some moral problems with terminating a pregnancy; but, I don't think it is up to me to legislate someone's right to choose. Edited to add: I have never been the situation noted above; but, it was confided to me by a friend years after the fact.

----------------

I have no moral problem whatsoever in terminating a first trimester pregnancy. I am not a Catholic and I do not believe that a sperm and egg, together, are a baby. I do have problems with terminating one where a fetus is "viable" and could survive outside the mother.

Unlike the male legislators who want to make such an abortion illegal, however, I would leave that to a woman and her doctor. Why? Because, as stated above, the woman who is carrying a viable fetus wanted that baby. If she cannot continue with the pregnancy there is a major problem with the pregnancy. Major problems in pregnancy are medical problems; that is why I agree with the concept of "between a woman and her doctor".

I never had an abortion and if the birth mother of my child had had one available to her I might NOT have the child I adore. This isn't about me and my life; it's a matter of principle.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/10/2004 7:07:39 PM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 8/10/2004 11:12:53 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

I have some moral problems with terminating a pregnancy; but, I don't think it is up to me to legislate someone's right to choose. Edited to add: I have never been the situation noted above; but, it was confided to me by a friend years after the fact.

----------------

I do have problems with terminating one where a fetus is 'viable' and could survive outside the mother.

Unlike the male legislators who want to make such an abortion illegal, however, I would leave that to a woman and her doctor. Why? Because, as stated above, the woman who is carrying a viable fetus wanted that baby. If she cannot continue with the pregnancy there is a major problem with the pregnancy. Major problems in pregnancy are medical problems; that is why I agree with the concept of 'between a woman and her doctor'.

I never had an abortion and if the birth mother of my child had had one available to her I might NOT have the child I adore. This isn't about me and my life; it's a matter of principle.



----------------

I agree. But, (and I know I'm not going to be popular

) The argument that one *must* come to bare the child (over early "abortion) because so many couple *want* that child is not a viable "reason" for *not* legalizing abortion. Again, I feel like it puts women into the "breeding" catagory.

And, yeah, a no brainer as far as late term between doctor/patient....at least to me.
BTW, this "women" ...more tomorrow

 

[glitterata]

I'm just going to pop in to agree with F&I about this issue. It's my body. If I want to have a fetus grow into a baby inside it, good for me. If I don't want to host a fetus inside my own body, good for me, too. Nobody else has a right to tell me whether or not to do that.

There are too many people on this planet anyway. Why force women to go through the agony of pregnancy when they don't want the resulting child, just to further overpopulate the Earth?

Anybody who thinks abortions are wrong, fine--you don't have to have one.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 8/10/2004 11:12:53 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
.....To further blow my mind, the very same 'anti-abortion' niche have little in the way of helping a single mother. The child is just deemed a bastard. The mother evil for having sex. Of course, these women *should* give the baby up for adoption, after all there are so many couples who *need* children.

Sometimes I wonder if I am a single issue voter. I am very passionate about a women's right to choose. I can not see how someone could dictate a women's reproductive rights. BTW, for the record, I am not pro-abortion. I have some moral problems with terminating a pregnancy; but, I don't think it is up to me to legislate someone's right to choose. Edited to add: I have never been the situation noted above; but, it was confided to me by a friend years after the fact.

On a lighter note, I do like Barbara Bush better than Kerry's wife.

----------------

A lot of people writing here seem to be against abortions of viable fetuses. My original topic was that potential clauses in any abortion law, such as argued for partial birth abortion ban, is for the ¡§health of the mother.¡¨ My original objection is that the broad term of ¡§health¡¨ includes ¡§mental health¡¨ which can be construed for any reason. Any girl who decides late in the pregnancy that she doesn¡¦t want an abortion will obviously have ¡§undue mental anguish¡¨ and have some doctor agree with her and perform the abortion. In a way, that clause continues unrestricted abortion and realistically does nothing. This is what I was trying to point out.

I think some of the further problems I have with abortion, come along with a backlash against the general decline of personal responsibility. The idea of ¡§I want to have whatever amounts of sex with whomever and if there is a pregnancy we always can vacuum the baby out.¡¨ The phrase ¡§right to choose¡¨ also trivializes what happens. You critique that ¡§the very same 'anti-abortion' niche have little in the way of helping a single mother. ¡§ Why should I have to pay more taxes for the fact that a girl wasn¡¦t responsible, got pregnant and now needs more money? Is it my job to help her buy more baby clothes through some government handout? ƒº I¡¦m sure by now I¡¦m Mr. Popular.

