The Gaming Den

Actually, it has happened, more than once. Most of these guys were not arrested.

Being arrested for having a t-shirt? Here are three. There are others, for having bumper stickers, being the wrong party affiliation, muslim, etc.

-Crissa

Koumei wrote:

Good question. It's historical fact that it did happen. Like, in Court records and everything.

-Username17

Wow. Simply wow.

Re the assault rifles: What the fucking fuck is wrong with America that that is a legal thing to do? At least the police, while unable to arrest them for carrying deadly weapons* openly in a crowded area, kept close so they could intervene if anything started.

Re the shirts: I *should* be surprised. I really should. But sadly, I'm not.

*weapons designed specifically for killing lots of people in crowded areas. Or indeed, "for assaulting people, hence the name".

Koumei wrote: Re the assault rifles.

To be fair, they weren't technically assault rifles (at least the ones I've seen). They were the semi-automatic version. Full-auto is what makes something an assault rifle.

To be fair, they should be removed for having convincing looking toy guns.

Intimidation such as that at political events should not be legally permitted. If someone brought guns to a protest like that during Bush's tenure at the very least they would have been arrested, and I would have applauded the officers for doing so.

I'm losing respect for Obama in that he has not given an angry rant to put the insane teabagging, birther, protest gun toting, death panel crowd back in their place. None of them have a leg to stand on and deserve to be yelled at for being the ignorant fools that they are.

clikml wrote:I'm losing respect for Obama in that he has not given an angry rant to put the insane teabagging, birther, protest gun toting, death panel crowd back in their place. None of them have a leg to stand on and deserve to be yelled at for being the ignorant fools that they are.

Obama doesn't seem to be the type to get angry easily (part of which is trying to avoid the stereotype of the "angry black man"). The only time I've seen him lose his cool was when someone went after his family.

Frankly, if I was one of his political opponents, I'd be terrified of pushing him too hard. He seems the type to have a breaking point, and the person who pushes him past his breaking point will be crushed.

Neeeek wrote:To be fair, they weren't technically assault rifles (at least the ones I've seen). They were the semi-automatic version. Full-auto is what makes something an assault rifle.

Beat me to that one. Its an important distinction to make. Assault rifle is a specific term with a specific meaning, using it incorrectly in a news report like that looks a lot like spreading misinformation to make your point look better.

Of course, the difference between semi and full auto being how many times you have to pull the trigger makes it kind of a silly distinction.

TOZ wrote:Of course, the difference between semi and full auto being how many times you have to pull the trigger makes it kind of a silly distinction.

It's not even remotely a silly distinction. If you are trying to kill a lot of people, being able to hold down the trigger is a significant difference.

No, if you're trying to spray bullets over an area it is a signifigant difference. Which is why crazy shooters go to dense populance areas where they can spray bullets into a tight group. It's an argument over point target versus area target.

In the context of kill-count it'd make a difference, so had I known it was only semi-auto (note: semi AND full auto, as well as pump-action thanks to movies making them seem scary, are all illegal here in AU thanks basically to one incident) I wouldn't have called it that.

In the context of being able to kill any number of people and cause chaos, however, the difference is negligible.

shau wrote:Easy there tiger, I was just trying to make a joke, I'm not seriously trying to make accurate claims about the war in South Ossetia.

Sorry, it's just hard to tell when someone's joking because of the certain other people being deadly serious.

Crissa wrote:Actually, it has happened, more than once. Most of these guys were not arrested.

Being arrested for having a t-shirt? Here are three. There are others, for having bumper stickers, being the wrong party affiliation, muslim, etc.

-Crissa

So let’s look at these carefully. I was under the impression that we are talking about people coming to town hall meetings; guess I was wrong again.

A man was seen carrying an assault rifle and a pistol outside the VFW Convention in Phoenix where President Obama spoke today, a local newspaper reports.

You know what? I don’t see the word “conservative” anywhere in this article. Are we assuming that all people in Phoenix who have assault rifles are conservative? The second seems to be a similar situation of the same event. This is Arizona we are talking about.

Now let’s look at the T-Shirt situations and … wait one minute … are you dragging up old Bush Stories again? And are these stories about Bush campaign events?

I thought this was supposed to be about people coming to town hall meetings? First you talk about a convention in a wacky state and then you start to talk about old campaign events. Talk about apples and oranges, this is more like bananas and bowling balls.

