A Much Needed and Extended Break

Mike: Your blog is one of the most popular on the MC site. Many subjects have provoked people to share their opinions! Too bad the respondents have to rely on the communications relayed in your writings. One area you expounded on was the accuracy of their messages. Let the reader beware! Just because it is printed doesn't make it factual. The Internet requires all to check the accuracy of the arguments. Come back soon! Online

Indeed, your blogs have been a recent source of entertainment for me as well. Hope to see you back soon!

Another thing that is revealing from that blog is that Democrats are determined to run against a man who has been out of office for nearly 2 years rather than run in support of their own ideas. Perhaps one reason many Republicans, particularly fiscal conservatives, aren't seeking his support are that they don't agree with the government spending that ballooned in his administration.

Senior Loud,

Is that like Democrats were in favor of keeping openly gay military members from serving when Clinton was doing it? Even if they were in favor of it, does that mean they can't learn from mistakes, or should everyone just keep doing what they've always done?

Guillermo,

Do you really believe what you are saying there? Remember you aren't addressing your lbl now. Do you honestly believe Bush's administration was only trying to do things to benefit the rich and hurt the poor?

Guillermo,

"Running against the ghostly apparition left by Bush, Inc., IS running on the Democratic ideal. That is: ALL PEOPLE should benefit from the government, not just the rich."

I took this to say that the Bush ideal is that just the rich should benefit from government. I think you DID say something extremely close to my question. Could you please explain how you meant this statement to come across if I misinterpreted it.

For the record I'm not arguing Bush was a good president I'm arguing that you made a poor word choice, either intentionally or accidentally.

That is A definition of conservatism but if you think that is the political definition of conservatism then I have given you too much credit in the past. Incidentally, I am a liberal in A definition but not in a political one.

When you make snide comments like these instead of asking or answering the real questions, you remind me why I need to take periodic breaks.

Senior Loud,

"So the remark that the democrats are opposing someone who's been out of office for 2 years sounds dumbed down, like a Limbaugh-ism. Honestly, there are many left-leaners that are disappointed with the CENTRIST Obama administration for continuing most of Bush's policies."

Well, as distasteful as Limbaugh is, that doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes have a valid point. And in this case you haven't argued that Democrats are not continuing to run against Bush and not in support of their agenda which was my point. I don't see a bunch of Democrats running for office that are upbraiding Obama for his CENTRIST policies, but perhaps they are there and I've missed them. So perhaps the Democrats are just as much a party of no as Republicans eh? NO OBAMA, NO BUSH, same song, second verse.

You mention unemployment extention, and Republican opposition, but you failed to mention why they opposed it.

Do you think there is ever too much government deficit spending?

I just have on question for you SWNebr how is it remotely possible to demand and even withhold unemployment extensions because they aren't "paid for" but when it comes to extending the tax break that the rich have been enjoying for most of the last ten years THAT doesn't have to be paid for?

Just from those two examples to a normal person who doesn't pay that much attention to politics it would appear pretty clear that Republicans are pitting the rich (whose tax cuts don't need to be paid for) against the rich (whose unemployment benefits must be paid for).

But I really just want you to answer or square away why tax cuts don't need to paid for but unemployment benefits do?

There are more low and middle income people benefitting from the Bush tax cuts than there are rich people benefitting from them. The low and middle income people are the ones who will suffer most if they are not renewed. However, the left only focuses on the rich who receive tax breaks as part of the tax cuts also given to low and middle income people. The problem also lies in the fact that small businesses get sucked into Obama's $250,000 "tax cut cap". The tax code needs to be rewritten for small businesses so they can avoid being classified in this rate (when the tax cuts are renewed and reclassified)when most of that money goes to their business expenses instead of themselves personally. Unfortunately, this will take a long time to iron out in Congress and nobody seems willing to tackle this issue to be certain it is resolved before the tax cuts expire except for the occasional representative who mentions it in passing. Nobody is really fighting for it and if they are, it's not being reported.

Here is an interesting article on renewing the Bush tax cuts and it includes the current tax rates and what they will be if they are not renewed. This clearly shows that EVERYBODY takes a hit if they're not renewed. It also shows a chart of Obama's rates but I don't know what they're basing them on since there has been no official proposal from the White House on renewing the tax cuts. I'm guessing they are making guesstimates based on some of his very vague speeches.

There are more low and middle income people benefitting from the Bush tax cuts than there are rich people benefitting from them. The low and middle income people are the ones who will suffer most if they are not renewed. However, the left only focuses on the rich who reeive tax breaks as part of the tax cuts also given to low and middle income people. The problem also lies in the fact that small businesses get sucked into Obama's $250,000 "tax cut cap". The tax code needs to be rewritten for small businesses so they can avoid being classified in this rate (when the tax cuts are renewed and reclassified)when most of that money goes to their business expenses instead of themselves personally. Unfortunately, this will take a long time to iron out in Congress and nobody seems willing to tackle this issue to be certain it is resolved before the tax cuts expire except for the occasional representative who mentions it in passing. Nobody is really fighting for it and if they are, it's not being reported.

