Homophobes, Racists, and Wall Street, Oh My

You know, I have already written on the fact that I am quite tired of the tactics of the far left in America when it comes to debate. The problem that I have is that the far left in America is completely unable to debate. Period. They just cannot do it. Their arguments are based on emotion, not facts. They rile up the masses using class warfare instead of telling the truth and finding a better way forward. They generally just annoy me. And when they realize that they are losing the debate horribly they resort to their fall back tactic… name calling.

We witnessed it a month or so back. The annoying and led around by the nose Kid Funkadelic decided to debate me on race relations in the United States. I tried to have a civil discussion and pointed out some of the realities that I had learned. I was willing to accept the mistakes of the past, but not pay for them personally (after all I hadn’t been the one to actually make them). And when he found himself getting eaten alive in logic backed argument, he resorted to the fall back plan…. He called me a racist. End of discussion. I didn’t have valid points. I was a racist and therefore my saying anything against his position was a result of the racist elements in my DNA coming out to play.

Enter Barney Franks. I make no bones about the fact that I think Barney Franks is a piece of trash. He drove the Fannie/Freddie debacle, pushing the government in the direction the company wanted to go in order to get rich, while simultaneously sleeping with a top executive. He went out and told America in July that Fannie and Freddie were sound investments and that America had nothing to worry about, 2 months before they collapsed, and took our economy with them. 

The Massachusetts Democrat came out and called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a homophobe” in an interview released Monday on a gay online news site, and said he hoped a challenge to a federal law widely disliked in the gay community will not be heard before the high court until new justices are seated on the bench. Frank, who is gay, made the remark in responding to a question about legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The 1996 law says the federal government and states have no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages even if other states allow them. 

“At some point, [the Defense of Marriage Act] is going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court,” the congressman said. “I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court.” 

I have two problems here. The first is that he called a Supreme Court Justice a homophobe. He did so because he cannot argue with Justice Scalia on the merits of the legislation. He did so because that is the default answer for every democrat that is losing an argument. Scalia is no stranger to personal attacks and is a favorite target for gays because of his dissent in a 2003 case that overturned the nation’s consensual sodomy laws. 

In that case Scalia held the majority’s ruling represented “a massive disruption of the current social order.” He went on to conclude that “the Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable, the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity.”  Let me say this about Scalia’s position in regard to this case. Whether you like his opinion or not, he made what I feel is a very valid point.

His point was that if all these other mentioned things can be legislated by the state of Texas, then Sodomy deserves the same treatment. In that opinion I think he was absolutely dead right. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of sodomy. He was stating that if the court feels it justified to legislate morality in those other areas, then they should be allowed to in this case as well. It is that slippery slope we always discuss, the second you agree that the government has the right to legislate sexual behavior in one area, you have given them the right to do so in other areas as well. That was his point, and I think he was right. 

The second issue that I have is that these members of Congress are once again showing the ways that they want to manipulate the courts systems. He doesn’t want a court to hear the case he cares about until the members of the court are those appointed who are sympathetic to his side. It is a dangerous mindset. Does anyone think that the members of Congress who opening make statements like this would make any other decision for a replacement Justice who would be sympathetic to Democrat agenda items?

So they debate you and try to use their flawed language and arguments. When you disagree with you they do the one thing that they can always fall back on, they call you a racist or a homophobe because non one wants to be called that. The victim of this kind of attack would rather lose the argument than be accused of that type of thing. 

We I am tired of hearing it. Just because I don’t believe what someone else says doesn’t mean that I am a homophobe and a racists. I simply have my opinion. But when they lose a debate this is where they fall back to. Additionally they have this class warfare thing figured out. They are playing the Wall Street versus Main Street think in a lot of ways, but the one consistent thing is that the things they tell you in order to get you to buy into their version of reality, are misrepresentations at best and outright dang lies more often.

About these ads

Comments

  1. The point Justice Scalia was trying to make was that since we’re already in your bedroom telling you what you can and can’t do,what’s the harm in a little piling on.

    Now, lest someone think I approve of all the little niceties that Scalia mentioned as being legislated against,I don’t.

    Am I a homophobe because I don’t want to be around homosexuals?Am I one because I don’t think they should be allowed the same marriage as my wife and me? In the strictest definition of the word,probably I am.

    On the other hand,am I a bad person to think that what transpires between two consenting adults in a bedroom is none of Justice Scalia’s business? That goes for any other pompous,pious, butthole that wants to intervene also.Please take particular notice of the words,”two consenting adults”.

    Am I a racist because I didn’t vote for Obama? I’ve been accused as such.Again,maybe I am.But then again,I wouldn’t vote for Barmy Frank,so I guess I’m a racist homophobe.