As an anecdote, I remember back 8-10 years ago, there was a girl from another high school that had a baby in the bathroom at the prom and tossed the baby in the trash. She was rightly branded as evil in the press. I found it ironic that if she had an abortion a week earlier she would have been championed a hero of women¡¦s rights and the ACLU would have come to her defence.

 

[fire&ice]

I don't agree that abortion is a symptom of the lacking of personal responsibility. Abortion is a choice for the female. You seem to think that most chosing abortion does so lightly. Clearly, spoken like a man who does not understand the magnitude of even the simplest of hormonal changes.

I think men who impregnant women (who subsiquently have abortions) should be sterlized. After all, it's the man's fault.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I certainly don't want to get too deeply involved in a debate on abortion rights, but wanted to just say that as a formerly "unwanted" person (I'm adopted), it upsets me when people say that a child has no right to life just because it is unwanted. It's as if being "unwanted" means that I am not a human being and I have no right to exist. I understand more if someone doesn't think that the fetus is a baby, but being "unwanted"... This is an issue that really strikes home for me.

I think that some people take abortion lightly, and some view it as a serious decision. Anyway, I know it's a complex issue.

What I think we all can agree on is that we have to find a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, leading to fewer abortions, etc. My best friend (who is a very intelligent lawyer) got pregnant on the third date when she knew she was ovulating, yet didn't use birth control. I mean, really!

It's hard for me to understand why people aren't more proactive in preventing pregnancy. If you're going to have sex, then use birth control, and use it responsibly.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am a woman whose politics are very middle of the road.

ETA: this is my one and only foray into political discussions. I live in DC and hear more than my share on a daily basis. Back to diamonds for me!

 

[Icicles]

----------------
On 8/11/2004 9:32:03 AM fire&ice wrote:



I think men who impregnant women (who subsiquently have abortions) should be sterlized. After all, it's the man's fault.

----------------

totally agree!

i feel that men shouldn't even be allowed to use their penis until they can prove to be financially and physically responsible for the child. maybe we can invent a chip...

 

[chris-uk04]

I do agree that most women who do have abortions undergo a difficult decision. What does a promising 18 yo girl do if she gets pregnant? On one had, it would ruin any career and life, but on the other she may suffer long term emotional consequences. Anyway, the whole issue of abortion is very complicated. I’m not even sure exactly how I feel on certain issues regarding it. Traditionally, I lean libertarian, but this has a heavy moral element, so I’m torn in my head as well. I’m glad the discussion has remained polite and it’s been a bit insightful. For me, though, it’s not a voting issue.

At the end of the day, other people having abortions doesn’t affect me (unless it’s government funded!) For 2004, I really think terrorism is the number one issue. The security of the country is really the number one purpose of any government. 9/11 has had a lasting impact on me, especially since I grew up across the Hudson from the WTC. On the issues, which I would give Bush mediocre marks for, I can’t honestly see Kerry improving on (such as limiting non-defence spending).

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 8/11/2004 10:03:54 AM mmeowcollins wrote:

I certainly don't want to get too deeply involved in a debate on abortion rights, but wanted to just say that as a formerly 'unwanted' person (I'm adopted), it upsets me when people say that a child has no right to life just because it is unwanted.
----------------

Well..two things:

1. I agree that a child, wanted or unwanted, has a right to life. I don't think sperm does, or an hour old fertilized egg.

But, much more importantly:

2. I obviously don't know your circumstances. Perhaps you know you were "unwanted". I just hope you do not assume that all adopted children were unwanted or-if you do not know your own story-that YOU were unwanted!

My daughter is adopted and I believe with all my heart that her teenage birth mother in Colombia, who was forced to drop out of school and work as a domestic, would have kept her baby if she could have done so without her and the child landing in the streets (literally). The birth mother was described in glowing terms as kind and good. My daughter, from birth, took after her.

I, also, wanted her very, very much. I always told her that she was meant to be with me, that that was God's plan. I was 41 when she was born, and had been married for 16 years. I had undergone fertility treatments and cried each month when I saw that the method du jour had failed. Yet once my baby was born, I thanked God for giving me the right baby. I am so glad I was unable to get pregnant!!!

My daughter used to have 7 freckles, one on her bottom. She had a tendency to nag me incessantly about certain things, so I made up a story about how God was in heaven with her looking down at us. He said that that woman (me) would be her mother. She said that that woman sure had a lot of freckles, so she wanted some. God gave her a few...one at a time...but she kept wanting more. So finally He got sick of the nagging and gave her a push, telling her it was time to be born. But when He pushed her He gave her one last freckle on her bottom.

Deborah

 

[fire&ice]

Deborah, that was very moving. And, reaffirms my belief in Angels.