Here is an interesting article on renewing the Bush tax cuts and it includes the current tax rates and what they will be if they are not renewed. This clearly shows that EVERYBODY takes a hit if they're not renewed. It also shows a chart of Obama's rates but I don't know what they're basing them on since there has been no official proposal from the White House on renewing the tax cuts. I'm guessing they are making guesstimates based on some of his very vague speeches.

There are more low and middle income people benefitting from the Bush tax cuts than there are rich people benefitting from them. The low and middle income people are the ones who will suffer most if they are not renewed. However, the left only focuses on the rich who reeive tax breaks as part of the tax cuts also given to low and middle income people. The problem also lies in the fact that small businesses get sucked into Obama's $250,000 "tax cut cap". The tax code needs to be rewritten for small businesses so they can avoid being classified in this rate (when the tax cuts are renewed and reclassified)when most of that money goes to their business expenses instead of themselves personally. Unfortunately, this will take a long time to iron out in Congress and nobody seems willing to tackle this issue to be certain it is resolved before the tax cuts expire except for the occasional representative who mentions it in passing. Nobody is really fighting for it and if they are, it's not being reported.

Here is an interesting article on renewing the Bush tax cuts and it includes the current tax rates and what they will be if they are not renewed. This clearly shows that EVERYBODY takes a hit if they're not renewed. It also shows a chart of Obama's rates but I don't know what they're basing them on since there has been no official proposal from the White House on renewing the tax cuts. I'm guessing they are making guesstimates based on some of his very vague speeches.

http://www.smartonmoney.com/bush-tax-cut...

I primarily watch CNN and 90% of what they've been reporting on is the BP spill. Except for yesterday when they learned the Sherrod lady was taken out of context then that was 90% of what they reported. Maybe today they'll be a little more diverse in their coverage but I doubt it.

I primarily watch CNN and 90% of what they've been reporting on is the BP spill. Except for yesterday when they learned the Sherrod lady was taken out of context then that was 90% of what they reported. Maybe today they'll be a little more diverse in their coverage but I doubt it.

I primarily watch CNN and 90% of what they've been reporting on is the BP spill. Except for yesterday when they learned the Sherrod lady was taken out of context then that was 90% of what they reported. Maybe today they'll be a little more diverse in their coverage but I doubt it.

Odd McCook last I checked I wasn't receiving any tax cuts and I am certainly in no way money rich. It is funny that you mention the all across the board tax cuts yet I haven't heard a single Republican mention it.

But the fact still remains and the question has still gone unanswered that the Republicans held up the unemployment benefits for nearly a month and now for an extra 30 hours just because they can because they want it paid for and yet they also say at the same time that the tax cuts don't have to be paid for. Why?

There's a disconnect there and they are playing it for everything they have. My favorite phrases that the Republicans have used against extending the unemployment benefits is that as long as they are there people will not be motivated to get a job. I guess it's not a problem for Republicans to call the middle and poor classes lazy and unmotivated. Now if a Democrat had said that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the fine folks at Fox News collective heads would be exploding and demanding that those people not only apologize but resign their posts. Pretty much like they did when "the Sherrod lady" was completely taken out of context for a political play.

Mike,

I would recommend that you learn about how taxes work and how the Bush tax cuts make your obligation to the government smaller than what they would have been. Bush implemented the 10% tax bracket on your first $8,500(single)/$17,000(married) in earnings which you were paying 15% on before, that's a tax cut.

Everything you make from $8,500 to $34,550 (single)/$17,000 to $57,700 is maintained at the 15% rate as it was before which is neutral. It used to be $0 to 34,550(single) and $0 to 57,700(married) was taxed at 15% until the 10% bracket was introduced by Bush.

Everything from $34,550 to $83,700 (single)/$57,700 to $139,500 (married) is 25% which was 28% before Bush tax cuts so that's a tax cut.

This continues throughout with the 28% bracket that was 31% before, the 33% bracket that was 36% before and with the 35% bracket that was 39.6% before.

If you are in the 15% bracket then you can expect an extra $425 to be taken from you every year. Basically, take your tax refund from last year and subtract $425 from it or add $425 to what you owe if you had to pay in for taxes. If you move further up into the middle income bracket then you can expect more to be taken out with the raise from 25% back to 28%. Now is not the time to take more money from people who are struggling anyway. If you're not money rich, I'm sure that extra $425 could really help out you and your family. You did receive a tax cut whether you realize it or not.

There are no proposals, only rhetoric. I don't see a bill in either house of Congress being offered by either party or the White House. It takes more than a brief mention of your plan in a political speech to make it a reality. I'm just saying they need to move on this sooner rather than later instead and deliver more than lip service to it.

If I could fetch several hundred thousand dollars from taxes then I would be making much more from taxes than my wages but I feel no sense of entitlement to their money. I will take my $425 and be happy because a rich person making more money than me is just reality, there's nothing wrong with it, and simple mathematics says that person would receive more back on taxes than I would at any tax rate that doesn't aim to make net earning the same for everybody. Sure I'd like all that money they make but I wouldn't want all the resentment from others that goes with it.

