Michelle Obama wants to take away your cheeseburgers, but with Ann Romney, everybody gets a pony!
By the way, attacking Ann Romney about her horses was a big mistake, and not just because of this MS/disability angle. Women and horses. It's a thing. Not for all women, but for some women. Do not interfere with a woman and her horse! There's a mystical connection there. Break it up and you create some dangerous energy.
Without question, there is a connection between women and horses. This bond lures both young girls and older women into a web of seduction.For better or for worse! See what I mean?
My humble beginnings with horses has enlightened me not only to the ways and wiles of horses, but also to a greater understanding of how it is that women are so inextricably intertwined with them, for better or for worse, and why horses are so powerfully attractive to women.
... To say I had an interest in horses is a gross understatement, for if I had been able to transform myself into a horse, I would have gone to live with the herd in a heartbeat.This essay, by Julie Goodnight, goes on and on in that vein. Skipping ahead, we get to a fascinating feminist viewpoint:
... I was very shy and quiet in my youth, but came to life with the horses.... While my parents were concerned that I never seemed to talk much, the dialogue with my herd mates was never-ending. My infatuation turned to a lifetime passion.
It wasn't until I was a young adult that I began to question where my connection to horses came from and how I had gained the ability to understand horses so well. How was it that I knew the things I knew about horses that no one had ever taught me? Was it genetic memory? Was I born with some sort of sixth sense or mystical ability that allowed me to communicate with horses in a way that others couldn't grasp?
On a deeper level, I believe women can connect with horses from a shared understanding of what it is like to be a prey animal. In spite of the fact that humans are considered to be predators and, in fact, the number one predator of horses for more than 150,000 years, women are more accustomed to being prey than being predator. Throughout history, women have been oppressed and victimized by individual males who are physically stronger by nature.... Both women and horses understand what it means to be vulnerable and I think that as a result, the psyches of both horses and women are connected deep within as strong, spirited animals with true vulnerabilities that lie just below the surface. As women, we know what it is like to have our rights infringed upon. We know what it is like to fear for our own safety and survival. In some cases, we understand what it is like to be captive and powerless to determine our own fate....Got that? The attack on Ann Romney's horse activity is part of a War on Women!
Freudian analysis of the day: Do women hear "whores" when they hear "horse"?
Posts
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Your response that if more of your income is paid in taxes that means there’s less you’ll have to donate to your favorite charities seems to imply you are more concerned about the write-offs than donating to the charity for the actual cause. You could cut back in other areas, such as your “hobby” and donate those funds to charity if that is truly your concern. Limiting your donations because of taxes is not looking at the complete picture. You are admitting government is influencing your actions with respect to charities. Again, let’s get the government out of the equation.
Yes, I agree the role of the National Weather Service would fit under the category of promoting the general welfare. My question was to wyo sis regarding her comment about not trusting the government to spend her tax dollars and I wanted to know if she was OK with spending on the National Weather Service. I didn’t receive an answer back from him/her.
As far as your comment that the happiest societies are those that are taxed the least, well, the article at the link below which is about a study led by University of Virginia psychologist, Shigehiro Oishi, seems to indicate otherwise:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/progressive-tax-rates_n_953885.html
Your response that if more of your income is paid in taxes that means there’s less you’ll have to donate to your favorite charities seems to imply you are more concerned about the write-offs than donating to the charity for the actual cause. You could cut back in other areas, such as your “hobby” and donate those funds to charity if that is truly your concern. Limiting your donations because of taxes is not looking at the complete picture. You are admitting government is influencing your actions with respect to charities. Again, let’s get the government out of the equation.
Yes, I agree the role of the National Weather Service would fit under the category of promoting the general welfare. My question was to wyo sis regarding her comment about not trusting the government to spend her tax dollars and I wanted to know if she was OK with spending on the National Weather Service. I didn’t receive an answer back from him/her.
As far as your comment that the happiest societies are those that are taxed the least, well, the article at the link below which is about a study led by University of Virginia psychologist, Shigehiro Oishi, seems to indicate otherwise:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/progressive-tax-rates_n_953885.html
"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think!"
It's not nice to publish a quote and not cite the original author (Dorothy Parker) or not even give an indication it is from another source.
"Government has a function. Choosing for me where my money goes is not one of them."
It is not choosing for you where your money goes; once the government collects taxes from you, it is their money, or, more accurately, it is our collective money.
