Dylan Slagle / ASSOCIATED PRESS
Soldier's Family Sues Church For Picketing Funeral
Jury: Phelps should pay $2.9 million
Church seeking mistrial in lawsuit over funeral protests
MSNBC News Services
updated 9 minutes ago
BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.
Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."
Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.
The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.
Award 'exceeds the net worth' of defendants
Even the size of the award for compensating damages alone "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted.
Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.
The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality.
“God promised dire outpourings of very painful wrath, and there’s nothing more painful than killing one of your children and that’s what’s going on in Iraq,” church founder Fred Phelps told msnbc.com in a 2006 interview. “That’s what we’re preaching and the forum of choice to deliver such a message, obviously, is the funeral of the kid that’s been blown to smithereens."
Their attorneys maintained in closing arguments Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers." Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."
Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.
The Associated Press and msnbc.com's Josh Belzman contributed to this report.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wash. legislator resigns amid gay sex scandal
updated 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
OLYMPIA, Wash. - A Republican state legislator who repeatedly voted against gay rights measures resigned his seat Wednesday amid allegations he had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store while in Spokane on a GOP retreat.
In a written statement, Rep. Richard Curtis of La Center said that while he believes he's done a lot of good during his time in the Legislature, "events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people."
"I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused," he wrote. "This has been damaging to my family, and I don't want to subject them to any additional pain that might result from carrying out this matter under the scrutiny that comes with holding public office."
Three days earlier, Curtis had insisted to his local newspaper that he was not gay and that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt by a man last week.
But in police reports, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.
House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis, said that as more "troubling" details began to emerge, "it has become clear that he can no longer effectively represent the constituents who elected him."
His resignation was delivered to Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday afternoon. A Republican successor will be chosen by county Republican leaders and will serve until the 2008 election.
Numerous efforts to reach Curtis or his lawyer, John Wolfe, by phone have been unsuccessful.
Curtis: Victim of extortion attempt
Curtis, 48, told police he was the victim of an extortion attempt by Cody Castagna at the posh Davenport Tower hotel on Oct. 26, search warrant documents said. Castagna, 26, of nearby Medical Lake, told police that Curtis had agreed to pay him for sex, then reneged.
Curtis is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he voted in 2005 and 2006 against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and in 2007 voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures eventually passed the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and are now state law.
Curtis was among state GOP lawmakers in Spokane Oct. 24-26 for a retreat to discuss the upcoming legislative session. He went to the Hollywood Erotic Boutique early on Oct. 26 and met Castagna, who accompanied him to the hotel, police documents said.
The two arrived at the hotel around 3:30 a.m. and had sex, after which Curtis fell asleep, according to documents released Tuesday.
Curtis alleged Castagna took his wallet and later offered to return it for $1,000. Curtis said he only had $200 and left an envelope with the money at the hotel desk, the documents said.
Police reports said Castagna allegedly called Curtis and demanded an additional $800 and threatened to expose Curtis. But Curtis had already contacted police, who listened to the call and then met with Castagna.
OLYMPIA, Wash. - A Republican state legislator who repeatedly voted against gay rights measures resigned his seat Wednesday amid allegations he had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store while in Spokane on a GOP retreat.
In a written statement, Rep. Richard Curtis of La Center said that while he believes he's done a lot of good during his time in the Legislature, "events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people."
"I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused," he wrote. "This has been damaging to my family, and I don't want to subject them to any additional pain that might result from carrying out this matter under the scrutiny that comes with holding public office."
Three days earlier, Curtis had insisted to his local newspaper that he was not gay and that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt by a man last week.
But in police reports, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.
House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis, said that as more "troubling" details began to emerge, "it has become clear that he can no longer effectively represent the constituents who elected him."
His resignation was delivered to Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday afternoon. A Republican successor will be chosen by county Republican leaders and will serve until the 2008 election.
Numerous efforts to reach Curtis or his lawyer, John Wolfe, by phone have been unsuccessful.
Curtis: Victim of extortion attempt
Curtis, 48, told police he was the victim of an extortion attempt by Cody Castagna at the posh Davenport Tower hotel on Oct. 26, search warrant documents said. Castagna, 26, of nearby Medical Lake, told police that Curtis had agreed to pay him for sex, then reneged.
Curtis is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he voted in 2005 and 2006 against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and in 2007 voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures eventually passed the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and are now state law.
Curtis was among state GOP lawmakers in Spokane Oct. 24-26 for a retreat to discuss the upcoming legislative session. He went to the Hollywood Erotic Boutique early on Oct. 26 and met Castagna, who accompanied him to the hotel, police documents said.
The two arrived at the hotel around 3:30 a.m. and had sex, after which Curtis fell asleep, according to documents released Tuesday.
