I am always amused by the left's eager willingness to tie themselves into pretzel logic knots rather then facing life's cold hard facts.

I'm guessing this guy was just a treat to work with and his employers are happy to be rid of him.

What? This doesn't even make sense.

Asking for a pay cut isn't the same as refusing to pay taxes. Second, sex change operations don't cause civilian deaths. Lastly, I expect that most liberals would agree with objecting to paying for a sex change op was in that the money would be better spent improving emergency room care.

I live in Massachusetts, and I certainly don't agree with the fact that our governer and state legislature blocked our attempt to vote on gay marriage. I guess I should just stop paying taxes.

Does anyone else not agree with any government policies? If so, lets all stop paying taxes and our country can collapse. Sweet.

/end sarcasm

Does he realize that by not paying taxes he is taking the food off of the plate of single mothers with children, he is denying Katrina victims the chance at a better life, he is denying rape victims the access to counseling and medical care, and he is helping to perpetuate the spread od aids in Africa.

Why are liberals so callous and cold hearted?

Okay, first of all, this guy is a tool. However:

1) Mark: Conservative Catholics also think that war is immoral.

2) jbiccum: This is not meant to be snotty; I'm genuinely curious. Do you think states should have the right to ask their citizens if interracial marriage should be allowed? (This is hypotetical; I know about Loving v. Virginia.) Antimiscegenation laws aren't exactly ancient history in this country.

3) neocon: Spot on, brother (or sister). And this is coming from an unabashedly callous and cold hearted liberal.

Laws (and rules) are for little people.
He's not in the elite inner circle, like--I don't know, say Scooter Libby. Therefore, he should have to pay his taxes.

When are Americans going to learn that there are 2 sets of rules out there, and if you have to ask, then you're one of those who have to play by the rules?

I don’t think my tax dollars should be used to fund the ACLU --- so I'm going to stop paying my taxes in protest, too.

This guy gives technical writers a bad name (I've been a tech writer for DoD contractors for the last 10 years).

The right exposes their lack of moral understanding when they claim that sex-change operations are more morally reprehensible as a war started under false pretenses and an occupation that is continuing in spite of the people in that country wanting an end to the occupation.

This is a war and occupation that has killed thousands of Americans, and likely has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Tell me, how does a sex-change operation cause harm to anyone else? And how does it cause harm anywhere near the scale of what has happened because of the war and occupation of Iraq?

As a card-carrying liberal, I battle against the right-wing canard that we don't believe or behave morally. We do. We just don't happen to believe that loving relationships between people of the same sex is immoral. Nor do we believe that governments need concern themselves with private sexual or reproductive acts. None of this has anything to do with the morality of this war or the need to pay taxes. Mr. Gross will face the consequences of his civil disobedience. This is his right as an American citizen.

pull all the ridiculous stories you want and it's not going to make georgies decisions any better and it's not going to make you right for backing his idiocy this long - your wrong, live with it

I'd love to see what a wuss like David would do if we reinstituted the draft and he was chosen. Flee to Canada (does San Fran already qualify)? Or would he show his true colors by requesting five deferments so he can let his brothers die while he's out boozing and hating our country.

War is immoral and sex change operations aren't.

Um, yeah. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

Civil disobedience is an old and very American practice—you have heard of Henry David Thoreau, we hope. It is certainly not a tactic that should be used lightly. Indeed, civil disobedience is a meaningful act precisely because we have an presumptive obligation to follow the law whether or not we agree with it. The people who refuse to pay taxes to support our invasion of Iraq think that we did constituted an especially egregious violation of political morality that justifies exceptional actions, with the proviso that the protester be willing to pay the penalty for their stand. I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of such protests in so cynical an era as our own—I believe that the perpetrators of the war don't need to be shamed, they need to die in prison—but civil disobedience is an honorable American tradition.

Maybe he should have invested his money in reliefe for the victoms of war through donating to the red cross or other charitable (tax deductable foundations)

At least he would be helping...

What a jerkoff, hope he goes to jail for tax evasion.

