Really? I've heard the connection made all the time.

The whole argument against gay marriage is that it's against the traditional definition of marriage. The argument FOR gay marriage is that you can't discriminate against people who want to get married because marriage is a right (or whatever).

Ok, so if marriage is a right, and you can't discriminate based on traditional definitions, how can you say that polygamy should remain illegal after gay marriage is recognized? Really, what standard can you use to say "no"?

The problem is that once gay marriage is law nationwide, there is no argument against polygamy.

So in the end, if a woman or a man can't find their own spouse, they can just join a polygamous marriage, so there won't be any impact on population growth except maybe the gene pool will be a bit shallower.

"You couldn't have possibly imagined ... that Attack of the Clones could be WORSE than Phantom Menace. That it could be the worst thing since bagpipes. It was at that moment when you left the theater that you learned to never trust your own judgement again. To live the rest of your life plagued with doubt and mistrust of everything and everyone. You didn't realize that the nightmare of your own life had just begun."

-Harry S Plinkett http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star...

I love RLM.

Not only are their reviews funny, but they make valid points about how bad these movies are, and how much of a bad director George Lucas is.

I highly recommend the RLM to anyone who has the time.

Corporations are people in the sense that they are simply a collection of people. In the same way that families are people, and clubs are people.

That's why corporate taxes are double taxation. Imagine paying an additional "family tax" on your income because you were the breadwinner for your family.

"Something Reagan did, something Obama wants to do. "

Obama doesn't know (or care) anything about revenue generation. He openly admitted that he doesn't look at tax policy in terms of funding the government, but as a mechanism for "fairness".

God knows we can't live on borrowed Chinese money forever, and some people aren't paying their fair share (i.e. most Americans that pay little or no taxes at all). However, again, Obama sees tax collection as a mechanism for wealth redistribution.

Obama never talks about (actual) entitlement reform, or reforming the tax code so that it truly is fair (i.e. a flat tax) instead of just using the word "fair" to mean that the "rich" should pay more while most Americans pay nothing. He's intentions are not moral or even sensical. He's just a Socialist who didn't get the memo that we won the Cold War and Europe is on fire because SOCIALISM BANKRUPTS COUNTRIES.

Okay so Apple makes $10B, and only pays their employees $5B. Where does the other $5B go?

Well raw materials, buildings, manufacturing equipment, transportation etc all cost money, and ALL of it HAS IT'S OWN SET OF TAXES.

Raw materials and equipment are taxed when they are bought (sales tax). Buildings require a property tax, and transportation is paid for by a combination of sales, fuel, and license taxes.

Also employee benefits are part of the cost of hiring someone, so even if they aren't getting PAID the dollar amount of their benefits, they are still costing the company that amount.

Besides, you're missing the point that when you raise taxes on corporations they just pass those costs to their customers, so you're just causing inflation.

As for deficits. We don't have a revenue problem. We already collect more than enough money to run the government. What we don't have money for are entitlement programs. Even if you raised taxes to 100% on those making over $200,000 and ALL the fortune 500 companies, you couldn't cover the deficit for 1 year, let alone forever, and you'd destroy the economy in the process.

We have a SPENDING problem, especially in the form of entitlements. The reason why the deficit exploded now isn't because of a tax cut, but because the Baby Boomers are retiring. 1945 65=2010.

A corporation is just a collection of people, and those people pay income taxes. The corporate tax is just another layer of taxation on the same collection of people.

as for "getting out more" I live in Maryland near DC. I have talked to many friends about politics and they simply don't understand policies. They use their "feelings" instead of their brains. When I try to explain facts and point out numbers they counter that Comedy Central told them different so my sources are flawed (true story).

Tucker Carlson had a great quote about negative campaigning...

"You know what works? Negative campaigning. You know what doesn't work? B*tching about it."

Corporate tax is just double-taxation anyway. There's nothing "fair" about it.

Corporations pay a minimum of 15% taxes on their incomes (up to 35%) before they pay any of their employees, who ALL also pay income taxes ON THE SAME MONEY.

Of course Liberals don't understand anything I've just written because their only exposure to entrepreneurs have been drug dealers.