Sometimes we get so frustrated that others are better off than us that we want to blame them for our own problems or just be angry about their better situation. The rich pay a larger percentage of taxes than anyone and that reduces the amount the rest of us owe. The rich also give the most to charities but I don't hear people saying they are more generous because the average rich person gives more money than the average middle income person. You're trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing $425 to the refund that richer people receive.

The rich will always pay more in taxes and they will always receive larger refunds at the end of the year because of simple mathematics not politics.

Actually McCook they will recieve larger refunds because they have lawyers (or in cases themselves) that know how to find every loophole. They aren't rich on accident.

The CEO seems to be your target of choice so let's take a CEO with a $10 million taxable income. We'll go to the extreme and charge him 99% on his taxes and he'll get $100,000 after taxes. Now, say he overpaid (as most of us do) by just 1/2 of 1% then he gets back $50,000. He will have paid $9.9 million in taxes and taken home $100,000. For comparison, I overpaid 3% last year and I guarantee I didn't get anywhere near $50,000 back but I also didn't pay anywhere near $9.9 million in taxes either. That's because of math not politics.

Mike,

You don't get rich off tax refunds because you have to have the money in order to get it back. So they are obviously trying to keep more of the money they earned earlier in the year and who isn't trying to do that? I know I am.

What is a tax loophole other than a way to save money on your taxes legally. If I could afford it, I'd use the same thing since it's perfectly legal. Therefore I'd be hypocritical to fault them for doing the same. When you go to a regular accountant they are trying to find loopholes for you too. Some loopholes are just more well known than others. However, I actually prefer doing my own taxes since they are so simple. Now, if the Treasury Secretary could just figure out how to figure his own taxes...

These tax cuts the leftists keep crying about are really tax rate reductions. Many loopholes were in fact closed in exchange for these rate reductions, which in turn allowed the rich to pay more actual money in taxes, rather than taxing at a higher rate and allowing certain loophole which actually lowered the money the feds took in.

Now we are returning to a situation where the fed is wanting to tax at a higher rate and allow more loopholes, which in turn, will bring in less money to the feds. If you notice, all the tax rates are going up, including the rates for the poor.

The rich are rich because they are willing to put in the time to educate and prepare themselves for the future. They earned it.

G.I.,

So do you honestly think a person in the top tax bracket paying 99% would be unfair to people in the lower bracket paying 15%-28% because it's a political strategy to favor rich people?! Just what would you do? Fortunately, in America you are not limited to making a maximum amount of money so outside of true socialist regulatory caps on net earnings, there is no way around it.

There you go again CPB just like the national Republicans by essentially saying that all rich people worked hard and earned their money. We have quite a few examples of people that are rich that didn't do a thing but wake up in the morning, and even that was honest.

Saying all people are rich because they worked hard and earned it is almost as dishonest as saying that all middle and poor class people are where they are at because they are lazy and living off the government. There are cases of it, but it is not even remotely near the majority the national Republicans want everyone to believe it is.

"Saying all people are rich because they worked hard and earned it is almost as dishonest as saying that all middle and poor class people are where they are at because they are lazy and living off the government." Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jul 22, 2010, at 6:53 PM

You said this, I did not, thus the conclusion is this is the belief of the leftist. I know a lot of people, who by the leftist's standards, are classified as rich. I work for them, they are at work long before me, they are still working after I leave. They don't live in big, over sized houses, don't drive overpriced cars, and don't have luxurious items in the house.

In reality, you may have a very few examples of the idle rich, the trust funders, who's greatest accomplishment is to wake up and take a breath. In truth, the overwhelming number of the rich are in fact, hard working people.

G.I.,

99% was going to the extreme to show that even at that rate, the rich will still be receiving larger refunds than the average person and the reason for that is nothing more than math. At 39.6% that same CEO will still receive hundreds of thousands of dollars back if he overpays by 3% like I do every year. The point is that if 99% still gives more of a tax refund to the rich and you oppose that rate then 39.6% will give way more to them but you support that rate. It's not because you're being contradictory, just math. It's not politics they get more money back from taxes than the rest of us, it's just math. There are a very few extremists that think people should make a maximum amount and they could use math to equalize pay amongst the masses but luckily they are a minute minority.

No matter what you do with the tax rates (within reason) the rich will always benefit more. We just shouldn't target the rich as an enemy. People look at rich and poor people and think that automatically means it's "us vs. them" but it's not. The rich carry a large percentage of the tax burden for the poor and the middle class. Not to mention their charitable contributions to organizations that would be crippled without them.

All tax cuts are "unsubsidized" if you think about it because the only thing government can use to subsidize something is the money they take from taxes.

The top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of the taxes that governemnt receives so the low and middle income classes don't actually carry more of the tax burden, the rich are the ones who carry the majority of the tax burden. The top 50% of wage earners pay 94% of the tax burden, so the poor are left with very little of the actual tax burden thanks to those have more money than they do. It makes perfect sense that when people making the most money, pay the highest tax then they're likely going to carry the highest burden.