(And people accuse me of being on crack.)

Is it illegal or even threatening to wear T shirts with critical messages?

Is it incredibly threatening to go to politicians and make a huge ass deal about you have a gun when dealing with a non gun issue in what can only be assumed to be a poorly veiled threat (or a meaningless protest that displays your ignorance).

Seriously, it's not hard to figure out. People got arrested for going to Republican (Not Bush, Republican) events with anti Bush T shirts.

If Bush had ever had a town hall meeting, what would have happened to people standing outside with an AR strapped to their back?

It's a valid example of the original point, you know, the one you made that was totally wrong and have been running away from for this whole time?

Who is more fascist, people who arrest people for wearing T shirts, or people who don't arrest or even expel or redirect people wearing conspicuous weapons for no reason outside of threat?

Who is more experienced at bullshit protests designed to manipulate the media, people who wear critical T shirts, or people who have subtly redefined the news coverage of health care reform town halls from "What do we think about Health care?" to "Are Democrats trying to take away people's rights to wear guns and not have to wait their turn to speak?"

The asshole party is a master of this shit and has been for a long time, and you've obviously picked up on most of their tactics by making baseless attacks, then when countered, making different baseless attacks, and then when countered again ignoring everything said by others to divert to a new issue where you bitch about how going to campaign events is different from town halls, and ignoring the important part, that Republicans can make any damn protest they want, even if it's unrelated and threatening, and no one arrests them, but democrats get arrested for making related and non threatening protests.

Kaelik wrote:Is it illegal or even threatening to wear T shirts with critical messages?

No.

Is it incredibly threatening to go to politicians and make a huge ass deal about you have a gun when dealing with a non gun issue in what can only be assumed to be a poorly veiled threat (or a meaningless protest that displays your ignorance).

As far as I know, he threatened no one. Doing so is assault. Cops were there and close to him. Seeing as how he was not arrested, by public definition of "threat" he threatened no one. Now, you may personally be threatened, but maybe it is because you are afraid of guns or just fearful in general.

Seriously, it's not hard to figure out. People got arrested for going to Republican (Not Bush, Republican) events with anti Bush T shirts.

The police screwed up for certain. This time they did not.

If Bush had ever had a town hall meeting, what would have happened to people standing outside with an AR strapped to their back?

Nothing if it was held in Arizona, apparently.

I'll have to disagree with some of the two points:

The police screwed up for certain. This time they did not.

From what I read in the articles about the arrests that were provided it was not so much that cops screwed up but that those were the instructions that were given to them as part of a strategy.

Nothing if it was held in Arizona, apparently.

Very doubtful if even T-Shirts were banned. I would rip out my own spine if I ever saw a republican meeting that would've allowed an armed and openly anti Bush observer into any of Bush's public appearances. What with terrorism and the enemy in the homeland and all.

Lich-Loved wrote:As far as I know, he threatened no one. Doing so is assault. Cops were there and close to him. Seeing as how he was not arrested, by public definition of "threat" he threatened no one. Now, you may personally be threatened, but maybe it is because you are afraid of guns or just fearful in general.

Thank you for your baseless ad hominem. It serves no purpose. I am not frightened of guns or in general. I have no problem with everyone in the world carrying a concealed handgun, or even an open one. I myself own a gun, though I do not carry it with me, since it is not for personal protection. What I do have a problem with is using it in the context of a threat to discourage political action.

Showing up with a gun to a town hall meeting not about guns and repeatedly stating "No one is going to take away my rights." Is a threatening gesture. It is not a threat, per the definition of assault for two reasons:

First, the recipient must believe you are willing and able to carry out your threat. I don't think Obama believes that anyone has a very high likelihood of carry out their threats, or he wouldn't be so content with minimal safety protections, and he'd be pulling pope level shenanigans.

Secondly, it has to be clearly directed. Since the fucker doesn't even know who he's threatening because he doesn't even know if anyone is trying to take away his rights, he won't know if they ever do, and he won't know who did it.

It is still a threat aimed at discouraging political action. A pretty shitty one, but one none the less.

The police screwed up for certain. This time they did not.

The police screwed up because they were explicitly ordered to by a superior officer in direct contact with the convention organizer. They screwed up because it was thought politically expedient to do so.

Nothing if it was held in Arizona, apparently.

