I'm surprised that no one has created a topic on this:

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

The tax reform act created the 15% and 28% tax brackets which raised overall taxation for the majority of americans, while reducing the upper tax bracket. The majority of americans experienced a tax increase. Why do you think the individual tax rates were "reduced" while the income tax receipts increased 0.3% the first year of inception?

Wrong. The majority did not experence a tax increase-
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/tra0100.pdf

Taxes of most families Ion average, all but the best-off tenth) were reduced. (The table showes the tax changes by income group.)

You sure that's a working link? I just clicked on it multiple times and each time, "Page cannot be displayed"

Natoma wrote:

Did or did not Ronald Reagan raise taxes, effectively repealing much of his 1981 tax cut, because the economy was facing a massive drain on funds? This is most certainly not up for misconception and built in assumptions. It happened.

The conservative of conservatives, the person all supply siders look to when making the case for lowering taxes, ended up raising taxes.

Good Lord!
You write it as if everything he did was reversed. You talk out your ass then backtrack on everything, editing your bold statements to now include Bush and Clinton.

I never said everything he did was reversed, obviously. If it were, tax rates for the upper income bracket would be back in the 40's and 50's. I stated that the deficit holes created by those tax cuts were addressed by Reagan, then Bush, and finally Clinton, in order to bring fiscal balance back to the budget.

 

[Silent_One]

Link works for me
Anyone elce? (link is from the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and was released on Jan. 7, 2000 - Title of PDF is "Critics of Bradley's Role in 1986 Tax Reforms are Misinformed says CTJ"

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You sure that's a working link? I just clicked on it multiple times and each time, "Page cannot be displayed"

Are you sure it says "cannot be displayed", as opposed to "will not be displayed?"

Perhaps you have your "block non liberal web-sites" filter activated. I'm probably on the list too....but I'll put it on my site temporarily in case:

http://www.defuria.com/for_natoma/tra0100.pdf

I never said everything he did was reversed, obviously.

No, you said something along the lines of (paraphrase) "he realized what a mistake he made, and so he increased taxes to fix his mistake."

Passing a bill the offers more fair tax treatment, and at the same time increases revenues, is not my definition of a non-conservative tax bill, inconsistent with prior policy.

Oh, and Bush Sr. can hardly be labeled a conservative...

 

[Natoma]

I have argued "special treatment," but has nothing to do with personal freedoms and moreso to do with equal treatment in facilities provided for an education so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be educated.

Right.

In oirder to have equal treatment, we must have unequal treatment. I know...standard liberal logic.

The result is the same. Equal access to educational material and resources.

1986 Tax Reform Act. Addressed in further detail in my last post.

Addressed by Silent_One, and I 'll readress it here.

1) The article makes no reference to that.
2) The 1986 Tax Act was aimed primarily at BALANCING tax liability, and providing for simpler tax code, which is definitely a conservative trait. It significantly LOWERED the top ("for the rich," as you would say) corporate and personal marginal rate. It broadened the taxable base. Again, this is a conservative trait. Spread tax liability across more people, rather than concentrate it at higher income levels.

Conservatives are not about NO taxes. We're about FAIR taxes. We're CERTAINLY not about fewer people paying taxes.

Neither are liberals about fewer people paying taxes. And liberals are certainly about FAIR taxes. However, it should be noted that the 90s boom was setup in part by the increases on the top income rates, as well as everyone else, in 1990 and 1993, to the point where tax collection as a percentage of GDP was the same as it was pre-Reagan.

The constitution already provides equal protection for homosexuals and heterosexuals wrt legal, NOT religious, marriage.

I don't recall there being a Supreme Court case to decide that, Natoma. I don't recall homosexuals having any more or less a right to get married either. I'm a heterosexual, and I can't marry someone of the same sex any more than you can. Legally or otherwise.

You're a heterosexual. That's a distinct reason why you wouldn't attempt to marry someone of the same sex.

It is simply a matter of time before this is stated verbally. /me waits for the Massachussetts Supreme Court decision.