Before Bush, the poor and middle income people were paying more in taxes. So how did he burden them when he enacted tax cuts that put more money in their pockets than what they would have under the prior tax rates? If a person's refund is $700 this year and next year it goes down to $275 because people are too busy bickering over a 4.6% tax cut to the rich, how does that person benefit? Sure, most of the people in that bracket could probably afford it but it's not worth holding the whole thing up one way or the other. If there was a true sense of bipartisanship then somebody would say to raise it to 37.3% instead of 35% or 39.6% and be done with it. It's called a compromise and it's fair to both sides of the argument but politics usually trumps logic. This should be an easy issue to work together on but time will tell if they will or if it will be politics as usual.

Guillermo,

It is simple and irrefutable; the rich is anyone who makes more money, or has a higher standard of living than you (the leftist).

That's rich CPB now not only are all rich people hard workers and not a single on of them that got money through doing nothing but not they are all rightists. Gotta give it to you you know how to tell good jokes. Thank goodness you don't seriously believe what you type that would truly show some ignorance on your part.

"That's rich CPB now not only are all rich people hard workers and not a single on of them that got money through doing nothing but not they are all rightists." Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jul 23, 2010, at 5:36 PM

Clarify please.

Look at my post MichaelHendricks, no where will you find I said, not a single wealthy person got money from doing nothing, I stated there are "very few examples of the idle rich, the trust funders, who's greatest accomplishment is to wake up and take a breath."

For you to state otherwise, is factual proof that it is you, who is the truly ignorant.

Just read a piece on the shrinking middle class.

Just curious as to what you guys think of as middle class?

How much does a 2 income family need to make to be considered middle class?

To me, the middle class are those who can make ends meet with a 40 to 45 hour work week. Today, it takes about $12,000 to $15,000 per member of house hold to maintain a minimum standard of living. They adjust their standards of living to meet their levels of income.

The number of middle income house holds are decreasing due to both husbands and wives having to work to maintain the present standard of living due to ever increasing costs of living and an increasing tax burden. Many also want a higher standard of living. Either way, many are pushed into the upper middle class levels of incomes.

To the leftist, it is anyone without a college education who makes less than they (the leftist) do.

What is your fascination with defining everything according to "leftist" CPB? The only person on this site that I have seen define what level a person is on the Poor to Rich scale is you and I highly doubt that you are a "leftist".

No, I am not a leftist, and no, there is no fascination with defining a person's class according to wealth as according to leftist's standards. Just speaking from the experiences I have gleaned from talking to actual people.

Guillermo - Has a personal attack become mandatory to post on this site?

Mike attacking Steffani and you attacking me?

You guys are really acting childish.

Guillermo,

I fully understand your reason for name calling and personal attacks, your over-inflated ego and hatred of conservative thought. That being said, you did not refute my argument, in fact you may have proved me right.

The college professor analogy is flawed. Are the coming to the Central United States because or economic reasons, or are they coming here for academic freedoms they cannot get at the more liberal (leftist) colleges on both coasts? I say it is the latter.

My definition of a leftist, is anyone who believes and desires a centralized form of governmental control is needed to dictate outcomes irregardless of social and economic conditions. Pretty much the thoughts and beliefs of the resident liberals of this blog.

So, yes, a great deal of thought did go into my posts, and you could not refute them.

Are you seriously going to defend what the poster known as Steffani and at least a half dozen other names did on this site?

Don't act like you are totally innocent on this either wallismarsh. It is childish I completely agree but to put it solely on other people while actually making yourself a victim is quite astonishing.

Have you forgotten all your attacks over the past eight months?

You do realize CPB in your answer to me you actually did not respond to anything. I was not calling you a "leftist" I was pointing out the fact that you keep saying all these definitions keep coming from people that are "leftist" and yet you are actually the only one making the distinctions.

By the way wallismarsh just to finish my thought process your post calling the attacks childish was actually an attack on me. You were pointing out (or attacking depending on one's definition) GIs attacks and for some reason that you did not explain you pulled me into as well.

There have been plenty of other posters attacking posters on both the political blogs and yet you focused on me and my attempts to get a poster that had been banned several times for his language and absolute disregard for the terms of services on this site. You can call it attacking if you want to, but the person that posed as at least eight different posters was nothing more than a flamer that said whatever they could say to make people irate and lose their cool.

Your defense of a flamer is just odd to me and completely out of character for the way that you describe yourself. Don't take this as an attack but it just astounds me that in going after posters that you consider to be attacking other posters you only go after two (both happen to be liberally minded) while not only keeping yourself out of the attack category but defending the worst of the attackers.

You do understand that after edmundburke was booted that same poster was booted at least three different times in less than a three day period.

"liberals places tend to allow more academic freedoms" Posted by Guillermo Inglaterra on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 9:13 PM

I'll let someone else hit this one out of the park.