Oh get off your ass and think. If a protester with a gun where standing outside they would be asked to leave, and if they did not, they would have been arrested. That's exactly what happened to protesters who didn't have guns, there is no reason it would have gone differently with a protester making overt threats.

Oh get off your ass and think. If a protester with a gun where standing outside they would be asked to leave, and if they did not, they would have been arrested. That's exactly what happened to protesters who didn't have guns, there is no reason it would have gone differently with a protester making overt threats.

especially if any were brown skinned...

MGuy wrote:especially if any were brown skinned...

I don't think most of the people making actual decisions are racist or at least not in a very significant way. I think they make their decision about who to ask to leave purely based on political expediency. And I don't blame them for that. Arresting people is going to far, but if they can convince protesters to protest somewhere else without resorting to threats of violence, that's a good system.

I do think it's fucking retarded that someone would deny the open brandishment of a gun with the expressed purpose, "Nobody is going to take away my rights." (His answer to the question of why he brought it) is being used as a threat.

He did apparently contact the local police to inform them of his stunt before arriving.

Only one of the guys pictured arraigned his threatening display. There was more than one incident of guns at town halls. You could've, I dunno, read the links, listened to the Phoenix guy's pre-arraigned interview. Or his not-arraigned interview. Or read about the guy in New Hampshire. Or seen the pictures of the other guy in Phoenix.

Apples and oranges, huh?

Where's the reports of people being arrested for carrying t-shirts and signs into Obama/Democratic town halls?

-Crissa

On a completely unrelated note, can I just say that I now hate these conservative manchildren. Not for the fact that they're being manipulated by million-dollar-budgeted advocacy groups, but because they are seriously holding signs that say "No UN" in symbols.

How stupid do you need to be to reject the UN? The USA doesn't even pay its UN dues and gets to set policies for the rest of the world. Not even the BNP does that.

That would be hating them for their ignorance because I honestly don't think they know that.

Hell, the US administration has maintained a first use nuclear doctrine since WW2. That bullshit has kept us on MAD and helped proliferation. If someone does get nuked the US presidents dating back decades have blood on their hands.

Yeah, well, we didn't end up blowing up the planet, so things worked out, amirite?

Fortunately we apparently have enough people between the idiots and the nukes that we don't nuke people.

The creation of a single party state

As it turns out, people hold their opinions because they believe them to be correct, and think that everyone else should align themselves with their opinion. Ergo, EVERY political party would like to be a single party state. But it doesn't mean they want to be fascist; they just want everyone to agree with them. There's a fundamental difference between them.

You are only behaving in a fascist manner if you attempt to either indoctrinate people (as opposed to convince them) or if you are actively distorting how things actually are to support your own ends (propaganda). These latter two are actually things that Republicans do massively more often than Democrats; while everyone does propaganda, the Republicans do more of it, and they try to distort things more, and far more often (see also: Ronald Reagan, the War in Iraq, 9/11, global warming). As for indoctrination, we all know where the crazy conservative christians lie, and its not with the Democratic party.

And lest we forget, the Republicans were talking about a permanent Republican majority just a few years ago, and were talking about the Moral Majority in the eighties.

The suppression of criticism and opposition to government

This is, of course, blatently the opposite of what the liberal wing of the Democratic party wants. Seriously, do you KNOW what the ACLU is? Do you know where they draw their membership from? Here's a hint: It isn't Jesus freaks.

Seriously, these are the people who go out and protest constantly. Hell, we've had a protest against the War in Afganistan since before we started shooting people there. Its been what, eight years? Its still going on, every day from 5 pm to 6 pm in front of the courthouse. We bitch about our own side being spineless almost as much as we bitch about the Republicans being evil.

Liberals see opposition to authority as a good thing. Indeed, belief in authority is a very conservative, authoritarian standpoint, and the Democrats are not really fond of authoritarianism. Don't you remember all the shit they gave Bush? Don't you remember Bush's "free speech zones"? No, of course not, because that contradicts your world view.

And saying that we call people "unAmerican" is unashamed bullshit. We DO call people un-American, but we do so in an ironic manner. The reason is, if you have ANY knowledge of recent or Cold War history, fairly obvious - the conservatives have been doing it for years. They called criticism of the war Un-American, and did so FAR more often than we called people who were opposing healthcare un-American. And the reason we do it is basically to throw it back in the teeth of Republicans for all their years of pulling out that bullshit on us, rather than because we believe that these people are "not a part of America". We understand that they are. Remember, we're the ones who kicked their asses, freed their slaves, then made them join the Union again.