    The far left ends all discussion of issues they don’t want to discuss with name calling.On the other hand,the far right ends it’s discussion of any issues they don’t want to discuss by telling me that that’s the way God wants it. I guess that leaves those of us in the middle to hold the honest discussions.

  2. I agree with you. I think this tactic is employed by both sides in order to influence people to support their ideas. Rather than encourage people to think about the issue and vote according to their morality, they discourage dissent. As fas as gay marriage goes, it seems to me like a violation the first amendment right to freedom of religion to tell someone they can’t vote on an issue because their morals come from their religion. Everyone is entitled to try to shape this country the way they think it should be. That is the founding principle of democracy. Using slurs and insults will only exacerbate the problem.
    Here is something everyone needs to remember. Saying something is wrong is not the same as saying someone is bad. We need to get over the personal attacks and realize that everyone is just doing what they think is right, and we cannot fault them for that.

  3. I, am, by most peoples opinion, both a racist and a homophobe. Not because I dislike certain groups of minorities or homosexuals, I have issues with individual actions, not skin color, and desires by some who desire to live unnaturally. Ignorance is unhideable, even my own lack of knowledge or understanding. The fact that blacks make up a majority of the prison population, the welfare rats, the inner-city gangs, and have difficulty learning what is taught in school, is what guides my thinking about the black race. At the same time, i respect the small black population who works hard, provides for their families, and raises their children to be respectfull to all people, regardless of skin color. If that makes me a racist, it’s time to shave my head and get a Swasitca tatooed on my forhead LOL.

    I am not gay, and simply don’t understand the whole thing. I can not grasp how a man can look at another mans butt and go “yum yum”. It actually makes me squirm just thinking about it, afterall, my butt has a purpose, which has never included a romantic encounter, with anyone. (If anyone says” you don’t know what your missing”, please just think it!!!)

    As far as Barney Frank, I don’t like his tactics as a politician, period. I don’t care about his personnal life, at all. The Wall Street mess had “zero” affect on my life, other than to reaffirm that they are all greedy crooks who only want for themselves. When everything collapses, and all their money means nothing, I WIN.

    I’m not a politically correct person. I don’t think I should change “Drug Dealer piece of s**t” and say “unlicensed pharmasist”. I can think of many other terms that have truth regarding this article, but I’ll leave that to everyones imagination.

    G-Man

    • Right on G-Man…I could never figure out the attraction…simply repulsive.

    • esomhillholler says:

      G-man, you have quite a way with words. And I agree with ALL of it.

    • Ditto on not being politically correct. You probably already know that the term politically correct originated in Stalinist Russia. People who disagreed with the government were sent to indoctrination camps until they were politically correct. In other words it was about forcing people into the belief system of the powers that be and about controlling independent thought and opposition. Yet, by using ‘nice’ terms, the controllers make themselves sound caring and non-offensive. We (the logical ones) must not be defensive when called names (sticks and stones). Rather than shutting up when called a name, we should ask questions about how they arrived at the particular epithet. This forces the attacker to go to a logical argument and basically says to them that they don’t intimidate us.

      • Wasn’t it nice back in the 60’s when gay folks stayed in the “closet”??? Now the freedom to offend others is so popular.

        With Barney, it’s not his gayness that bothers me. He tries to be condescending but he sounds like an idiot.

        It’s torture to hear him speak. Better keep him away from Gitmo.

  4. I suppose I could be labeled a homophobe. I couldn’t care less about what 2 consenting adults do in private, or in public for that matter. I just do not want to be anywhere around it. If that makes me a homophobe, so be it. As far as gay marriage, I am against it…marriage should be, in my opinion, between a man and woman. There are already legal unions which provide all the rights marriage does. Why does the gay community insist on marriage? Is it to be more socially acceptable? Pardon me for being a little old fashioned, but I just don’t understand. That could be a product of me not caring whether I understand or not…If two men or women want to engage in whatever it is they do, then let them, but to violate the sanctity of marriage I am simply against.

    Social acceptability will always be relevent to the circles in which you live and associate. Nobody can dictate to individuals what is or isn’t acceptable within those circles, and I do not pretend that is something which can be controlled. If you want to be gay, be gay, just don’t try to push your agenda on me, and I promise the reverse…and do me a favor and just stay away from me.

    If Barney Frank is an example for the gay’s to hold up, they could not pick a worse posterchild, again, in my opinion. He is the epitomy of what is wrong in Washington, and not because he is gay. His political beliefs simply are simply polar opposite of mine.

    • esomhillholler says:

      Terry, The gays,(surely they can come up with a better word for them) anyway, as I was saying, they want the Sanctity of Marriage becuse they believe it will give their lifestyle more legitimacy with the rest of the world and more acceptability. I disagree with all of that.