Curtis alleged Castagna took his wallet and later offered to return it for $1,000. Curtis said he only had $200 and left an envelope with the money at the hotel desk, the documents said.
Police reports said Castagna allegedly called Curtis and demanded an additional $800 and threatened to expose Curtis. But Curtis had already contacted police, who listened to the call and then met with Castagna.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Typical Conservative Slant
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:06 AM
Subject: Fw: Taxation:
Today's Economic Lesson in Taxation
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and se! emed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the! owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothi! ng (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (3! 3% savin gs).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's tr! u! e!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks HallUniversity of Georgia
Chuck Vanderveldt
The way taxation is represented in the below message is how our system is SUPPOSED to work in an ideal world. The republican party and mega corporations would have us all believe this is how it DOES work. There are a few twists that have been left out by the professor who wrote the metaphor below.
First of all, the first four men (the poorest) may well pay nothing for the meal. You can bet they still had to pay their share for gas in the carpool they rode over in. The richest guy at the table would make a windfall profit off of that since he owns the only oil company in town and is over charging for his goods. They would still pay a portion of the tip. Since they paid "nothing" for the meal, they were only allowed to have a wilted salad, some cold mac & cheese, and a sip of water. Serves them right, lazy-ass poor folk. Hell they only worked a 12 hour shift at minimum wage with 0 benefits to earn their meal.
Secondly, the way the government really divides up tax cuts would have the meal paid for more like this: The first four men (the poorest) would still pay nothing for their meal. However, the price of the gas they buy to get to the restaurant would increase by 50%. Since the restaurant owner is now making less profit, he would cut out the dressing on the wilted salad and switch to cheap, fake cheese on the mac. The richest guys would refuse to pay into the tip fund and the poorest 5 would have to divide up the $20 cost for that. That would mean each of the 5 poorest diners would have to pony up an extra $4 in hidden taxation.
Thirdly, while the 6th, 7th, & 8th men would pay $3, $7, & $12 respectively, the richest two diners would sneak an expensive bottle of Cognac out of the lounge and charge it to the bar tab of those middle class three.(huge federal deficit, trade imbalances, cutting funds for school lunches etc) A back door charge of probably $250 (using the same relative percentages in the example). Of course, the three middle class men wouldn't actually get to drink any of the Cognac. So for the cheeseburger and diet coke that would be served, the middle class three would really be paying $86.33, $90.33, and $95.33.
El numero Quattro, the 9th man would pay $18 and eat a pretty good steak, medium rare. He would get one glass of a medium quality red wine and a small sip of the Cognac. The richest man would be billed $59 but would complain that his fillet mignon was cooked wrong, the creme' brulet was not up to his standards and the bottle of (put your favorite expensive champagne here) was not the right year. Therefore he would refuse to pay the full amount and tell the owner to be happy with the $1.77 he is willing to give him. (97% reduction, that's about how much the IRS figures big corporations avoid paying by using loop holes in the system). Since the restaurant is now losing money (small spelling point here - it is LOSING not LOOSING) the owner would relocate his establishment to the below mentioned Europe or Caribbean (outsourcing overseas). The two richest guys would simply dine over there. The three middle class diners would now eat the mac & cheese formerly served to th! e 4 poorest and the bottom most 5 would hope like hell that the Salvation Army shelter is still open and hasn't been replace by the 2 rich guy's latest strip mall. And that is the reality of our tax system, even for smart-ass college professors with white beards and leather patches on their elbows.
Chuck
by the way, you deserve an award for this one. perfect and beautiful.
ted
Pubs are truly Desperate now
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Fw: History Quiz - Lesson
Surprised me!
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From:
Here is a little history lesson for you. If you
> don't know the answer, make your best guess.
> Answer all the questions before looking at the
> answers.
> Who said it?
>
>
> 1) "We're going to take things away from you on
> behalf of the common good."
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Adolph Hitler
> C. Joseph Stalin
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to
> government of the few, by the few, and for the
> few......
> And to replace it with shared respons ibility for
> shared prosperity."
> A. Leni n
> B. Mussolini
> &n bsp; C. Idi Amin
> D. None of the Above
>
>
> 3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go
> on, and that means something has to be taken away
> from some people."
> A. Nikita Khrushev
> B. Josef Goebbels
> C. Boris Yeltsin
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 4) "We have to build a political consensus and
> that requires people to give up a little bit of
> their own ... in order to create this common
> ground."
> A. Mao Tse Dung
> B. Hugo Chavez
> C. Kim Jong Il
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 5) "I certainly thi nk the free-market has failed."
>
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Lenin
> C. Molotov
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to
> what has become the most profitable sector in (the)
> entire economy that they are being watched."