Which of course, refers to Massachussetts law, and is not the final say on U.S. Constitutional Law.

As seen in other instances (evidenced by the conservative mad dash toward an amendment banning gays from getting married), one supreme court decision generally leads to a sweeping change across the country. Laws banning gay marriage in one state would not be any less unconstitutional and/or illegal than those in another state.

Thank you full faith and credit.

Show me anything liberals have created that compares with DOMA, Jim Crow, Prohibition, confederate flag day, or the patriot act, for instance.

Geezus, I thought just yesterday we were taling about gay public high schools...

Maybe you should just stop here. Yea. Harvey Milk is in any way comparable to Jim Crow or DOMA or Prohibition, or any of those other wonderful conservative acts. I hope there was a hidden [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tag that I just didn't happen to see.

Actually the airlines lobbied and co-wrote for these identification purposes. To identify citizens from non-citizens, those with a criminal history from those without, because flights can span not only the US, but international as well. If this was forced upon the airlines then you might have a point, but it wasn't.

Of course they lobbied for certain aspects of it. It was going to happen regardless...so they're damn well going to have some say in it.

Well that's something that can't be proven now can it?

Only as much as your take off and destination. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and that's bad enough. Just the fact that it's know that I was on an airplane at a specific point in time is a breach of my privacy.

Moreso than it is a breach of your privacy to know where you live or what state you're in? Or what hotel you're staying at?

That is their requirement for flying their airlines, as guidelines setup by the airline industry and the US government.

Right.
1. Requirement
2. U.S. Government.

Right....and there are laws in place about who and what can even ASK for this number. Why is that?

Because there are certain instances when identification is required, such as when you want to access your bank records in some instances, or your education records. So they know who to look for.

Natoma, you keep on giving me REASONS why personal rights / freedoms are infringed upon. And I keep telling you....THAT'S THE PONT!

This is not infringing upon your persona freedoms!

How else would they know who to service if you didn't tell them who you are, or prove to them that you are who you say you are?

If you're really this paranoid about it, get a fake passport with your photo and a different name, address, etc.

Now I've heard it all. Now, I'm the one who's "paranoid" about my freedoms? Now you're suggesting I do something illegal to allay those fears? This is too much!

Maybe I should have surrounded that in sarcasm tags since you took it literally.

And what would YOU or anyone else define as unreasonable and unwarranted? I gave my definition above. Proof of a drug charge, i.e. the courts found that person guilty, or prior evidence of drugs found on their person.

Hey Natoma, in a court of law in almost all cases, I can't consider a person's prior record when considering the current case before me. You did know that right?

Uhm, then what have you regarding California's 3 Strikes rule? Your prior record is certainly used against you, not to mention during sentencing, and in some cases, establishment of your "character."

If 1 seemingly random person a month is dying of a drug overdose on school grounds, is that not "reasonable" to institute a random locker search policy for drugs?

This has been argued and shot down as a legal reason for random searches actually. I recall reading a few cases after the columbine incident whereby schools, in the interest of beefing up security, instituted policies like this. They were deemed illegal.

The whole point of this exercise is to get you to admit that these "inherent principals" are not without exception. We carve out exceptions (or APPARENT exceptions) in cases where we feel it is for "the greater good".

Uhm, didn't I state that before this discussion even began?

[edit]And my point is, such exceptions, or even apparent exceptions, (those that not everyone would agree is actually an exceptoin) should be legislated by the people. Not left up to the "judicial panel of the day" to decide.[/edit]

The 15th amendment was passed in 1868 giving blacks the right to vote, and that they could not be denied on the basis of their color or prior condition of servitude. Why is it then that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was needed? "Legislated by the people" does not always work in enforcing the principles of the constitution. That's why we have a judiciary.

Even before you provide a passport, you are no longer anonymous.

WHY.

Why not?

Huh? Because my "right to privacy" (inherent aspect of "freedom," right? According to liberals), is infringed upon when I'm not anonymous.

In what way? Your "right to privacy" extends to your home, as established by the supreme court's interpretation of that "right to privacy."