"YOU however are arguing that ANYONE who makes more money than a liberal is rich, and everyone who makes less money than a liberal is middle class." Posted by Guillermo Inglaterra on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 9:13 PM

Obviously, reading comprehension is a shortfall you face. As you stated " "rich by leftist standards.", (Posted by Guillermo Inglaterra on Fri, Jul 23, 2010, at 9:13 AM), I stated, "the rich is anyone who makes more money, or has a higher standard of living than you (the leftist) (Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jul 23, 2010, at 3:47 PM). Asked and answered.

Nor, did I define a liberal, as it was never asked to be defined. I defined a leftist, and it was not off topic, it was a clarification of the subject at hand, a leftist.

"'liberals places tend to allow more academic freedoms' Posted by Guillermo Inglaterra on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 9:13 PM

I'll let someone else hit this one out of the park."

Oh please do allow me to knock this one out of the park before another poster comes on with some wildly false information and states it as being "fact".

In circles where conservatives are of a greater number the sciences are actually suppressed unless it includes the non-scientific idea of creation.

Studies have shown that students that had conservative professors or teachers reported that those professors or teachers pushed their ideology far more than "liberal" professors or teachers.

But let's focus on liberal places allowing more academic freedoms. This is actually true since in the more liberal leaning areas with schools allow their teachers and professors to actually teach to the students information where as typically more conservative places are more concerned with political ideology in the classroom than teaching facts.

A couple of examples Kansas and Texas. The Texas Board of Education completely changed history in order to fit a more conservative ideology into the textbooks.

Hit and gone, thanks for serving that up CPB.

Also on the defining part all GI stated was rich by leftist standards you took it upon yourself to define what a leftist standard is even though you contradicted yourself so much to the point that if someone is a leftist if anyone is richer than them they are rich but poorer than them is poor.

Maybe it's just me but I think that essentially fits the definition of everyone not just "leftists".

Numbers is a Gay bar Period.

I will fly you to Houston and prove it.

Afraid of the truth.

Is internet surfing the answer? Or actually seeing something with your own eyes?

http://www.gaybarmaps.com/bars/texas/houston

I went to google and typed: numbers houston gay bar.

I do not know why gay bashing was tolerated and defended by Mike.

My 2 seconds of internet due diligence found this.

Numbers is the gay bar on Westheimer.

Whether or not it is a gay bar wallis is immaterial at this point. No one was gay bashing on the thread in question.

You started attacking posters left and right as they tried to show you that Numbers is a club that plays music and a place that many national acts have played at. But you would have none of it you continued to attack.

Then you come on this thread and try playing the victim card, ala Breitbart.

Then to top it off you go on an attack against me because I was attempting to clean up the board by getting a flamer banned permanently from this website. While we all have a long way to go to getting back to civil debate the board is much improved with the poster by a 1000 names gone.

But if you want to defend him that's your American born right to it just seems odd to me that you would defend him just to attack me and that is exactly what you did.

It is a little pointless to complain about attacking other posters while you are attacking other posters. It really gets nothing done.

http://houston.gaycities.com/

Numbers is not on the lists provided by this site

http://www.houstongayguide.com/gay-bars-houston.htm

Numbers is not on this list as well

http://www.houston.com/gay-houston/nightlife.html

Once again Numbers is not on this site

http://gaybarshouston.com/menu.html

Numbers again not on this list

http://houston.citysearch.com/listings/houston/gay_lesbian_bars/72016_1737

Yet again no Numbers

I went through every page on the first page of google search and not a single result listed Numbers as a gay bar in Houston.

It is odd that you decry web searches and only seeing is believing then you come up with the only search to ever list Numbers as a gay club.

The bottom line is that in the thread in question it was you that went on the attack and tried to create controversy where there was one. Who cares if a poster invites you to a gay club? How is that gay bashing? The only possible way that could even be construed as gay bashing is if you yourself were gay and were invited to a bar that looked down on gay people.

But in the context that it was written someone offered to take you to a bar, bottom line.

Guillermo,

I tried in vain to follow your analogy, then realized why it was impossible, it was not based in reality. But, then again, I realize you have NO real world experience.

Here is a better analogy. There are three houses on a block, three different families.

Household 1; Headed by Corey, a conservative.

Education; Two year Tech School

Employment; Self-employed

Marital Status; Married

Children; 2

Housing; Small 3 bedroom, 2 bath - Paid for

Furnishings; older and dated - Paid for

Vehicles; 15 year old truck, 8 year old Mini-van -Both paid for

Hobbies; Hunting and camping

Annual Income; $48,000

Outlook on Life; Life is good

Next door we have Lisa, a liberal.

Education; MS Child psychology

Marital Status; Single - Multiple boyfriends, one for each mood

Children; None (3 abortions while in college, doesn't count, all behind her now)

Housing; 5 bedroom, 5 bath - Mortgaged

Furnishings; All modern trends - Mortgaged

Vehicles; 2008 RAV4-4 years of payments left, 2010 Prius-6 years of payment left - Mortgaged

Hobbies - Going on cruises - Mortgaged

Annual Income; $52,000

Outlook on Life; Facing certain financial bankruptcy, but my stuff is better than Corey's

And across the street, we have the Leftists, Lenny and Leosha.