> A. Pinochet
> B. Milos evic
> C. Saddam Hussein
> D. None of the above
>
>
> Scroll down for answers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> &n bsp;
>
> Answers
> (1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
> (2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
> (3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
> May Want to Question ...or Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>
RESPONSE FROM HOLLANDER TEAM........................
Now, After all of the evidence of how Bush, the Republican controlled congress, and the radical religious right have continually screwed the country, you are actually going to buy in to this anti-Hillary stuff? First of all, did you investigate each individual statement and confirm that she actually said them? Then, if she did, did anyone check on the context in which the statements were made? Thirdly, I could make up a questionnaire such as this about Bush and the Republicans which would be far longer and have many times more incriminating allegations.
Is the author of this exam worried that president Hillary wants us to become a communist nation? That is what seems to be implied here. My belief is that the far more likely thing she meant (if she did say these things) is that we need to take away from the greedy, super rich, crooks of the country. People like CEO's who literally make 100 million times more money than the regular employees of a company, even while running said company into bankruptcy. I think that rather than focusing on some perceived slights against Americanism by Hillary Clinton, we ought to pay much more attention to things like - how are we going to win and end the war (which has now lasted longer than World War II), and what the hell possessed Bush to veto the SCHIP bill.
Lastly, I wonder what it is about Mrs. Clinton that makes some people hate her so much. Is it that she is a woman? A woman who refuses to keep her place, like in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant? Is it that she would like for ALL Americans to have health care, not just the wealthy and those lucky few who receive benefits through their employers? I would like to see an itemized list from anyone as to what, exactly, she has done that has supposedly screwed the country so thoroughly. My bet is, if they are truly honest about it, they hate her because she stuck by Bill when he got a blowjob in the Oval Office. Personally, I was much more offended that the Republicans spent billions of my tax dollars to investigate the President's wiener.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Fw: History Quiz - Lesson
Surprised me!
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From:
Here is a little history lesson for you. If you
> don't know the answer, make your best guess.
> Answer all the questions before looking at the
> answers.
> Who said it?
>
>
> 1) "We're going to take things away from you on
> behalf of the common good."
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Adolph Hitler
> C. Joseph Stalin
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to
> government of the few, by the few, and for the
> few......
> And to replace it with shared respons ibility for
> shared prosperity."
> A. Leni n
> B. Mussolini
> &n bsp; C. Idi Amin
> D. None of the Above
>
>
> 3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go
> on, and that means something has to be taken away
> from some people."
> A. Nikita Khrushev
> B. Josef Goebbels
> C. Boris Yeltsin
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 4) "We have to build a political consensus and
> that requires people to give up a little bit of
> their own ... in order to create this common
> ground."
> A. Mao Tse Dung
> B. Hugo Chavez
> C. Kim Jong Il
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 5) "I certainly thi nk the free-market has failed."
>
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Lenin
> C. Molotov
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to
> what has become the most profitable sector in (the)
> entire economy that they are being watched."
> A. Pinochet
> B. Milos evic
> C. Saddam Hussein
> D. None of the above
>
>
> Scroll down for answers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> &n bsp;
>
> Answers
> (1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
> (2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
> (3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
> May Want to Question ...or Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>
RESPONSE FROM HOLLANDER TEAM........................
Now, After all of the evidence of how Bush, the Republican controlled congress, and the radical religious right have continually screwed the country, you are actually going to buy in to this anti-Hillary stuff? First of all, did you investigate each individual statement and confirm that she actually said them? Then, if she did, did anyone check on the context in which the statements were made? Thirdly, I could make up a questionnaire such as this about Bush and the Republicans which would be far longer and have many times more incriminating allegations.
Is the author of this exam worried that president Hillary wants us to become a communist nation? That is what seems to be implied here. My belief is that the far more likely thing she meant (if she did say these things) is that we need to take away from the greedy, super rich, crooks of the country. People like CEO's who literally make 100 million times more money than the regular employees of a company, even while running said company into bankruptcy. I think that rather than focusing on some perceived slights against Americanism by Hillary Clinton, we ought to pay much more attention to things like - how are we going to win and end the war (which has now lasted longer than World War II), and what the hell possessed Bush to veto the SCHIP bill.
Lastly, I wonder what it is about Mrs. Clinton that makes some people hate her so much. Is it that she is a woman? A woman who refuses to keep her place, like in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant? Is it that she would like for ALL Americans to have health care, not just the wealthy and those lucky few who receive benefits through their employers? I would like to see an itemized list from anyone as to what, exactly, she has done that has supposedly screwed the country so thoroughly. My bet is, if they are truly honest about it, they hate her because she stuck by Bill when he got a blowjob in the Oval Office. Personally, I was much more offended that the Republicans spent billions of my tax dollars to investigate the President's wiener.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
From our dear Buddhist friends (complete with terrible para-phrasing): In good times, remember the bad in order to keep yourself grounded. In bad times, remember the good so as to give yourself hope.