Just goes to show that there are idiots on both sides of the spectrum... It's been my story, and I'm sticking to it...

tom: What a jerkoff, hope he goes to jail for tax evasion.

What if he buys himself a fully functional tank and several rounds of ordinance with the money he didn't pay in taxes, then holes up in a mountain cabin with his wife and kid and starts shooting at the feds as they surround him? Would he still be a jerkoff, or would he be a vigilante?

Sorry... did I get carried away? Lol!

Being "liberal", I should point out that you can't be both an American and NOT be in some semblance responsible for the armies that protect you. It is ridiculous to claim exemption on this basis (though several conservative and libertarian activists insist they don't need to pay taxes for other reasons). However, your introductory sentence implies that his is how ALL or a majority or even a portion of some size of liberals believe this "passes for courage and morality". Given that you have a sample of one, on what do you base this sweeping generalization?
And your rhetorical straw man of sex-change operations seems somewhat strange.
Finally, you completely leave the tracks and posit that liberals only find war immoral. By what logical standard do you employ this charge? Sure when it comes to sex my party is more permissive than yours but we agree on practically every other standard of morality as you do.
I don't mind being told that Clinton misused his powers of pardon, because he did. And what he did with Lewinsky was shameful. And pointing out some idiots moronic war protest is fine. But leave the rest of us out of the just criticism.

This guy gives technical writers a bad name...

Robbie, I think job description was a misprint. The guy's in SF--he's probably a "testicle" rider...

...your wrong, live with it

Maybe you should change your handle to ibadumbass; it's "you're," not "your." And thanks for the talking points, dumbass--we heard them three years ago.

Finally, you completely leave the tracks and posit that liberals only find war immoral.

Shouldn't this read "...that only libs find war immoral?" Geez, you "educated" libs sure have a hard time writing coherently, don'cha? And you have to be corrected by a knuckle-draggin', blue-collar conservative who probably has a shotgun hangin' in the rear window of his pick-'em up truck...

Ricorun,

No, he would be an out of control freak and then deserve to be shot.

"I live in Massachusetts, and I certainly don't agree with the fact that our governer [sic] and state legislature blocked our attempt to vote on gay marriage. I guess I should just stop paying taxes."

Actually, if you were taught spelling by any local tax-based entity, I'd ask for a refund.

Whatever. The IRS has a SWAT team and can seize your house, car, even clothes. Piss em off... try it.

Kahn: Whatever. The IRS has a SWAT team and can seize your house, car, even clothes. Piss em off... try it.

You're so Thoreau. And frankly, I think it's great!

Off Topic - but I do believe it speaks to liberal morality. I just noticed the following on Powerline:

Bob Owens was mostly responsible for bringing the story of the massacre that wasn't to light. Bob has now written to the AP and its Board of Directors, setting out the facts and asking:

I would like for the Associated Press to formally explain why they are willing to run thinly and falsely sourced insurgent propaganda as unquestioned fact without any independent verification, but refuses to publish a freely offered account by a noted combat corespondent that some consider this generation's Ernie Pyle.

Why is the Associated Press willing to run the claim of a false massacre on June 28, but unwilling to report a well-documented and freely-offered account of a massacre that was discovered just one day later?

So david gross took a voluntary wage cut because he supports mass graves, rape rooms and punishment by power tools?? Now I know why I fled the democratic party.

Keefer says:
"Shouldn't this read "...that only libs find war immoral?" Geez, you "educated" libs"

Actually no. The original post says that liberals find only war immoral, implying that liberals have no other moral qualms about anything. You should get some knuckle wax and re-parse the sentence.

Also, your pick up truck is a gas guzzler and your shotgun should have a trigger lock lest some neighborhood child shoot himself. I have no qualms about wearing the stereotype for you knuckle draggers.

