KaskadskyjKozak

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! What good does our alliance with Israel do us, exactly?

All I can offer is my respect and best wishes. You're a class-act, CB - even if you do have some political flaws. +1 Good luck, CBS. Hopefully "staying on" is relatively stress-free (low work level).

Bush may compromise with Dems to get spending on what he wants by spending more on what they want. Reagan did it in the 80s to an increasing deficit spending.

Both "sides" moralize just as much. The left just thinks it's OK to do it, because they have no God (other than themselves) who is "making the rules" that support the principles which they believe. Somehow it is no problem to make up your own principles and that this is somehow non-offensive and non-threatening; wheras principles based on a higher power are. In fact such a basis of belief and behavior is no better than 100% equivalent, and arguably much worse. The left also ignores the fact that there are always those who profess a belief for their own gain, whether they actually believe what they profess or not, and such hypocrisy does not apply to those who actually hold a set of beliefs which they in fact practice. The belief system of thousands of honest, moral people are not illegitimized nor negated by one pastor visiting a male prostitute and taking meth. Moreover, I will add that it is always easier to succeed with no beliefs and standards than to occasionally fail when you actually have standards. So congrats to all you moralizing liberals that are successful in your lack of moral beliefs! You've succeeded in meeting your own standards. Good job!

The difference these days is that the code word "moral values", as used in public political speech, has come to mean the prayer in schools, pro-life, anti-gay agenda embraced by the religious right. It is a philosophy that strongly believes in the government legislating what goes on in the bedroom, how to parent children, and how individuals should behave in private. In essence, it is public policy based on fundamentalist christianity. Needless to say, those of us who are not christian, and who still hold the constitution in high regard, object to this agenda, and to the hijacking of the word "moral" in public discourse. yeah, we need liberals like you teaching us how to raise our children. lesson one: Mr. Trashie teaches the kiddies how to flip people off.

I partially think the dems would be better off losing this time around and winning the presidency and the house in '08. the senate leans more moderate and they might get some agenda through. a contrarian house for the next 2 years just means more gridlock, and a two year campaign for the next elections. (barf) in any case, I agree with Fairweather. nothing much is going to change no matter how this election falls. I expect a dismal turnout. interest is pretty low.

That's better! You're back in the spraying spirit!

A self-righteous proclamation from one of the most profane blowhards on cc.com. Oh wait, only liberals can be self-righteous. I forgot. Bullshit. This is a joke bulletion board, it's private (yes that's why you can be banned or edited arbitrarily), and there's no schoolchildren looking over our shoulders. Oh yeah. Fuck off.

She took food off her own table. You can't act that way in her position, period. If she were a private citizen in her own car, off the job, there would be no problem.

Who, Thompson or Nixon? Uh...basically it was. he was dunked in raw sewage? cool

how ironic, that's how HST's body should have been suitably "disposed of"

that statement speaks volumes about you

nah, KK has big hands keep your gay fantasies about my big hands to your self

Exactly: liberals don't act rationally, they act on emotion. Thanks for the corroboration of that fact.

and let's not forget McDermott passing along intercepted cell phone calls.

kind of like liberal reporters grilling Newt's mommy to find out what nasty things he said about Hillary and then reporting that all over the place as if it were newsworthy, and demanding a pound of flesh for this "great offense"? please spare us all the partisan-inspired indignation

A handful? You have apparently omitted the catholic church. no, I haven't.

uh,yeah, except there are thousands and thousands of pastors and only a handful of these cases a year.

You're ignoring my point. Maybe if I cite a liberal icon, you'll get it: Let me tell you how it will be; There's one for you, nineteen for me. 'Cause I’m the taxman, Yeah, I’m the taxman. Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all. 'Cause I’m the taxman, Yeah, I’m the taxman. (if you drive a car, car;) - I’ll tax the street; (if you try to sit, sit;) - I’ll tax your seat; (if you get too cold, cold;) - I’ll tax the heat; (if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.

unless of course they inherited the capital somebody worked for that capital, and was taxed for it, whether it was passed down once, twice, or many times

I'm repeating several posts previous, but let me repeat that you are just plain WRONG on the double or triple taxation issue. If you are against such "double or triple taxaction, let's talk about simply eliminating the "step up" in basis. The vast majority if not nearly all of what is taxed under estate taxation laws has never been taxed. We are not talking about some poor working schmoe whose estate is now being taxed on his paycheck savings. In order to pay any estate tax at all, you must have an estate valued at over $2 million or $4 million for a married couple. Unless they are paid a lot more than you and me, this is not a tax on someone's wage income that has been put in the piggy bank, but it is a tax on their earnings from stock investment or real estate or other assets that have never been taxed. Seriously: the "double taxation" argument just doesn't hold up unless you assume that these people who earn 100's of thousands a year are idiots and don't invest well. Let's have a real discussion here and see how many succesful investors are interested in avoiding "double or triple taxation." (Note: by "successful investor" I mean anybody who has had substantial sums to invest - wealth - and competent counsel or inate skills in asset management.) cut the bullshit lawyer speak. That estate was built up through the efforts of someone who was taxed on his/her income and through real estate taxes. That person paid his dues *already*. When he/she dies and the estate goes to a family member - or whomever he gives the property in his will, the government is taxing again. It's bullshit. Of course all pinko commie statist assholes don't see it that way. Big government tries to justify spreading out taxation across the board for everything they can, purposely hiding beyond a false premise of "fairness" and playing class warfare.

I get taxed every year in a progressive tax system based on my income. My property is taxed every year for real estate taxes. After years of paying my taxes, I die. The government has no damn business taxing my estate, when I leave it to my family, no matter how big it is. you, comrade!

and now you've made him both hot and bothered...

Although the State gleans more from rich estates, and the rich may be required to divest a portion of the estate's portfolio to pay the tax, the loss of a few 10k - 100k, or the need to take on a mortgage to retain the family home/ranch/farm has a significantly greater impact upon the lower to middle-income, relatively. Haven't you learned not to bother Hot Carl with facts?