      • They did this in the 80’s by spinning AIDS statistics. The lifestyle wouldn’t have been acceptable if we could prove they were spreading death. God bless America

  5. esomhillholler says:

    I am not a Racist, but I did not and would not in any way have voted for Obama. Not because he is black, but because his ideas are WRONG. He did not have the experience for the office he holds and IMO it is beginning to show in a very distubing way. I also wouldn’t vote for Barney Franks. Not because he is gay, but because he is a STUPID IDIOT. While not being a racist or a homophobe, I have the beliefs I was brought up to believe in and one thing I AM is a liarphobe. I believe both the above gentlemen would qualify for that name, “LIAR”. Now I will be honest. I don’t like MOST gays. It has, however, nothing to do with their sexual oreintation. THAT I could care less about. That is their business as two consenting adults, as Ron said. The problem I have with most of them is the fact that they spend so much time throwing their lifestyle in everyone’s face. While I don’t care what you do sexually, I don’t want to have you marching down the street in drag and carrying signs in front of my children, or having shows on television where they continuously flaunt their lifechoices in the nations face to get “Facetime” for their groups. I also don’t want to be propositioned by them although the way I look I readily admit the chances of that are remote indeed! If you are gay that is your business, but keep it to yourself at least as far as “flaunting” it at the public. I do have a couple of gay cousins. I can say in all honesty that while I believe that they are wrong and have told them so, I also still love them as family. I still respect their privacy. They know that and don’t throw it up in everyones face. They are welcome at my home at any time and they know that also. Now, for any one to call me a racist is stating a complete and utter DAMN lie. I, nor my wife or children are racist. My children have been taught since birth that all people are equal. You take folks as they come regardless of race. There are good and bad people in ALL races and creeds. But if you think you will shut me up for voicing my honest opinion you would be sadly mistaken. All calling me a Racist will do is totally piss me off. I would not resort to calling out any racist words unless you can count dumbass, idiot, or fool as racist. I did a piece on my own blog a week or so back on the race card back on the Esom Hill Gazette. (Yes, that is a plug for my blog US, sorry) I see the Race Issue thrown up in every political debate and you are right US. That is the fastest way those idiots know to shut down a discussion. In my opinion, the fact that they throw that on the table immediately destroys any crediblility they may have had. Whether they were right or wrong. If right, then they did not need that, and if wrong, then they just prove it by race card slingin’.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      US, Please go to my site and read my blog, “The Race Card”. It deals with exactly this subject of Racism and how Obama got elected. See what you think. All others are invited too. EsomHillGazette.wordpress.com

  6. Homosexuality is not a medical condition that can be cured. It is an individuals flawed perception of the reality of humanity. Barney Frank eppitimizes (sp) the term “flawed perception” to the point that his face should be next to the term in any encyclopedia as the prime example.

    Racism is simply part of human nature, as it is natural to look at people who look and act differently, well, differently. Racism, the term and it’s usage, is meant to be negative. To say that most black people are stupid would be considered a racist remark. Because those who claim racism don’t see the word “most”, they read it as all blacks are stupid, and claim racism. Even if the scientific facts supported the “stupid” moniker, it would not matter, because those that claim racism have no other avenue to defend their shortcomings.

    There are are pure racist groups (as they are referred too) that are only acting out human nature, hatred to those that look different, act different, or follow a different religion. Groups like Aryan Nation, KKK, Black Panthers, Al-Queida are examples of this. Each one is viewed differently for various reasons, but all have the same thing in common, to rid their world of those that are different. If you feel that any group of people, for any reason, should be eliminated from our world, then you would be a Radical not a Racist. If you just don’t have much use for (any race, sex, religion etc.) and state that openly, you are normal. Those that would term you as a racist, are simply idiots.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      You are right about racism being human nature. Any animal will attack another of it’s own species if there is something different about it such as albinoism. Not calling us animals but it is still human nature to dislike someone who is different. Some of us have just evolved beyond that perception and a very few of us have not. Blacks can deny it all they want, but there are just as many black racists as any other race or nationality. Racists hate groups are backwards idiots. The rest of us should not have to pay for a few morons who can’t walk and chew chewing gum at the same time.

  7. Interesting discussion. In college logic class we were taught that ‘ad hominem’ arguments were a tactic used by those that lack a logical argument — a distraction, if you will. This is a favorite tactic of narcissists, because their goal is domination, not finding solutions. I refer readers to the following link for a fairly brief article on narcissism and how it affects processes. The section on the origins of narcissism is a little heavy on the psychobabble, but the rest is pretty good-especially how to effectively argue with these folks. I think you’ll find that the left is loaded with narcissism and the article pretty much describes what is going on today in our government.

    http://ceres.ca.gov/tcsf/pathways/chapter12.html

    • Good article and not hard to understand at all. Thanks for sharing. I was hoping to read of any testing that can be done to determine narcissim…..psychological testing should be manditory for all candidates.