And of course we dismiss the criticism of Health Care; have you SEEN these people? They're morons. Except the ones who are being paid to do it, anyway. A lot of them are already under socialized medicine and are too stupid to understand that Medicaid is exactly what they're whining about. The senators have their health care paid for by the US government as well, and they're quite happy with it. We supply our soldiers with socialized healthcare as well, something the Republicans fight against, and yet when we point out that they are underfunding this stuff while talking about how unpatriotic it is to not support our troops, well...

And as for the Tea Parties, we dismiss them because they display an utter ignorance of both American history and of what "teabagging" means. They are, again, idiots. They may not LIKE that they lost the election, but they did (and for obvious reasons). And you know what? You're free to go out and throw your teabags around all you want, so long as you clean up after yourself.

Bush did far more repression of dissent than the Democrats ever did. And frankly, even that wasn't all that much - yeah, the free speech zones were pretty bad, but apart from that, hardly tragic.

We, of course, DO criticize people who are insulting progams we support. We also criticize astroturing, what the opposition to health care reform is. But this is utterly unsurprising.

And Republicans crucify anyone who complains that we spend too much money on the military, or say that we should reduce the size of the military or not bein a war. Not to mention killing gays and, historically, blacks.

Establishing significant control over both business and labor; “the corporate state”

Republicans are for controlling labor, and oppose any control over business; Democrats are opposed to controlling labor, and support control over business to prevent them from exercising undue control over the populace and government.

Republicans love to whine about this, but that's because they're batshit (and afraid of Commies, which they don't really understand either). Democrats don't want Wal-Mart to be run by the government, or the auto industry. We flirt with the idea of taking over the banks, though to be entirely fair, that's because the banking industry (which is run by a bunch of conservatives, I might add, hence why our economy had such problems - they relied on Republican economic theory, which is hopelessly flawed) is A) propped up by the government anyway and B) is horribly exploitive. And really, we don't want to take over the banks, by and large; I was all for letting them die and having the government act as a bank itself, along with whatever other banks remained. We have to loan out money to them anyway, so we might as well just repossess them if they can't manage themselves. We don't want the government to take over the auto industry either; the problem with the auto industry is that firstly, they are heavily unionized (and therefore, vote Democrat) and secondly, the Republicans play the whole "we cannot allow American companies to fail" bullshit. The bank bailout, let me remind you, was a REPUBLICAN strategy; the democrats voted for it because they were scared that they'd be blamed for the economy collapsing. The Republicans in congress voted against it because they knew the Democrats would vote for it, and that way they could have their way (get what they wanted) while simultaneously claiming they voted against it. And lest we forget, it was the Republicans who wanted the oversight excised.

See also Haliburton and Blackwater on the conservative side of businesses BECOMING government.

P.S. Before we get into a complex debate, there are two types of “conservatives” in the United States and they only marginally associate with each other; “Religious” conservatives and “Fiscal” conservatives. Confusing the two may appear to give you virtual brownie points, but also makes you look rather foolish and silly.

Firstly, there is significant overlap; see Bush and Reagan for examples of being both religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Secondly, both are horribly wrong - Reaganomics doesn't work and fundamentalists are insane. The entire idea underpinning fiscal conservatism - that the market is self-regulating - is false, and demonstrably so, and it was precisely this mentality which caused the current economic depression.

There is no liberal wing of the democratic party. There's only a "slightly less radical right wing".

I'm liberal. And I can't publicly express my views without being jailed. I don't hate you for your beliefs, but I am literally planning on leaving the country fairly soon because I feel the longer I'm here, the quicker I'll be thrown in jail.

That's bullshit. We have a goddamn Nazi party in the US, as well as Communists, and the KKK. These people don't get thrown in jail just for being morons or holding extreme political views. Sadly, we don't throw certain terrorist organizations in jail enough in this country; we really err on the side of NOT doing that stuff.

I'm liberal, and I could say whatever the hell I wanted to say about my personal beliefs. You can too. SAYING stuff won't get you put in jail, it is DOING stuff which will. Well, unless you tell people to kill other people.

3) Those two parts of the conservative party have a 90% overlap, equating the two is not foolish except to the 2.5% of those who are only fiscally conservative and in denial about the facts. I'm fiscally conservative and not religious, but I'm also not in denial, 90% of the republican party is fucking retarded. Only about 80% of the democrats are. They have 10% on us. And they sure as hell don't spend their time attacking us for being unamerican because we disagree with them, that's us. Republicans are the retards who think "American" means slavish obedience.