It is, in fact, a proper and necessary function of government to levy taxes and to allocate the resources derived thereby to pay for those instrumentalities and policies which are deemed necessary or beneficial to the public welfare.
In short, we elect people to act as our representatives and to put our collective resources to work for us.
Government is interfering when it redistributes wealth.
Boiled down, that's actually really all any government does.
But, there's redistributing wealth and then there's redistributing wealth. Using tax monies to pay for roads, schools, reservoirs, bridges, police and fire departments, waterworks, dams, regulating commerce to protect the public from adulterated or dangerous foods or to prevent poisons from being poured into our air, land and water, and so on and so forth, is no less redistribution of money than is enriching arms merchants and business insiders with sweetheart deals and no-bid contracts (where we always pay much more than what we're getting in value), or providing no-strings-attached billions in tax dollars to the banks to shore them up after their crimes have brought them to collapse--and to see the bankers continue to give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses with our tax money--yet in the former cases our wealth is redistributed for our benefit, while in the latter cases our wealth is redistributed from the working people of America to the wealthy.
It's not "ignorant" if its true.
I consider a hobby to be an activity or interest that is undertaken for pleasure, typically done during one's leisure time, and not for profit. Your description of your fly fishing hobby with terms such as profit, demand, selling and shipping, taxes, separate bank account, spreadsheets, expenses and deductions appears to be more of a business to me, not a hobby.
What you consider and what the IRS considers are two different things.
And the government obviously does influence action and choices through incentives such as tax breaks and write-offs for “hobbies”. I’m not necessarily for big or intrusive government, I’m for smart government and I see no reason why the government should be concerned about true hobbies. What you are doing with your fly fishing sounds like a business and should be treated by the government as such.
The government is concerned with money. How it's made is immaterial. Any money made at anything is considered income.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. When congress gathers to consider the tax code for the next year, they aren't sitting around discussing how much of YOUR money they are going to take. Congress sits around and discusses how much of YOUR money they are going to let you keep. So it is incumbent on every taxpayer to legaly keep as much of THEIR OWN MONEY as they can.
36fsfiend said...
Your response that if more of your income is paid in taxes that means there’s less you’ll have to donate to your favorite charities seems to imply you are more concerned about the write-offs than donating to the charity for the actual cause. You could cut back in other areas, such as your “hobby” and donate those funds to charity if that is truly your concern. Limiting your donations because of taxes is not looking at the complete picture. You are admitting government is influencing your actions with respect to charities. Again, let’s get the government out of the equation.
Your answer seems to imply that my money belongs to the government and they just let me use some of it. Perhaps we should question not my charitable giving, but why the government is taxing us at all.
You are assuming that taxes are a good thing.
Taxation is a necessary evil and we as citizens should examine each and every outlay under a microscope and pinch off any that superfluous.
In a nutshell 36; Taxes limit choices. Choices equal freedom.
Rusty,
Why aren't you following your own advice: "Not sure why anyone responds to 36fsfiend... "
It's difficult weening yourself off the government teat of tax breaks and write-offs, isn't Rusty?
And I bet you're one of these folks who claim they never take anything from the government.
36,
You really are the most breathtakingly willfully ignorant poster I can ever recall seeing on this board. Truly a majestic thing to behold.
Jason,
Yes, I'm the most breathtakingly willfully ignorant poster that you can ever recall seeing on this esteemed board and it's a truly majestic thing to behold because I'm all for cleaning up and streamlining the tax code so people like the Romneys actual pay more in taxes than middle-class working Americans and don't get $77K write-offs for the care and feeding of their pet horse.
It's such a difficult concept to grasp, isn't it Jason?
For you, shithead, it is.
You might as well be arguing that the earth is flat, you're so damned misinformed and so damned pigheaded about it.
Jason,
You sound like someone who's afraid of losing his tax breaks. Can't do business without the help of Uncle Sam, eh?
Are you one of these folks who claim they never take anything from the Big Bad government?
Longer lines with our rivals, yes, but longer lifespans because all access good healthcare, not 80% of the population as in the USA.
Sorry, longer lines do NOT equal longer life span. Especially when the statistics surrounding those claims are bogus.
Wait-in-line health care is a disaster. The only reason our health care is so costly is because, as I've stated numerous times, the democrat party has been systematically destroying the private market for decades.
Post a Comment