      • I’m sure there are. Just Google narcissism and there will be oodles of information. Based on personal experience, I would say that the quickest test is to see who creates the most chaos and makes the most personal attacks.

    • Steve-in-Ohio says:

      “In college logic class we were taught that ‘ad hominem’ arguments were a tactic used by those that lack a logical argument — a distraction, if you will.”

      There also exists the tendency to “shift subjects” or “lay blame” in these mentalities.

      Pointed these very things out elsewhere and it’s useless. You can’t argue with a sick (read “brainwashed”) mind.

  8. I think blacks and gays have one thing in coomon, both groups want equal treatment. First, blacks will never achieve this because of their desire to be different. I am a white American, period. I was born in America. Blacks, also born in America, would like to be called African-Americans, hence thier desire to be different. Ever heard the term “it’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand”? Just another example of the underlying desire to be different. Ever see a black that lives in low income housing drive around in a new caddy? I can’t figure that out, but it’s very different.
    In short, any desire for equality by both blacks and gays are undermined by their own actions and desire to be different, not by society as a whole. Racism and homophobe, as it’s used in a negative tone, is a counterattempt to diffuse those desires.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      African-American has become the PC term for the black people of this country. Gay, is another PC term. If they want to be treated the same, why then they need to ACT the same. My ancestors came from Ireland and Scotland. You don’t hear me calling myself a Scots-Irish-American. And I wish Gay could once again just mean that someone is happy and content. I mean, where did “gay” come from anyway?

      • What you say is very on target. I have thought that same thing myself, I’m an American. Period. Where my ancestors came from does not make me any more, or any less AMERICAN.

        As for the word “gay”, I agree with you there too. When we watch an old movie with our granddaughter and the word GAY is used in the context of the time, she is totally confused. Too bad that was done to a perfectly innocent word. What is sad is that our granddaughter is in 2nd grade, and knows what “GAY” means in this day and age.

  9. Homophobe . . . .

    Doesn’t that imply that a person fears a homosexual? I don’t fear them, I detest them. Yes, I know that I used the “nice” word for hating their #$@%^&# guts. Homosexuality is nothing short of absolutely disgusting. The same with lesbianism. Our law enforcement folks have to deal with those types on a daily and nightly basis. Makes you want to stand in a blistering hot shower for hours after a shift, and even then you cannot feel clean.

    As far as what Franks said about waiting until more justices can be appointed who are sympathetic to his ilk, well that just lends credence to my thoughts as to why those justices should be elected rather than appointed. We The People just need to figure out a way to make that happen.

    • Hate is said to be self destuctive. Here’s my definition of hate:

      Hate- an emotion that gives one the desire to achieve better marksmanship skills.

  10. I have a lot of acquaintances and friends that are liberal and have never understood why we can’t have discussions to learn from each other. I actually have a friend that won’t talk politics with me “because after I talk to you I get more moderate and I despise the Republican platform and don’t want to get anywhere near it”. What? Another friend, after like a two minute discussion, will still use, “Bush Lied, People Died”. Not kidding! USW – you are right – no facts allowed, just emotion!

    USW had a great post some time back on the whole racist thing and I think this homophobe thing falls in the same category, however, coming from Franks, it becomes what do you expect?

    Great bumper sticker I recently saw:

    “Annoy a Liberal – Use Facts & Knowledge”

    • Correction:

      “Annoy a Liberal – Use Facts & Logic”

      • Where can I get one of those? lol

      • I take that back. My car might get scratched by one of those peace loving, tolerant liberals. It happened to folks here in the Tampa area who had McCain/Palin stickers on their cars.

        • I have a bumper sticker on my pickup that reads “RADICAL CONSERVATIVE – FIGHTING FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!”

          It has a big dent, right in the middle of it! (I backed into a steel and concrete post at the feed store :-() And that gets my point across very nicely!

      • My favorite one! – and a favorite here were I live is:
        How to P** off a Liberal
        Work Hard
        Make Money
        Be Happy

  11. So am I a “closet liberal” because I get very emotional when trying to talk to them???????? LOL

    No facts, just talking points ALL the time.

    I was no different up to about 10 years ago when I started listening to talk radio (the black avenger and hanity) As I have, dare I say, “progressed” I no longer listen to hanity or any of the other dyed in the wool for their party talking heads. Before I started listening to what was going on out there I would simply drive around listening to music and existing in my own little world which is where I belive a majority of the people ACORN and such found their “base” to get President Obama elected.