Remember the Bill Clinton era, and the spring of the 21st century.
Clinton camp relishes Republicans' focus
BY TOM BRUNE | tom.brune@newsday.com
October 23, 2007
WASHINGTON - After GOP presidential hopefuls voiced jeers, snide remarks and hand-wringing warnings about a possible Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency during their recent debate, the Democratic front-runner's aides smirked.
"We can understand why they're all so angry," Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said yesterday. "As Chris Wallace made clear, Hillary is beating each of them."
During Sunday's debate sponsored by the Florida Republican Party and Fox News, moderator Wallace said, "All of you - I repeat all of you - are losing to her in the polls."
Remember the Bill Clinton era, and the spring of the 21st century.
Clinton camp relishes Republicans' focus
BY TOM BRUNE | tom.brune@newsday.com
October 23, 2007
WASHINGTON - After GOP presidential hopefuls voiced jeers, snide remarks and hand-wringing warnings about a possible Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency during their recent debate, the Democratic front-runner's aides smirked.
"We can understand why they're all so angry," Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said yesterday. "As Chris Wallace made clear, Hillary is beating each of them."
During Sunday's debate sponsored by the Florida Republican Party and Fox News, moderator Wallace said, "All of you - I repeat all of you - are losing to her in the polls."
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Compassionate Conservative
But ultimately, the president's demand for a far more limited extension of the existing insurance program held sway with enough Republicans. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) charged that "SCHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style Hillarycare for illegals and their parents."
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Tumultuous.
Who asked for all this turmoil in here? It wasn't me, was it.
It was me, old friend
I thought I saw you come in, who are you again?
Just someone you once knew
Once, from long ago? Who are your friends?
I have always been with you, these others are new
Could you quiet them please, its so hard to think in here with all this noise
They aren't saying anything, little one
Please, I can't think any more. Tell them to let me be.
Only you can do that, they listen to you alone
Aren't you supposed to shield me? Make them go away!!
Try young one...speak and listen to what they say
NO, there are too many
Try
I am you, you are me, we are one but not the same. Perpetrate your violence on my soul, you cannot change my world.
They have not changed. You lost your world and you must now find your way.
But I can't move...
Who asked for all this turmoil in here? It wasn't me, was it.
It was me, old friend
I thought I saw you come in, who are you again?
Just someone you once knew
Once, from long ago? Who are your friends?
I have always been with you, these others are new
Could you quiet them please, its so hard to think in here with all this noise
They aren't saying anything, little one
Please, I can't think any more. Tell them to let me be.
Only you can do that, they listen to you alone
Aren't you supposed to shield me? Make them go away!!
Try young one...speak and listen to what they say
NO, there are too many
Try
I am you, you are me, we are one but not the same. Perpetrate your violence on my soul, you cannot change my world.
They have not changed. You lost your world and you must now find your way.
But I can't move...
Monday, October 15, 2007
Repent, Ye Sinners!
This coming election day we are voting on an increase in the cigarette tax. This particular tax is supposed to fund health care for thousands of uninsured children in Oregon. My first question is: What happened to the other tobacco taxes the state has levied? Wasn't that revenue supposed to go to children's health care? I take this proposed tax as a personal attack. Why should I pay for other people's children to have health care when I can't even afford any for myself? Here's an idea. Put a huge tax on Lego's and juice boxes. Then the people who have children are paying for their own damn health costs.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Do Not Vote for This Guy
He doesn't want Democrats to vote—unless it's to appoint him to the Federal Election Commission.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007, at 6:54 PM ET
Hans von Spakovsky
Another one for you to file under "fox guards the henhouse": The Senate rules committee votes tomorrow (Wednesday) on whether to give Hans A. von Spakovsky a full six-year term on the Federal Elections Commission. For Senate Democrats to even consider allowing someone with von Spakovsky's background to sit on the independent agency tasked with protecting the integrity of federal elections is beyond incredible. If von Spakovsky is confirmed, it will be yet more evidence that Democrats have no more regard for the rule of law, or the integrity of the Justice Department, than Karl Rove does.
See the whole article here
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007, at 6:54 PM ET
Hans von Spakovsky
Another one for you to file under "fox guards the henhouse": The Senate rules committee votes tomorrow (Wednesday) on whether to give Hans A. von Spakovsky a full six-year term on the Federal Elections Commission. For Senate Democrats to even consider allowing someone with von Spakovsky's background to sit on the independent agency tasked with protecting the integrity of federal elections is beyond incredible. If von Spakovsky is confirmed, it will be yet more evidence that Democrats have no more regard for the rule of law, or the integrity of the Justice Department, than Karl Rove does.
See the whole article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