We do sometimes call people un-American, but we mostly do so in an ironic manner, and nowhere near as often as the Republicans do.

And really, I'd say its closer to 95% of both parties which are, at best, sheeple. Remember, the democrats have:

White guilt
Black pride
Affirmative action
Our whole "they'll come around if they see we're really nice" mentality
The people who think that nonviolent protest works against people like Hitler
The holier than thou vegans who think all animals should be treated like people (or at least not be eaten)
The people who think it is bad to have a national language, and oppressive to force people who move here to speak English
The people who think anytime you say ANYTHING about an ethnic group, it is racist, even if it is empirically true (blacks scoring lower on IQ tests/standardized tests, blacks committing more crimes, ect.) - how are we supposed to fix these problems if you won't admit they exist?
The morons who think that no one can ever be wrong, that everything is an opinion, there is no such thing as fact
The people who think you should always comprimise
The people who think that killing is never justified, even in extreme situations, like self-defense or to protect others
The people who BELIEVE in science, rather than understand it (seriously, I hate those people)

The list goes on. A lot of Democrats are fucking morons, and while a lot of them are more willing to listen to things which contradict their world views, a lot of them are utterly unwilling to really consider whether their worldview is in agreement with reality.

Of course, I'm a bad Democrat anyway, seeing as I do not actually support "the party". They're just the people I vote for to be less fucked, and to occaisionally do something helpful. But really, as they say, a thinking man thinks his way into one side of the party, and straight out the other - I don't accept the idea that the party is actually all that important, it is simply a useful construct to me, and when the construct isn't useful, I'm more than happy to toss it aside. Just because a Democrat supports it doesn't mean it is right. I would say that just because a Republican supports it doesn't mean it is wrong, but really, it usually is (though rarely not).

Actually I’m drinking tea. 100% White tea (OMG I’m a BIGOT) with Orange Blossom from the Republic of Tea. “Once reserved for the cups of emperors and nobility (OMG Privileged Class Alert) authentic 100% White Tea (OMG He said it again) only grows in the magnificent high mountain region of China’s Fujian Provence (OMG China … that’s Un-American).”

Yeah, well, liberals hate China because we were promised a free Tibet and they never gave it to us. :< False advertisement, man!

So did or did not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer call those who attended town hall meetings in opposition to their health care coup d'état "simply un-American?" Did a Republican President ever set up an email list for people to fink out their friends and neighbors? Or spam her citizens with emails and non stop faux town hall meetings?

Uh, what the fuck?

Fink out their neighbors?

Do you mean the fucking program where Bush told people to spy on other citizens and email the Department of Homeland security, and set up a website for that? And I'm not talking "email the white house with whatever bullshit they're spreading", I'm talking "report your neighbor as a terrorist".

I guess you don't remember Operation TIPS, then. Here's a reminder of what you should REALLY be worried about.

Or something like this, which is more or less what Obama is doing?

Seriously, its not fascist, or even WRONG, for the White House to want people to tell them what bullshit they're hearing so they can clarify that it is, in fact, bullshit. That's not a violation of their privacy, their first amendment rights, or anything. They are not abridging ANYONE'S right to free speech.

Also, Pelosi didn't call them unAmerican, though she did repeat that persistent AstroTurf meme.

Its not unfair. Both Fox News and the Healthcare industry are engaging in astroturfing. You can tell because they're repeating stuff from the astroturfing sources word for word.

Let’s see, it was only three years ago in 2006 that Pelosi told anti-war protestors “I’m a fan of disrupters.” Ah yes the lovely CODE PINK that disrupted congressional meetings and shoved bloody hands (faux blood but still the point remains) at Republican heads of state. “It’s always exciting,” she told reporters after the meeting. “This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.” One year later she would say “Preserving our planet is a national security issue…,” Pelosi said and paused. “I always say the best preparation for combat is combat,” she responded. “So just go for it, I respect your enthusiasm.”

There's a big difference between doing that to a politician and doing it to your fellow citizens. At a political rally or a congressional session, that's a fine thing to do (to some extent; if you are trying to incite a riot, you're crossing a line). At a town hall, it is much less appropriate because a town hall is supposed to be about interaction with the audience, and if you are preventing people from asking questions, then you are, in fact, being a douchebag.