You daughter still playing cello?

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Deborah-

Technically, I don't know if I was unwanted, since my twin sister and I were left on the doorstep of a Korean orphanage when we were 3 days old. There is no way to find out the situation, although doctors assume that we were taken very good care of pre-natally because we didn't have the health problems that can come when pre-natal care was poor.

Personally I think a birth mother giving up her child is the most selfless thing that a person could ever do. I also believe that not everyone who is adopted was unwanted- like your daughter's situation, I'm sure there are many women who would have kept their children had they been able to. But there's still something deep, deep inside of me that has internalized being adopted as being unwanted. And it's strange that I think that way, b/c my parents always talked about the adoption as a very positive thing, like our birth mother loved us so much that she wanted to give us a better life than she could and that my parents were so happy and excited to get us. It's hard to tell what our subconscience is telling us.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Adoption stories are awesome.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/11/2004 5:30:02 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

Adoption stories are awesome.

----------------

Hey, this thread is about political discourse. How polarized we are!! No Kumbaya singin goin on here!

I agree. It's so nice to here good stories. And, to jump your gun - something the media just doesn't seem to *want* to report.

...well except for the NY times....F&I running...

 

[glitterata]

Mmeow, if you've been born, you have a right to be alive. And I, for one, am very glad that you are.

I guess it's possible that if abortion had been a choice available to your mother, you wouldn't have been born. (It's also possible that she could have had an abortion but chose not to. We'll never know for sure.) But for all of us, if things had been slightly different, we wouldn't have been born. If our parents had had sex the next day, instead--if a different sperm had met that egg--if Grandpa had taken the next boat, the one that sank--if Mom's first husband hadn't been killed in the war--if Dad had stayed home that evening instead of going to the party where he met Mom--and so on and so on.

Few people believe that people should try to fertilize every egg and bear as many children as they can so that those eggs can have a chance to become people. I'm sure you don't believe that the egg currently making its way out of my ovary has a right to get fertilized and incubated in my womb until it becomes a baby, even though my husband and I don't want children.

Similarly, I don't think that just because an egg gets fertilized it immediately becomes a person with rights. I believe the line is drawn somewhere else. For me, it's when the fetus could survive outside the mother's body (although as medical technology improves, that line is moving, complicating the question).

And Chris, nobody performs third trimester abortions unless there's a medical tragedy involved, like a fetus that would die instantly or endanger the mother's life. That example of the girl giving birth and killing her baby is a false example. She couldn't have had an abortion a week earlier. Nobody would have agreed to perform it. Is it even legal?

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 8/11/2004 7:53:29 PM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

Hey, this thread is about political discourse. How polarized we are!! No Kumbaya singin goin on here!

I agree. It's so nice to here good stories. And, to jump your gun - something the media just doesn't seem to *want* to report.

...well except for the NY times....F&I running...----------------

For a good laugh, whether you are pro-Bush or pro-Kerry, this video is a good laugh: This Land is Our Land

 

[Rank Amateur]

These two won't evoke much laughter, but take a look at:

http://www.swiftvets.com

and

http://www.kerryoniraq.com

 

[Icicles]

CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich
By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One-third of President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, shifting more burden to middle-income taxpayers, congressional analysts said on Friday.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) and calculations by congressional Democrats based on the CBO findings fueled the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).

Using the CBO's figures, Democrats in Congress said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.

In contrast, the report showed that households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090 while their share of the tax burden would move to 10.5 percent from 10.4 percent.

The CBO report said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

People with earnings in the lowest 20 percent, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, the CBO said. But Democrats said that meant their average tax cut was only $250.

Democrats said the CBO calculations, which they requested, confirm the view of independent tax analysts that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers.

"It is bad enough that George Bush has no plan to help middle-class families squeezed by declining wages and skyrocketing costs for healthcare, energy and college tuition," Kerry said in a statement.


"Now we find that he is deliberately stacking the deck against them. This is the straw that will break the back of middle-class families."


But Republicans said the CBO numbers showed Bush has provided tax relief for people of all income levels.


Rep. Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee (news - web sites), said the report showed Bush's tax cuts "have made the tax code more progressive and taxpayers across the income spectrum will be saddled with higher tax burdens if the tax cuts are not made permanent."


Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.


But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 a year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.

 

[Icicles]

i got the above article from Yahoo.

 

[Rank Amateur]

By those numbers, the poorest 20% received a 22% tax cut. Not bad for a group who hardly pays any taxes to begin with.

If those "wealthy" Americans received the same 22% cut the Democrats in the media would REALLY be screaming. Now all they have to do is complain that the various cuts are too small.