Also by Keefer:

"..your wrong, live with it

Maybe you should change your handle to ibadumbass; it's "you're," not "your." "

Not necessarily so. It could by a variation on the phrase "my bad". Your wrong would simply be colloquialism for, "I have illustrated that you made a mistake", just as "my bad" is shorthand for "I made a mistake". So your correction might well be your wrong. I completely agree with your tactic of correcting only those posts from a political view opposite yours. It certainly saves time. And the entire idea of ignoring the salient points of an argument to assail punctuation and usage is charmingly right-wing. Like defending Bush by saying Clinton was worse. Priceless.

Does he realize that by not paying taxes he is taking the food off of the plate of single mothers with children, he is denying Katrina victims the chance at a better life, he is denying rape victims the access to counseling and medical care, and he is helping to perpetuate the spread od aids in Africa.

Why are liberals so callous and cold hearted?

Posted by: neocon at July 5, 2007 10:10 AM

Neoconned-
We'll all try to remember. BTW how's that fight to repeal The Estate Tax going?

You mean the Death Tax?

You're right, the gov't should get up to 50% of someones hard earned estate before their family gets it.

What were we thinking?

neocon-

Do you know how many people actually pay 50%.

Let's make it a pop-quiz...

"Up To" typically means that is the highest range of which the smaller percentage of people would fall into.

That being said, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER! The government should not get a dime of estates being passed to the next generation.

Neokook-

"You're right, the gov't should get up to 50% of someones hard earned estate before their family gets it."

..but, but , but what about those single mothers, katrina survivors, rape victims needing medical care and Aids in Africa?

ehh F@#K THEM!!

Glad to see that those 2% of Americans affected by the Estate Tax have a representive working for them and that you aren't straying from the GOP's platform of SCREW everyone else, I got mine, and some of their's to.

"That being said, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER! The government should not get a dime of estates being passed to the next generation."

Posted by: neocon at July 6, 2007 03:41 PM

That, ladies and gents, is what compassionate conservatism is all about. 08' can't come fast enough.

Here's some homework reading for you.

So – just to be clear – that means that for the vast majority of Americans the estate tax will take zero per cent. Just over one per cent of Americans who died in 2002 owed any estate tax at all, according to the most recent figures from the Internal Revenue Service. That was when only the first $1 million was exempt. Now that the exemption has doubled, experts at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculate that only 12,600 Americans who die in 2006 will owe any estate tax at all. That's roughly one in every 200. Furthermore, even for those affluent few, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the estate tax will take an average of 18.7 percent. Even for estates valued at over $20 million, the average tax will be 21.7 percent.

You dizzy from all that spinning?

Here's the link... it broke

..but, but , but what about those single mothers, katrina survivors, rape victims needing medical care and Aids in Africa? - ZERO

Let's be very very clear about this. The government taxed the individual on the money they earned to build their estate, the government then collected property taxes throughout the years while they owned the estate, the government collected a sales tax on everything they put in their estate, and

NOW YOU WANT TO TAX THEM AGAIN FOR SIMPLY DYING AND PASSING IT ON TO THEIR CHILDREN.

Ladies and gents, that's what liberalism is all about.

Furthermore, even for those affluent few, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the estate tax will take an average of 18.7 percent. Even for estates valued at over $20 million, the average tax will be 21.7 percent.
You dizzy from all that spinning? - Rana

I'm not spinning anything. You're the one running in circles proving my very point. 18.7% is a hell of a lot.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH.

Tell me Rana, what's so hard about that simple sentence for you to figure out.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH.THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH.

All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.

BBovin, way to excuse poor writing--you must be a dumbass, too...

Neokook-

"THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE ONE DIME OF SOMEONES ESTATE AFTER THEIR DEATH."

Why stop there? Everyone works hard for there money so why does the government, and by extention the American people, deserve any money of ours at all. Let's do away with any and all taxes.

"Compassionate" Conservatism at work.

i guess you agree with the 9-11 jihadists who held the americans in the wtc resposible for our government's activities in the middle east and thus justified the murders they committed.....
feeling responsible for my government's actions is the first step toward holding our public servants accountable. unless we feel responsible how can we hold them accountable?