It is most certainly equal. Everyone ages and deteriorates in ability.

Amazing how the liberal mind works. Everyone does NOT age equally. So putting some age requirement is discrimination.

There is no age requirement for driving (save for the minimum age required by certain states). You simply have to be tested moreso because the body and reflexes deteriorate. This is in no way shape or form discrimination.

And again, you said NEVER at this level. Never extends all the way back to the beginning of this country. So again, I'd like to see the source.

Um, I VOLUNTEERED, to try and find you statistics from the very onset. And that the one particular statistic that I DID recall and state off the top of my head, I then EXACTLY VERIFIED that statistic upon your request.

I always provide sources. My comment "I'd like to see the source for this" was in reference to your "never at this level" comment.

 

[Natoma]

I still can't get the first link to open, but downloaded the pdf from joe's site. First off, those income levels are from 1996. Uhm, but there were tax revisions between 1986 and 1996, and they're saying that these were the direct result of the Tax Reform Act? :?

Oh and btw, Bush Sr. not a conservative? That's news to me.......

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And I gave you an exact source for the 40%/90% figure. The others will come assuming I find them. Keep your pants on.

Here's some other insight into the "uniqueness" of the current judicial nominee situation:

http://www.700club.com/CBNNews/News/030728a.asp

Democrats may soon be filibustering the judicial nomination of conservative Bill Pryor, making for an unprecedented three simultaneous filibusters going on in the Senate.

"Democrats hide behind this cloud, this smoke of tit-for-tat, that 'we do it, they do it, it's all politics.' They hide behind that, because the truth speaks for itself: Republicans have never filibustered a nominee," he said.

This is basically the Democrat retort:

""They were able to convince Bill Clinton not to send up nominees that would be filibustered. Bill Clinton didn't send up a bunch of lefties when he realized all he would have is fights."

Ah...so Clinton didn't have the integrity to nominate someone he thought was right for the job? Based on what he thought would happen? Yup...a man who runs his ship "by the polls"...

In any case, clear evidence that this has never happened before. NEVER, have the republicans actually filibustered a judicial nominee.

 

[Natoma]

Can you come up with a better source than the 700club? I consider their partisanship about as even with Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Can you come up with a better source than the 700club? I consider their partisanship about as even with Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.

So you're saying that Manuel Miranda, counsel to majority leader Bill Frist, is lying about the filibusters, or that he never actually said that? You're saying that when Kamber did not DENY the fact that republicans never filibustered against a judicial nominee....he was lying too?

You asked for sources, and I'm giving them to you....

 

[Natoma]

I don't know if they've never used the filibuster before to block judicial nominees, but republicans have certainly blocked nominations to the judiciary "by simply refusing to process the nominations"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030523.html

I don't know which is worse. Talking forever and a day until people give up, or not processing a nominee at all. You take your pick as to which is more "detestable".

[EDIT]Well, found one so far. Abe Fortas was Lyndon Johnson's Supreme Court Nominee in 1968, and his nomination was derailed by a Republican Filibuster.

Google "Abe Fortas 1968 Filibuster" to get the links.

I don't know whether or not this makes the republicans in that article liars Joe, but it would seem to make them at least misinformed would it not?

Edit #2: This article seems to contend that the GOP has indeed filibustered democratic nominees:

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/001802.html

Sound familiar? It should. It's substantially the exact same thing that Democrats have been saying for the last three weeks regarding the Miguel Estrada nomination. The only thing is, this quote wasn't profferred by a Democrat in February of 2003. It was uttered by a Republican, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, on March 7, 2000, regarding the nominations of Marcia Berzon and Richard Paez to the Circuit Courts.

and

Sen. Smith, apparently, is psychic. The issue here, Kos, is that almost exactly three years ago, when we had a Democratic president and a Republican (I believe?) Senate, the Republicans could, and did filibuster judges, forcing the Democrats to acquire 60 votes, effectively, to confirm them.