    I need to get soem of those bumper stickers so I can annoy the hell out of the people around here (Virginia a red to blue state this election).

    Cheeers all.

  12. Disgusted in Cali says:

    I agree 100% with G.A. that Justices should be elected, not appointed. We have to elect local District Attorneys and Judges…why should should the Justices be any different?

    As to the topic of racists and homophobes, I am neither. I have friends from every walk of life, race and sexual orientation. However I do have a huge problem with all the various nationalaties who want to be called African Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, etc. If your an American, YOUR AN AMERICAN…PERIOD! I think all scholarship programs for a specific ethnic group is wrong and discriminate against worthy applicants based soley on their race. I don’t beleive schools should have sanctioned clubs based on ethnic groups, religion or sexuality. I also beleive affirmative action is wrong. You should be hired/promoted based on your abilities, not some criteria that needs to be met within the company.

    • 100% agree. I am a naturalized citizen, originally from Cuba. While I enjoy my Cuban heritage, I consider myself an American. Period. Also hate the fact that the media talks about Hispanics as if we were all alike. We are from different countries with different histories. We have our biases like every one else. We are not all undocumented farm workers and we do not all want a handout. The Cuban community, especially, has been very conservative, business oriented, and generally votes conservative — and proud to be American!

    • Here’s a new policy that I believe is discriminatory straight from the front page of our newspaper this morning:

      “UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin announced a plan Wednesday that would levy a surcharge on undergrad students from higher-income families……”

      There you go, the new acceptable way to stick it to those shameful wealthy families.

      • So, does this include black and gay upper income families? Just asking…
        Let’s see…. it’s ok to discrimminate as long as it’s against someone you don’t like………love the logic!

    • Miss Ray-Ray says:

      I, too, agree that justices should be elected and not appointed.

      I disagree about affirmative action being wrong. The reason it was put into action is because qualified candidates were NOT being hired BECAUSE of their race. Unfortunately, I do not think our country has made enough progress in terms of equality for all (women, men, black, white…etc) to end affirmative action. Simply reading the replies on this page makes that all too obvious.

  13. Calf Roper says:

    Great discussion once again. I’ll throw my two cents in. I don’t care if you are Black, White, Yellow, Red, Green, Purple, have long hair, short hair, like guys or gals, are tall or short, wear glasses or don’t, run around naked or not. All I care about is your choices and your actions as a human being. If you choose to act immorally, I don’t have time for you. If you choose to act morally, then I’ll be your friend.

    • Disgusted in Cali says:

      Well Said!

    • Amen! In this country you are free to be whatever you want to be good or bad. However, you are not free to force your beliefs on others.

    • Calf Roper,Your definition of morally or mine?

      • Kristian says:

        Morals are pretty much general aren’t they? You don’t cheat, steal ,lie and you treat others the way that you want to be treated. What is so difficult about that?

      • Calf Roper says:

        I don’t care what your definition of morality is. That’s up to you. I won’t judge you. If you do something that I feel to be immoral based on my definition for myself, I don’t have time for you. Again, I wouldn’t be judging you, I just wouldn’t want to have you in my life.

        It is entirely based on personal decisions. In my opinion, every single person is going to have their own definition of morality, and they will all be different. Don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that I would push my definition of morality on to you or anyone else (unless you asked me too). I would only make the personal decision not to associate with you if I didn’t agree with your moral choices.

        For example, I personally will not choose to sleep with another man. If you choose to do so, that is your choice and I’m not judging you (let he who has not sinned cast the first stone). I simply will not associate with you because I do not agree with your moral choice. I would not think less of you because to do so would be arrogant. I only judge myself and my actions.

        Conversely, if I did choose to associate with and let you into my life and you did choose to sleep with other men, would I not then be condoning the action, which by my moral definition, I do not agree with? Yes I would.

        I’m starting to sound like BF.

        • That’s an answer that I like.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Nah, Roper, you sound like a sound, morally responsible person. Just like I believe BF is too. 99% of the people on this blog are that way and the ones who aren’t don’t last on it long. This is a blog site for adults, not irresponsible children like most of the Liberals I’ve ATTEMPTED to talk to.

          • Calf Roper says:

            Honestly, BF makes a lot of sense. I find myself drawn to his anarchism. I think deep down I may be an anarchist too.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              I too, Roper and BF, admit that the longer this gov’t in particular goes on, the more anarchist I am becoming.

  14. Black Flag says:

    “If you don’t believe in freedom for those you despise, you don’t understand freedom at all”

    As with all problems with government law, the moment someone decides that they have the right to force edicts upon non-violent people, massive distortions across society occur.