Education; 6 years in a 4 year college for Lenny,(It's not the paper I'm after, it's the knowledge, man), 6 years also for Leosha (I know I haven't finished a single class, there so hard)

Marital Status; Not married (But we are as 1 with mother nature)

Children; None (They consume too much of Mother Earth's resources, man)

Housing; Living in Leosha's mother's basement

Furnishings; None

Vehicles; Leosha's mothers Escalade (Burns too much fuel, man. She must die for this, man)

Hobbies; Protesting, piercings, tattoo's, and weed (don't judge me, man!)

Annual Income; $50,000 (It's a gift from Leosha's mom, man. Don't judge me!)

Outlook on Life; That b!#@h Lisa is stealing money off of our backs, that's why we can't get jobs. Her cars, they should be ours. She prances around with all her education, education that should be ours. Who gave her the right to own such a big house, we work too, man. All her fancy vacations, we deserve them too, man. Sure we spend all our money on body art and weed, and potato chips, just stop judging us, man. And that poorly educated Corey, he just doesn't get it, man. Here he is working all those hours, and that f?@K!*g b!#@h Lisa takes all his money to she can cruise around of those big ship and party with all her fancy friends. He needs our help, man. He should quit or go on strike and protest with us, MAN!!!

"I tried in vain to follow your analogy, then realized why it was impossible, it was not based in reality. But, then again, I realize you have NO real world experience."

Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 4:38 PM

That is the funniest thing I have read in months. GI was basing his analogy off of your definitions. So when you say his analogy was not based in reality you are also saying that your own definition are not based in reality.

Oh that's classic.

Of course you do realize that your own analogy isn't even in the same vicinity as reality.

First of all what is your difference between a liberal and a leftist?

Second you only included three examples: what about the conservative dead beat that beats on his ex wife every chance he gets. Or the liberal married mother of three with a PhD. What about the God fearing older couple at the end of the block that judges everyone that passes by their house yet has been known to throw a key party every other week. What about the gay couple living in the quaint house that has been together longer than any of the married couples on the block but are not allowed to get married because the older religious couple that likes to throw key parties thinks it's just too icky.

What about the woman who is raising three children on her own and working 3 jobs just to pay the bills.

I mean your reality is quaint, the one conservative fellow who is doing everything right and nothing wrong living alongside the liberal and leftists who not only do everything wrong but are the reason the conservative fellows taxes are too high. Can you even find a real neighborhood like that in reality?

Thank you GI for taking it upon yourself to actually email the club itself. Hopefully (and I do emphasize HOPEFULLY) this will resolve the situation now and we can move on.

I hate to disagree with you Senior but the less people that are on that want to do nothing but be divisive and deride other users I say good deal to.

I want to come on this blog and have serious dialogues with people of differing views. I don't want to have to put up with people with hatred views and neither do most users and readers on this site.

I will also miss the "young sucklings" adage how awesome was that?

LOL.. So intelligent,but not very bright.......

Having humiliated my political opponents in an earlier post, I should have quit as they are licking their wounds. But it is late, and my fertile mind is at work.

Mike attempted to add to the analogies with his own failed, but attempts anyway. I will add to them.

His first example if the "conservative dead beat" that beats on his ex-wife every chance he gets. His name is Freddy, he is considered conservative only because he hoards his money. He worships it more than life itself. His ex-wife could no longer live a life of a hypocrite, she divorces him, and given his long history of abuse, is granted a huge alimony settlement. Freddy doesn't like this, so the abuse continues. Until one night, caught sneaking around the ex's back yard, a police officer apprehends him. A fight ensues and Freddy is fatally shot. As his last squirt of blood leaves his body, he comes face to face with Jesus Christ, who passes His judgement.

The next example is Phylis, the PhD. She spent all those years studying, all the while neglecting her devoted husband, who died of a heart attack. Her children, while taken care of by nannies, are neglected of their mothers time spent with them. They learn to take care of themselves, not with compassion and care, but of greed. One of them is Lisa, a liberal woman. Now in her 40's, she finds herself alone, really alone. All her friends, tired of her selfishness, have left her and have lives of their own. Her shrink diagnoses her loneliness to a mother who forsaken (sacrificed) her children for her own self gratification. One winery night, Phylis slips and fall on he ice, as all that knowledge oozes out of her head, Jesus passes His judgement.