I wonder, what 'fiscally conservative' thing did the Republicans do while they were in control from 2001-2006?

Pass the largest tax cut (until Obama), totally turning a surplus into a deficit.

Start two trillion-dollar wars.

Pass the largest and most expensive expansion of Medicare, ever.

Raise my taxes by $3K? Oop, that was in 2008, administrative maneuver, not legislation.

Run a deficit for the entire time they said we weren't in a recession?

Sell off millions of acres of government property and materiel at 1/10th the market value?

Investigate and charge the least number of employers of undocumented foreign workers in the last thirty years?

Purchase a trillion dollars of military equipment that wasn't asked for, doesn't actually do anything (yet) and can't be used in the wars they started?

Cut benefits for veterans and hazard pay for military, while hiring the most mercenaries since sometime before WWII at prices ten to a hundred times higher than military personnel are paid?

What 'fiscal' conservatism is this?

This is fiscal conservatism. This is what they're talking about.

Now, to be fair, someone like George H.W. Bush (AKA Bush Sr.) thinks this is, in fact, completely moronic - it was he, after all, who referred to Reaganomics as "voodoo economics". And its true, it is.

But there are precious, precious few true fiscal conservatives.

I don't think I was giving a definitive list of groups within the party, but you have a valid point. I don't think they are as evil as some in the left insist they are, but they do worry me ... a lot.

The Project for a New American Century is the ideal name for a conspiratorial group seeking to rule the world. And Cheney employed a group of mercenaries named Blackwater, after the swamp their headquarters are located in.

[img="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cKVaB0SgyBc/S ... 0/doom.jpg"]

No Frank, that's a conspiracy theory. Conservatives, especially those roused by tea party anger are far from that devious in their plotting. Liberals, on the other hand are too well organized to get caught. The conservatives are the rank amateurs, they are new to this type of protest. Real grass roots people are like that. It's the organized AstroTurf that is slick and polished and trying to be people who they are not; like DOCTORS!

Are you serious? Don't you remember Richard Nixon? Or Ronald Reagan? Or Bush Jr., for that matter? Or Fox fucking News?

Its not that they suck at it, its that they suck at hiding it, but the conservative base won't call them on it and will complain loudly when the Democrats call foul. And, really, the irregularities in Ohio and Florida have never been adequetely addressed. Remember Diebold, the company who felt that printing out how people voted so you could double check it was onerous? Yeah...

I'm going to go with "you must be being sarcastic".

Thank you for your baseless ad hominem. It serves no purpose. I am not frightened of guns or in general. I have no problem with everyone in the world carrying a concealed handgun, or even an open one. I myself own a gun, though I do not carry it with me, since it is not for personal protection. What I do have a problem with is using it in the context of a threat to discourage political action.

Do you own it for hunting, then? Or do you own it in case the government ever goes nutso?

Yeah. Look, ask a GOPer a yes-no question, and they're more likely than a coin flip to get it wrong. In a poll conducted this week, "72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly." None of these statements are true. Illegal immigrants don't qualify for medicare or unemployment or whatever. I'm not sure how it would lead to a government takeover, nothing is changing for fourth fifths of the country. Abortions already can't be paid for by the feds - there's a law against it. And government deciding about when to stop providing care? Private insurance already does this!

And they do this all the time. GOPers were more likely to be wrong on the questions surrounding the Iraq war, as well. And this happens all the time.

They are really throwing off the curve, here.

-Crissa

Ps, that tax raise I mentioned was targeted at less than a tenth of Americans, and is not based upon income, like most taxes. If we grossed half what we do it'd still be $3K, and if we grossed ten times what we do it'd still be $3K.

What was it? The Bush administration changed IRS rules so that household health benefits not covering blood descendants and minors, direct adoptees and heterosexual marriages were taxable.

Caring for mom? Pay taxes on it! Same sex marriage? Pay taxes on it! Caring for uncle Joe you aren't really related to, or his kid? Pay taxes on it!

PS, benefits from the federal government are deducted per household, despite this. Uncle Joe you're not related to lives with you? Your income is added to his when determining his eligibility. With a blood relative who you can't call a tax dependent like an adult child or parent? Same! And of course same-sex marriages...

And all the sections that wingers have complained about in the healthcare debate? Placed there by Republicans!

Grr.