    “Racism” and “Homophobe” are as equal a right as any other – non-violently.

    I have a right to chose with whom I wish to associate with. I do not have a right to force my beliefs on anyone else.

    • Calf Roper says:

      BF, this has brought up a thing that has really been bothering me lately. Our government is doing things that I do not agree with. Yet I continue to support this government through the taxes that I pay (income tax, sales tax, property tax, estate tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, etc.)

      Granted, I do try very hard to minimize the amount of taxes I pay (sometimes ethically and sometimes within that ethical “gray area”); however, I wrestle with the thought that perhaps I should refuse to pay taxes at all.

      This would be a huge decision that would not only affect me but affect my wife and children. For instance, if I refuse to pay any more tax, the government will come after me and my family with force. This keeps me from doing this. Yet every day goes by and more and more things happen that go against my individual morality. Each day, it becomes harder and harder to support the government through my payment of taxes.

      How do you deal with this issue?

      • CR,
        I see your point. You are not paying those taxes of your own volition. The laws are forcing you to pay taxes and you are a law abiding citizen–you are living your morality by following the laws. Also, you are not the one deciding where the money gets spent. So, one could argue that you are not directly respponsible for the outcome of your tax payments. However, if you break the law and don’t pay taxes, you and your family’s misfortunes will be directly caused by your actions. Does that help?

        Then again, what if the tax laws are immoral? Is a person being a law abiding citizen a bad thing? Hmmmmmmmm…..too much thinking. lol

        • Don’t pay them and write “See Geithner, Rangel, Daschle et al” on the amount due line!

      • Black Flag says:

        Don’t martyr yourself.

        To save your family, you may have to pay off murderers. Pay them off.

        As far as tax avoidance, you need to distance yourself from their claws.

        You cannot maintain the required distance as long as you remain an American citizen.

        The government taxes citizenship, not just residency (almost every other country’s government taxes just residency – except the USA & North Korea)

        Unless you are willing to renounce US Citizenship, avoiding paying any tax is legally impossible.

        There are many legal strategies to minimize your taxes – and you should avail yourself of every one of them.

        Further, there are many legal ways to extract back your monies by taking it from government – and you should avail yourself of every one of those as well.

        You have no real way of fighting the thieves head-on – they will overwhelm you to death. So its either distance yourself, or use their published strategies against them.

        All of this takes a lot of time and effort – so you need to measure the reward/time/risk ratios to see if its worth it.

        • Black Flag says:

          PS: For me, I found it was worth it.

        • BF,

          Are YOU an American Citizen? Were you born, raised, educated in the United States of America? Just curious. I have met and worked alongside many legal immigrants in my life. Only someone who was actually raised here and had become disillusioned for some reason or other develops the attitude that you seem to have. Anyway, I was just curious.

        • Black Flag says:

          I am a citizen of humanity.

      • Black Flag says:

        I am not a legal adviser nor lawyer, and not competent to give specific advice to anyone but myself on this matter.

        I will post here the general concepts (some specifics from the web):

        ———————–
        Let us first take into consideration the process and the implication of losing your US Citizenship.

        Process to Renounce US Citizenship:
        You must voluntarily do the following acts to start the process of renouncing your citizenship.

        Appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and sign an oath of renunciation.

        Source: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

        If you are renouncing citizenship to avoid being taxed, you still have to pay tax
        for 10 years.

        You may also be banned from ever entering the USA again!

        Therefore, you do not, ever, renounce your citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation – got it?

        In general, any person who lost U.S. citizenship within 10 years
        immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, whose principle purpose in losing citizenship was to avoid taxation, will be subject
        to continued taxation. For the purposes of this statute, persons are presumed to have a principle purpose of avoiding taxation if
        1) their
        average annual net income tax for a five year period before the date of loss of citizenship is greater than $100,000, or 2) their net worth on the date of the loss of U.S. nationality is $500,000 or more (subject to cost of living adjustments).?

        Source: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

        Things you will lose once you renounce your US Citizenship:
        – Live and work permanently anywhere in the U.S.
        – Get Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Medicare
        benefits, if you are eligible.
        – Own property in the U.S.
        – Apply for a driver’s license in your state or territory.
        – Attend public school and college.
        – Leave and return to the U.S. under certain conditions.
        – Join certain branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
        – Purchase or own a firearm, as long as there are no state or local restrictions saying you can’t.
        – Vote
        – Serve on a Jury
        – Travel with a US Passport
        – Federal Jobs: ?Certain jobs with government agencies require U.S. citizenship.?
        – Many elected offices in this country require U.S. Citizenship.
        – Ineligibility for some federal grants and scholarships

    • Ah, but narcissists [read liberals] think they have the right.