Edit #3:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/051603a.html

During President Clinton’s tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Latino nominees, including Judge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Christine Arguello to the circuit courts, were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by the Republican leadership.

Republicans delayed consideration of Judge Richard Paez for over 1,500 days, and 39 Republicans voted against him. The confirmations of Latina circuit nominees Rosemary Barkett and Sonia Sotomayor were also delayed by Republicans. Judge Barkett was targeted for delay and defeat by Republicans based on claims about her judicial philosophy, but those efforts were not successful. After significant delays and an unsuccessful Republican filibuster, 36 Republicans voted against the confirmation of Judge Barkett. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor, who had received the ABA’s highest rating and had been appointed to district court by President George H.W. Bush, was targeted by Republicans for delay or defeat when she was nominated to the Second Circuit. She was eventually confirmed, although 29 Republicans voted against her.

[/EDIT]

 

[Geeforcer]

Of course Republicans, with their Senate majority, simply did not have to filibuster.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't know if they've never used the filibuster before to block judicial nominees, but republicans have certainly blocked nominations to the judiciary "by simply refusing to process the nominations"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030523.html

I don't know which is worse. Talking forever and a day until people give up, or not processing a nominee at all. You take your pick as to which is more "detestable".

Fillibustering by the minority is more detestable. At the very least, a majority is at least representative of the people. A minority of course is not.

[EDIT]Well, found one so far. Abe Fortas was Lyndon Johnson's Supreme Court Nominee in 1968, and his nomination was derailed by a Republican Filibuster.

Congtatulations, you found it! Now all you need to do is find a case in history where 3 fillibusters for supreme court nominations were going on simultaneously...and then you'll show how this siutation is not unprecedented.

I was actually surprised to hear that there were no[/i[ Republican filibusters. That's why I originally said : "I didn't say there has NEVER been filibustering or slamming. It has NEVER BEEN TO THIS EXTENT. "

I don't know whether or not this makes the republicans in that article liars Joe, but it would seem to make them at least misinformed would it not?

Probably misinformed. Though I'd like to see the whole text in context...because there has certainly been no filibuster for federal appellate court judges. That's unprecedented too.

Edit #2: This article seems to contend that the GOP has indeed filibustered democratic nominees:

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/001802.html

Lol...and you accuse me of biased links?

Exactly...it "seems to contend..." I note your carful wording there, because no matter what it "seems" to you, it was not a filibuster.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/051603a.html

During President Clinton’s tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Latino nominees, including Judge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Christine Arguello to the circuit courts, were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by the Republican leadership.

None filibustered.

 

[Natoma]

I think this can be safely filed under the "splitting hairs" department...

Full quote from leahy's page:

During President Clinton’s tenure, 10 of his more than 30 Latino nominees, including Judge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Christine Arguello to the circuit courts, were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by the Republican leadership.

Republicans delayed consideration of Judge Richard Paez for over 1,500 days, and 39 Republicans voted against him. The confirmations of Latina circuit nominees Rosemary Barkett and Sonia Sotomayor were also delayed by Republicans. Judge Barkett was targeted for delay and defeat by Republicans based on claims about her judicial philosophy, but those efforts were not successful. After significant delays and an unsuccessful Republican filibuster, 36 Republicans voted against the confirmation of Judge Barkett. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor, who had received the ABA’s highest rating and had been appointed to district court by President George H.W. Bush, was targeted by Republicans for delay or defeat when she was nominated to the Second Circuit. She was eventually confirmed, although 29 Republicans voted against her.

 

[Sabastian]

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 56
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2003
Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



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


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
END

 

[Sabastian]

MULTICULTURAL COALITION REINTRODUCES
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN CONGRESS

Strong Bi-Partisan Sponsorship Reflects The Fact that the Future of Marriage In America Is More Important Than Partisan Politics


WASHINGTON, DC - The Alliance for Marriage (AFM) has announced the reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution in the House of Representatives with strong bi-partisan support.

The reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment comes in anticipation of an imminent decision in Goodridge v. MA Dept of Public Health -- a case that activists openly declare they intend to use as the foundation for constitutional challenges to all of America's marriage laws. For example, the Boston Bar Association has publicly called for "federal constitutional claims" to be brought against all state and federal marriage laws in the aftermath of a likely victory in this case by early summer.

The bi-partisan cosponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment are: Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Ralph Hall (D-TX), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), David Vitter (R-LA).

The first sentence simply states that marriage in the United States consists of the union of male and female. The second sentence ensures that the democratic process at the state level will continue to determine the allocation of the benefits associated with marriage. But the courts are precluded from distorting existing constitutional or statutory law into a requirement that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be reallocated pursuant to a judicial decree. The Federal Marriage Amendment has no impact at all on benefits offered by private businesses and corporations.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is a reasonable response to the crisis for our democratic society created by those who would use the courts to overcome public opinion with respect to marriage. Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society.

It is very important to remember that the entire effort to undermine the legal status of marriage in the courts is premised upon constitutional law. For example, activist organizations openly admit their plans to use the Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit clauses of the United States Constitution to eventually impose same-sex "marriage" and "civil unions" on every state in the nation. The only question is whether the constitutional status of marriage will be determined by unelected judges or the American people.

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.htm

 

[RussSchultz]

hahaha.

round and round she goes....where she stops...


WHERE SHE STOPS!? NEVER STOPS! JUST ROUND AND ROUND!

 

[Sabastian]

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm

 

[zurich]

As posted earlier..

http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/4942.html

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

Yes 31% 275358 votes

No 69% 603283 votes
Total: 878641 votes

CNN > allianceformarriage.com

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I think this can be safely filed under the "splitting hairs" department...

Agreed. But the fact remains that the extent of what's going on in the senate today is unprecedented.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003161

The vote will signal an extraordinary new standard for confirming judges--not a simple majority of 51 votes but a super-majority of 60. That's the number required to shut off debate and move to a floor vote on the nomination. Mr. Estrada, who has the support of 55 Senators, will thus be prevented from getting the confirmation vote to which he's entitled under 200 years of Senate practice under the advise and consent clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In defending this power play, Democrats and their acolytes are peddling the idea that this is merely tit-for-tat politics, that everybody does it. That is false, so completely so that those who assert it are either lying or too lazy to check. In the history of the Senate, the 60-vote standard has never been used to block a nominee to a federal appellate court. That's the definitive word from a 2002 report by Richard Beth of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on the history of "cloture," the Senate's term for closing debate...

...But here's the essential point: All but one of the 13 judicial nominees subjected to a cloture vote were confirmed. Most of them sit on the federal bench even now. The sole exception was Abe Fortas, nominated in 1968 for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Fortas faced charges of corruption, and LBJ withdrew his nomination.

 

[Sabastian]

As posted earlier..

http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/4942.html

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

Yes 31% 275358 votes

No 69% 603283 votes
Total: 878641 votes

CNN > allianceformarriage.com

lol, you point to some web pole as some sort of proof. All that would have to happen for it to be slanted is for a few social activist to get a hold of it and post it on gay and lesbian web sites. I lived with a radical feminist for a number of years and she explained to me that her and her sociological statistical researchers (a prerequisite of sociology BTW) often influenced the outcome of polls to favor gays and lesbians. Most of the people I know and talk to on a daily bases think marriage ought to be reserved for unions between a man and a woman. Some one could easily skew the results of the CNN poll themselves. Judging by the numbers of homosexuals in the NLGJA I wouldn't be surprised that a few work at the offices of CNN.

http://www.drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf

 

[zurich]

I guess you missed my joke on the first page then;

A far cry from CNN's quoted poll of Americans only showing 40% approval for gay "civil unions", and 48% for endorsing "legal gay relations" (wtf is that). Damn liberalist-communist-destructionist-socialist-obstructionist-greasy-Europeans reading our CNN and skewing our polls!

You forget that rightwing-conservative-yaddayaddas could have flocked to the page to vote too Still, ~900,000 voters isn't a figure to be scoughed at.