Mike's third example is the God-fearing old couple who passed judgement of everyone who passes by their house and was known to throw key parties every other week. Harold and Maude were high power attorneys of law, and were esteemed board members of their beautiful church where on any given Sunday, one could find ten cars parked there. Unknown to most, the key parties included members of the church, and other "power people" of the community. One night, Harold and a young up and coming female attorney found themselves at the local no-tell motel. A room above, a 500 pound man runs from the shower and belly-flops onto the bed. The floor collapses onto Harold and his prize. The phone rings and Maude finds herself talking to the police about the "situation", and hastily drive to the motel. As Harold releases his last breath, Maude collides with a gas tanker. Her lungs now filled with ignited regular unleaded. They die at the same time, but at different locations. They have 2 children, and unknown to Maude, a female "love child", Lori. The will is split 3 different ways, and the "illegitimate" woman is given 1/3 of Harold's and Maude's estate. She and her conservative husband, Corey, decide this money would be best used if given to the poor. Which they did. Jesus passes His judgement, and is pleased with Corey and Lori

Mikes final analogy is that of the single woman, Sandy, raising 3 children while working 3 jobs. Two of the children were grade school age, but a daughter, Leosha, was in her mid-twenties with a boyfriend, Lenny, also in his mid-twenties, live with this overworked and underappreciated woman in her basement. Lenny and Leosha did not, and refused to find work, instead spent all their time taking various college courses with no final goal in mind. For hobbies, they spent all the money Sandy had given them on body piercings, tattoo's, drugs, and hanging out at what ever protest was occuring that day. One day Lenny scored some bad acid, thought he was a bald eagle and tried to fly over the grizzly bear pit at the local zoo. He was not a bald eagle, nor could he even fly, but the grizzly did not need feed the rest of the day. Leosha, now lost and even more confused, finds herself going to a non-denominational church and is accepted as a sister in Christ and now does missionary work for the Lord, who is pleased with her.

The gay couple were hit and killed by lightning, not because I'm homophobic, but because I'm tired and losing focus.

Good night all!

Wow that's the best you have CPB? Even I am ashamed by your effort on that one. What a magical world you live in where you can declare yourself the winner and that's the end of the conversation. Now if you had stopped right at the moment you probably would have had something but then you launch into some fabled tale (again) where conservatives are good and liberals (even if they are conservative) are bad.

"The gay couple were hit and killed by lightning, not because I'm homophobic, but because I'm tired and losing focus."

Sounds pretty homophobic to me but let's pretend for a moment that you are not. It is very highly interesting that the one couple from my example that has lived a good life and been together longer than any other couple on the block you kill them off with one lightning strike. I guess we know your opinion of good strong partnerships (whether they be by marriage or not).

Come on CPB I know you can do better than this. I don't recall licking any wounds considering I don't have any and I know that GI completely tore apart your own definitions which you are now (naturally) denying that you ever made. So who exactly have you humiliated?

"They have 2 children, and unknown to Maude, a female "love child", Lori. The will is split 3 different ways, and the "illegitimate" woman is given 1/3 of Harold's and Maude's estate. She and her conservative husband, Corey, decide this money would be best used if given to the poor. Which they did. Jesus passes His judgement, and is pleased with Corey and Lori"

Unfortunately this would never happen unless they both had separate living wills. If as you suggest Maude did not know about Lori then it is more than likely they did not have separate living wills. If they did have a living will then the money would only be split two ways. Seeing as how most people do not have living wills whatever money they did have would not go immediately to any surviving relatives.

You really shouldn't criticize others examples and then leave this for everyone to tear apart.

I have done my part. Care to add anything else, GI?

@MH It's actually even more simple than that. All these peoples actions in the stories are irrelevant. As long as at there death they accept Jesus as there savior, they go to heaven.

I'm a bit more about personal responsibility, but that does sound nice.

Hello to all. This is first time posting. I have read the above comments that are far off from the actual article and would like to give my 2 cents.

1. both parties (liberal and conservative) who posted on this sight are attacking each other and nothing is being accomplished but a lot of name calling.

2. You can try as you might to change one's perspective but it will not happen unless the party is willing.

I can not sit idly by and let this go unsaid. Christianity whether you are liberal or conservative, republican, democratic, politics or not is not about judging others. It is about LOVE. A Christian is to strive to be more Christ-like. Christ loved all. Sinners, saints, and those who sat on the fence. He did not forsake anyone but tried to reach and teach the people. He again Loved all! We are to strive to love one another. (And for those who would like to argue "love" it does not mean sex. "Love" is caring. I do not see that from these comments. I see a ton of hatred and anger that is wrongly placed. Christ did not hate the homosexuals~He did not push them away nor wish ill towards them. He called them to Him. He tried to teach them the error of their ways by showing kindness. The Mother of three (all of whom by different fathers) was not shunned but yet called to Him. He cared for her and showed her the error of her ways. The list goes on...read the bible. The standard King James or even the New King James. God is NOT a hateful God. He is LOVE! We as humans are flawed, selfish, and ignorant by His standards but He still loves each one of us. I do apologize~ I did not intend for this to be a sermon so I will stop with that aspect of my rant.

You all may battle with what political party did what, where, when, how, and even who (HAHA) but the reality of it is...each party has there own ideals and beliefs. GREAT! But please stop the name calling. You look like little children out on the playground bullying one another.

Now my personal opinion~ No I am not an Obama hater or even anti-Obama. He is our President. The people of this great country chose him to lead us in a direction that he felt we needed. That said~ he is just a man and made numerous promises during election time (as all the runners do) and he found that it is harder then it looks. He is not getting it accomplished. Lesson learned. Move on. Time for the next to come in and pick up the pieces. Maybe someone who can do a much better job. :)

Have a great day everyone!