  15. Franks was either total wrong on Freddie/ Fannie, which would make him incompetent. Or he deliberately covered up their situation, which makes him a criminal. I think both apply. He won re-election with 70% of the vote against an independent. That says to me that his voter base must be being bought by him with the pork & perks he brings home to them.

    On the gay issue, I have friends of both sexes with that bend. Great people who I have no problem being with my 6 & 9 yr. old’s. My friends do not insist on public approval of their lifestyle. They have a problem with publicly expressed insults, threats and hate. I have a problem with gay marriage. I feel it will erode our cultural values the same way having/raising single parent children has.

    Great points Disgusted in Cali,
    The left does try to use the schools to promote their agenda, and label us hatemongers for opposing them.

    • Disgusted in Cali says:

      Just try to get an “Anglo American” club started at a school and watch the sparks fly.

  16. Once again, a great blog with outstanding resposes. I like being able to discuss some hard subjects without getting attacked.

  17. I believe in personal liberty – do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t impact another’s right to do the same. I think the Republicans have made the mistake recently of trying to legislate morality and turned off a lot of the young folks who believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberty.

    Gay marriage shouldn’t even be an issue, as marriage should never have been a legal institution in the first place. The real solution is to abolish marriage as a legal entity (replace it with civil unions for *everyone* if you must) and let the churches handle their own affairs.

  18. I have been reading these discussions for about a week now after finding US’ link on a foxnews blog. First, I would like to thank all of you here for creating such intelligent, interesting and safe discussion environment (may I say it is almost relaxing!)
    I would like to throw my two cents in here. I also have friends of every race, religion, and sexual orientation that you could think up, their choices and lifestyles have never been an issue for me, quite simply because I belive in “to each his own”. I believe that as long as a person is a good honest person, works hard and does not try to push any crap agenda, there is no problem. I was raised to respect others simply because I have to share the earth with them. I completely agree with DK, legislating personal morality is destructive and only serves to further reduce personal freedom for all of us. That being said, I also agree that marriage should be removed as a legal institution since really, it is a religiously based contract and should be kept as an institution in the churches/temples for those that believe in it. This would also remove the problem of those who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. No more government legalized marriage? No more arguement.
    PS: BF – you have re-inspired me to finish my stockpiling!Thanks for the great list and link!

  19. DKII and AZGRL,

    Just a simple question;

    If marriage is no longer a legal legitimacy, then what constitutes grounds for divorce?

    Another question;

    If anyone can get married, then can one marry oneself?

    Do you see the difficulties and myriad of problems and absolute ridiculousness that abolishment of legalizing marriage would cause? If you think the courts are clogged with insanity now, de-legalize marriage and let the circus begin!

    The legal stature of marriage was originally established to prevent too close of intermarriage within families. This is why the Royal families of Europe legalized cross marriage of the Royal families of different monarchies. Too close of intermarriage has a tendency to cause too many genetical reproductive problems.

    Personally, I do not want government in my bedroom, nor do I care what you do in yours as long as you do not shove your particular lifestyle in my face.

    I will always vote to keep marriage legal and between one man(male) and one woman(female).

    FYI – Don’t misunderstand me here, I know and fully accept that you have your opinion and I have mine. We were just born (in my case hatched) in different era’s and raised with differing values. That is perfectly normal.

    I think . . . ;-)

    • Black Flag says:

      If marriage is no longer a legal legitimacy, then what constitutes grounds for divorce?

      The same as with marriage.

      It takes two to voluntarily consent to marriage.

      The removal of consent of either party ends the ‘voluntary’, and thus ends the marriage.

      If anyone can get married, then can one marry oneself?

      Certainly – though quite redundant, isn’t it?

      Do you see the difficulties and myriad of problems and absolute ridiculousness that abolishment of legalizing marriage would cause?

      None what so ever.

      If you think the courts are clogged with insanity now, de-legalize marriage and let the circus begin!

      It is merely a matter of contract law – nothing new here under the sun for the courts to handle (if, anything, would need to be handled by a court).

      The legal stature of marriage was originally established to prevent too close of intermarriage within families.

      The irony being the confusion of legal inheritance.

      In other words, legalizing marriage was to solve a legal problem – all caused by the requirement of government to tax.

      Get government out, and the problem goes away.

      Too close of intermarriage has a tendency to cause too many genetical reproductive problems.

      A biological myth.

      If this was the case, why do we not see this in breeding horses, cows, dogs, cats, monkeys, or any other mammal on earth.

