How is it possible that letting the Bush tax cuts expire represented a "tax increase" for the wealthy, but letting the payroll tax cut expire is NOT also a "tax increase"?
Sincerely, the American people
Friday, December 23, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Ms. Bachmann - I have a followup question...
So - Michelle Bachmann was asked a question about same-sex marriage while at a pizza restaurant in Waverly IA. (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/30/michele-bachmann-debates-same-sex-rights-with-high-school-students-in-waverly/).
As predicted she gave the extremely tired response as to why gays and lesbians can't get married that "They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man."
So - Ms. Bachmann - I have a follow-up question:
Are you saying that in order to "get around" the issue of marriage equality, you're actually ENCOURAGING that people enter completely sham marriages? Doesn't that completely invalidate the idea that marriage is a sacrosanct institution that must be protected? After all - you seem to have NO PROBLEM AT ALL supporting bogus marriages solely for appearances.
This makes me wonder: is it possible you support this because - just perhaps - your own "marriage" falls under that category?
As predicted she gave the extremely tired response as to why gays and lesbians can't get married that "They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man."
So - Ms. Bachmann - I have a follow-up question:
Are you saying that in order to "get around" the issue of marriage equality, you're actually ENCOURAGING that people enter completely sham marriages? Doesn't that completely invalidate the idea that marriage is a sacrosanct institution that must be protected? After all - you seem to have NO PROBLEM AT ALL supporting bogus marriages solely for appearances.
This makes me wonder: is it possible you support this because - just perhaps - your own "marriage" falls under that category?
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Freedom only for Some Mr. Romney?
So, in the speech Willard Romney gave to an audience of sympathetic listeners (as opposed to JFK's speech which was to an audience of people largely unconvinced of his ability to act as President outside of the Catholic church), we get this gem:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom..."
How does this translate for the millions of Americans who are not religious? As no questions were permitted after the speech,
there was no chance to learn more. Ought we conclude that for the non-religious there is no expectation of freedom?
Whether or not you believe that a leader has to have a religious background, the ideals and values of the US are intended to treat everyone equally, regardless of differences in religious belief. It's no longer certain if those values are apparent in Mr. Romney's world.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom..."
How does this translate for the millions of Americans who are not religious? As no questions were permitted after the speech,
there was no chance to learn more. Ought we conclude that for the non-religious there is no expectation of freedom?
Whether or not you believe that a leader has to have a religious background, the ideals and values of the US are intended to treat everyone equally, regardless of differences in religious belief. It's no longer certain if those values are apparent in Mr. Romney's world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)