@Grace Curious the god from the old testament was fairly angry and vengeful to me. Curious how he made a mistake with that and went on to become so luvy duvy in the new testament. As an omnipotent being, how does that work?

"That said~ he is just a man and made numerous promises during election time (as all the runners do) and he found that it is harder then it looks. He is not getting it accomplished. Lesson learned. Move on. Time for the next to come in and pick up the pieces. Maybe someone who can do a much better job."

So you discount that the fact he didn't get it done was one party consistently and constantly opposing everything he did. It doesn't matter that every bill he wanted passed was so watered down by the time it passed just so one party could beat a filibuster is all on him. The fact that one party filibustered EVEN when they agreed with the bill and would eventually vote for it was his fault not the Congresses fault.

It's interesting though that you go solely after Obama but leave Congress completely out of the fold on this. Let's vote him out and get someone who can do a better job, but Congress, nah they are doing just fine.

One group has continually held back legislature and even put on holds on nominees not because they disagreed with it but because they wanted Obama to fail and make it look to the average citizen that it was actually his fault when the things they did caused him to not be able to fulfill his promises. It appears it has worked on you. There are three branches of government all with a piece of the pie (so to speak) to solely blame what's going on in Washington on one branch (the executive) is short sighted.

Also it's hard for people to take you at your word when you say you are not against Obama or and Obama hater when you put all the blame at his feet.

So here is my question to you: Do you approve of the Republicans filibustering every single bill that has come before the Senate? Do you approve of Republicans putting blind holds on nominees even stating that once the hold is lifted they plan to vote FOR the nominees?

You talk about Jesus loving all and preaching that we must love one another (which I also believe) but then you go on to talk about Christ trying to teach gays and lesbians about their wrong ways.

This is really hypocritical in my view how are we supposed to love one another by Christ's view if it also considered sinful for a certain group of people to love one another.

By the way what about homosexuality is so sinful. I am not looking for Bible scriptures. I know those. I also know the Bible scriptures that completely contradict the Bible scriptures that says men loving another men is a sin. That's old news. I want to know why you believe that Jesus saw homosexuality as a sin? I don't actually remember this part being in any of his sermons, but let's forget that part. Why am I supposed to look down on someone because they love someone of the same sex?

Did I miss something for the past 1.5 years? I thought President Obama has Democrat majorities in both houses. The American people spoke with their votes, we want leftism/socialism. Or is Bush still president?

Your answers concerning Jesus and homosexuality can be found at;

http://thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9

If you still have doubts, I have nothing more to say.

"The American people spoke with their votes, we want leftism/socialism. Or is Bush still president?"

Well I see that CPB is picking up the mantle of edmundburke. How do you deflect sincere questions? Mock and don't answer. Majorities mean nothing CPB, when the minority has the power (through filibuster) to stall every piece of legislature comes to the floor. Right now, in the Senate, the minority party has the power and THEY are at fault for the recession still being here, THEY are at fault for the American people not having affordable health care, THEY are responsible for throwing Americans who can't find a job under the bus.

"If you still have doubts, I have nothing more to say."

Amazing CPB instead of answering the question you provide a link that only provides one-sided views and then follows up that link with a refusal to answer any more questions.

Okay then well CPB has officially taken himself out of any further debate.

I am not going to apologize to a gay basher Senior.

You and GI and Mike can engage in whatever propaganda you desire.

You know what you were trying to do and all the twisting and contorting you and yours attempt to do will not change the truth.

Seriously, wallis? You are going to continue on this unwarranted baseless attack? When someone invites you to a bar that is not even in the vicinity of gay bashing.

You, sir, were in the wrong. Don't you find it odd that the only person in this entire situation that found any link describing Numbers as a gay bar was you? I looked at it honestly, I looked at every link I could find and never once came across the same link you found.

You are trying, for some reason, to stir up a controversy where there is fact not one.

But it doesn't really surprise me you are the same person who claimed for more than a month that I had never even lived in the McCook area. I believe that you knew that I have lived in McCook but you were wanting people to stop reading my blogs so you cooked up the whole idea of me not even ever living in Nebraska. Just a tiny bit of investigation would have shown you the truth. When you first started coming around talking about all your credentials, I did not believe you for a second, so I researched you, found that the information you were posting about yourself was in fact true, and let it go.

You, wallis, are a liar and you keep getting caught. Now if you want to have a serious debate then let's go for it. But if all you want to do is throw baseless false allegations at those who have a different political ideology than you then you really need to reassess your goals.

By the way wallis I am in agreement with GI what propaganda am I promoting? Out of everyone involved in that sordid affair the only one that can even come close to propoganda is you. You pushed the gay bashing where there was no proof that there was any and continued to push it.

Here we are a couple of weeks later and you are still trying to push people to believe that someone was gay bashing (I am assuming against you, since asking you to a bar, be it gay or not, is in no way calling bashing gays) when there wasn't one example of gay bashing anywhere in any of the posts.