  20. I also agree with DKII. End ALL marriage as a legal entity. From what I can tell, most people view marriage as a personal entitlements program anyway. How many times have I heard someone say gays should be allowed to marry because they pay taxes? Hell, my personal experience confirms the-marraige-as-entitilement-program. And this time, it was the woman who was on the loosing end. Three and a half years later, and some drastic measures are just now getting me out of the hole the charming liar of a husband, put me in. Let’s make it truely fair and abolish ALL forms of legal marriage. If we don’t, we’ll also have to deal with the bigamists, polygamists, and people who want to marry their pets. And lets not forget men who insist on marrying little girls ala Sharia.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Marriage was supposed to made made under God, by a minister. “Legal” should never have come into it anyway. Under that definition Homosexuals would not have that choice anyway since God made marriage between a man and a woman. He made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Ava and Eve. And yes. I know this only works if you believe in God in the first place. I DO.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Just to make it clear. I am talking about GOD. NOT the church or any Religion. BF, you are right in your statement.

        • Black Flag says:

          Theologically, God created all things and all things are, therefore, perfect in His mind.

    • Black Flag says:

      The church controlled marriage as a method to control people.

      This control prevented exoclass-movement; marriages crossing class were prohibited – to ensure the peasants could not achieve political power through marriage.

      Marriage -historically- had little to do with male/female love/friendship. It was mostly political and economic.

      It is a very, very recent phenomena (~200 years) that marriage and family creation was a choice between the groom and bride and their decisions, and this is still almost entirely a western culture phenomena.

  21. SFC Dick says:

    Man, I need some levity. Can we verbally pummel something? I feel like a good old fashioned town beating. But what? We gotta all agree on what we rain down on, It has to be a socially acceptable whipping boy. We probably won’t be allowed to stream forth with barrage after barrage of profanity, so, …ya know, that part of the fun is out. Ah, screw it. It would probably end up being Yogi Bear or something like that ..ooohhh..”Hey bear, F@#K YOU!”…….”Yeh, and what’s with the fat little bear Boo Boo, “ ……..”yeh, hey Boo Boo, F@#K YOU too!”.
    Nah, problematic, even that. Peta wouldn’t go for slamming a bear, some hairy knuckle women’s groups wouldn’t go for the “fat” crack, some other group of injured parties would join in on the “fat” crack , then it would be …well, bad. I could initially argue, “I might be fat, so there. I can call fat if I’m fat” but that would fall through. I imagine by this time A.L.F would come in on the behest of PETA and start trying to blow me up, I’ve got enough of that already. I could produce pictures of myself in the past and argue “Yes, I was fat, so it’s a gimmie” but nope, that would enrage them more. “If you were “heavy” once and trimmed down, then that points to the fact that you can lose weight easily and never had a struggle so, we hate you even more now”. Yeh, I guess I’ll just keep my ,mouth shut today, stay out of trouble and do something constructive.

  22. This blog’s great!! Thanks :).

  23. “The problem that I have is that the far left in America is completely unable to debate. Period. They just cannot do it. Their arguments are based on emotion, not facts. They rile up the masses using class warfare instead of telling the truth and finding a better way forward.”

    Also sounds like the rightist.

    “Ideologist believe that the world is in a parlous state, find reasons for the current crisis, and promise to find a way out. They direct the attention of the people to a group that is to blame for the world’s ruin, and to another group that will put things right. Crucial is the conviction that some groups will never be able to understand the ideology, because that have been infected by a “false consciousness”. The ideology is often a closed system that cannot afford to take alternative views seriously. Marxist who see capitalism as the source of the world’s ills, cannot understand the values of capitalism, and vice versa. Colonist are impervious to the truths of emerging nationalisms.. Zionist and Arabs are unable to appreciate one another’s pint of view. All ideologies imagine an unrealistic and, some would say, unrealizable utopia. They are by their very nature highly selective.”

  24. People have called me different. I guess I am. I am middle of the road conservitive, who doesnt believe that abortion should legal. Does believe that our laws or lack of laws concerning illegal aliens are terrbile. I grew up believing that you work for you want, you pay your bills and respect people around you. I pay my taxes, served honorable for 8yrs in our military. I would do anything for my family and close friends. But I get lumped into the liberal group the minute people know I am gay. I dont push my life on anyone, I am ok with civil unions. I dont need it to called marriage, along as I get the same legal rights. I never go to a church that doesnt welcome me. Everyone has a right to theirs beliefs. I think it is digusting the way Wall Street and Congress as been in bed together getting rich, while people who have worked hard their entire lives are losing everything. So unlike what the media makes the gay community as one big group fighting together. The fact is I live in the Midwest, I go to work everyday, take care of my house and support myself.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers

%d bloggers like this: