en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/314013 Comments by LSBeene http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce790ff71ff6bbbca9e18d3940bfe8d9.531&show_article=1#IDComment77377403 While I understand some posters making comments about "it's the owners' fault" I must heartily disagree. The person driving through a residential neighborhood could just as easily hit a wayward child. Would we be making the same comments? No. And physics cannot be changed. A person driving is responsible for their car - sure a kid or a dog can dart into the street, and that's not the driver's fault - I'm trying to be fair here - but to say "it's a dog, so it's the owner's fault" is a knee jerk reaction. If it's a kid does not change the physics nor the responsibility. Do ANY of us know if the dog darted out or if this person was driving too fast? No, but in any event, asking the family to pay is cruel. A family dog is not livestock. I've been to Iraq twice and both times had to leave my dog with a good friend - and since I don't have kids, that dog was a comfort, especially when I came home and was given uncondtional love. Thu, 27 May 2010 20:44:21 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce790ff71ff6bbbca9e18d3940bfe8d9.531&show_article=1#IDComment77377403 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mrulle/2009/10/27/csi-miami-attacks-obamacare-apostate/#IDComment41116230 I remember a CSI (the original) wherein Cath's Ex was falsely accused of rape by some woman who wanted to extort him into giving her a record deal. He had sex with her, and then could not deliver. So, to "get even" she falsely accused him of rape. At the end of the show Kath does her "tsk tsk" moment, and seems amused at the woman's naivte, but what you did NOT see: The woman being handcuffed and put in jail. The kicker - the false accuser admitted that she had a friend who did exactly the same extortion to married men, by falsely accusing them of rape and then demanding money - did SHE get arrested? Hell no. It's PC all the time on these shows. Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:53:09 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mrulle/2009/10/27/csi-miami-attacks-obamacare-apostate/#IDComment41116230 http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/11/feminism-men-rights/#IDComment38972890 Oh, one last critical point: Ever notice that it is feminists (self-described no less) who deny deny deny false accusations happen, but they (like Kathryn) are the first ones to use them? She said that MRAs call for the beatings and rape of women - provides no proof, and just goes on from there. It's not a wonder why feminists don't want false accusers punished .... they're the ones who often do it. Steven Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:50:15 +0000 http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/11/feminism-men-rights/#IDComment38972890 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/05/enforcing-our-immigration-laws/#IDComment37503659 Informative post. Wish I had time to write more - gotta work, lol. Steven Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:25:41 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/05/enforcing-our-immigration-laws/#IDComment37503659 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/30/um-well-it-happened-a-long-time-ago/#IDComment36663522 Yea, but he was 42 (not in his 30's), and force WAS used. As were a drug. I had not heard that he had bragged about sex with OTHER minors though. Steven Thu, 1 Oct 2009 00:33:08 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/30/um-well-it-happened-a-long-time-ago/#IDComment36663522 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/30/match-dot-yuck/#IDComment36627460 Good God. Yea, like I want to step into THAT mess and hitch my wagon to her life. NOT. Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:39:37 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/30/match-dot-yuck/#IDComment36627460 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/?p=727#IDComment36627332 Actually, it's been since the 50's when the Supreme Court ruled in the separation of state and religion. We took moral absolutes out. We took out all the basic moral codes. It was replaced by man's "wisdom" - the ability to argue anything as "having an equal point of view". Personally, I agree with him. Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:37:40 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/?p=727#IDComment36627332 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/granny-goes-to-jail/#IDComment36511675 Jesus Christ in a freaking cartoon, This is a complete misapplication of the law. Honestly, we seriously need some accountability in our prosecutor's offices. A few prison terms for some of them would straighten this mess out. Steven Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:00:16 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/granny-goes-to-jail/#IDComment36511675 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/whos-gonna-pay-for-all-this/#IDComment36511361 But, to add to the discussion – you notice what those in Washington, Wall Street, and those who have a ton of money NEVER advocate? A tax on ACCUMULATED wealth is never proposed. For instance the Kennedy clan has their wealth protected in trusts and corporations, and from what I hear it is incorporated in FIJI – purely for tax purposes. If you want to tax “the rich” go after the ones who have accumulated wealth, not the ones PRODUCING wealth and jobs in this country. Doesn’t that make more sense? Steven Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:56:17 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/whos-gonna-pay-for-all-this/#IDComment36511361 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/whos-gonna-pay-for-all-this/#IDComment36511345 Respectfully, have you ever RUN a business? And trust this – Barack Obama never has. All his time in the private sector was working as an attorney. That is real work, but it is not him owning a business, and being a lawyer is a niche that most people don’t work in. Lawyers, and yes we need them and I am not bashing them, leech off of society as to society’s needs. They produce NOTHING – their services are a byproduct of business, gov’t, law, civil and criminal cases. But they produce nothing. “Pay their fair share”!? It sounds good until you actually LOOK at a ledger for a business and realize that the person who owns this business also assumes all the risk, has created jobs, must manage or fail to manage their business. Why do you want to punish success? I’m not trying to blast you Jay, but I respectfully think that you have very little idea of the costs of running a business. You seem to see a shiny pot of gold, and not realize it took someone else’s sweat to produce it. You can only rob a businessman once, after that the well is dry. (cont below) Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:56:02 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/whos-gonna-pay-for-all-this/#IDComment36511345 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/whos-gonna-pay-for-all-this/#IDComment36511310 Jay Black, I think you are confusing the “rich” with the ultra wealthy. Many, if not most, such as those who make 200-500K are not simply banking a huge paycheck. Most have EMPLOYEES. They pay most of the taxes as is, did you know that? 40% of Americans don’t pay ANY federal taxes, with the exception of SS and FICA. Most of those that make that kind of money own a business. And taking the tax, despite what the teleprompter-in-chief said, is not “a little off the top” – profit comes at the end – it’s why it’s called “the bottom line”. And it’s not just the taxes. Let’s say they have 36% taxes. Many times they also have state and local taxes – raising the rate above 50%. But let’s suppose a “best case scenario”. They also have to pay workman’s compensation insurance, insurance on the business itself, and possibly health benefits. Now that “rich guy” is paying 60-70% of his “profit”. Then, you have to pay WAGES. What is left over is not this huge pile of money. (cont below) Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:55:37 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/28/whos-gonna-pay-for-all-this/#IDComment36511310 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/27/tom-clancy-on-free-market-exchange/#IDComment36396709 Did he really say that?! Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:09:11 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/27/tom-clancy-on-free-market-exchange/#IDComment36396709 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/?p=714#IDComment36396646 You ever notice what tax liberals/progressives AND conservatives NEVER suggest? A tax on ACCUMULATED wealth. It's an economy killer to tax people 50-65%. And small businesses, with all the costs they MUST have, are "taxed" to that bracket. Workers comp, federal, state, & local taxes. Health care is a cost, but it cuts into the bottom line. In the end the owner may take 10-30% of his/her profit, but not much more. Michael Moore is a darling of the socialist left, but he's a useful idiot. He knows this, but laughs on the way to the bank. No one proposes a tax on accumulated wealth - which is wealth not being actively generated, but owned property, stock shares, etc. And we can all guess why, huh? Steven Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:08:36 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/?p=714#IDComment36396646 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/27/woman-hater/#IDComment36395587 Hey GrrrlRomeo, Great post. I'm a Christian, mostly Conservative, but also Libertarian. Just wanted to identify my mindset before I responded. I dislike stereotypes and labels. I imagine you do especially. I have lesbian friends, and for a while my sister tried the life, but then changed her mind. I would have loved her either way - she's my sister. Your post was thoughtful, egalitarian and fair. While I may (or may not) disagree with you on issues, I appreciate someone who sticks to the issues and is not attacking the messenger. Great post GrrrlRomeo. Steven Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:02:45 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/27/woman-hater/#IDComment36395587 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35941103 As I said - MEANS testing. Let all seniors get reverse mortgages, DO fund Medicare, and cut all the "survivor benefits" from SS - it's for SENIORS who NEED it, not Boomers who knew about the problem but couldn't be bothered about it and now want me to foot the bill. They count on my morality while singing the "poor elderly" tune (or toon), but that same morality is not applied to what will be left for their own children. The generation of "ME" grew up, and this is the result. Steven Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:26:50 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35941103 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35941096 Oh, and I wanted to add: What really sticks in my craw are these facts: 1) The seniors will show some poor schlub who really is poor and not doing well, and play the sympathy angle to the hilt - whilst simultaneously NOT acknowleding that: 2) The same programs will NOT be there for me. 3) That on top of that insult, the DEBT of their "need" will be there for me to pay off (double whammy) 4) And my kids will still be paying this off long after they are dead, and asking ME why I didn't stop this debacle. Sorry - not interested. Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:26:45 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35941096 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35938186 Party's over. Make SS means tested, fund Medicare, and cut almost all other gov't programs besides national defense (military/FBI/CIA), roads, NOT SCHOOLS, and what is NEEDED for infrastructure (FAA, FSTB etc) - besides that - no more money. I'm saving for my OWN retirement - SS aint gonna be there for me - and the current crop of boomers bemoaning how it's going broke and we younger folks need to "step up to the plate" can get reverse mortgages, and call me when they NEED the money, not when they realize that their own complacency for the last 30+ years has cost them the "golden ticket". It's called a budget. I live by one - so can they. Steven Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:52:33 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35938186 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35938180 Social Security is a ponzi scheme. My dad told me how, back in the late 60's or early 70's the Congress Critters saw this nice shiny beautiful surplus and salivated on how many votes they could buy. So, a surplus of 100-200 BILLION (back then a HUGE amount) was not socked away, but instead used for the "needy". And now SS is for "survivor benefits" and "college benefits" for survivors, and for those who clearly do not need it. And the money goes in, and it goes out. I'm with Amy on this one - EVERYONE has known for 30+ years that SS was going to go broke. So, those just turning 65, are the ones to blame. Sorry Boomers, you f(*Ked yourselves. Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:52:28 +0000 http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/25/struggling-20-somethings-shouldnt-support-the-rich-elderly/#IDComment35938180 http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/11/feminism-men-rights/#IDComment35556689 Finally the hair flick and dismissive head bob from the bigot Kathryn: "Even then, it becomes obvious that the issues which seem valid are just a front for their weird little club. This is exactly why nobody takes them seriously. " Oh, their weird little club. So cute. So dismissive. Women being stripped of children - tragic. When it happens to men - Kathryn the bigot smirks, dismisses, and lies. Isn't-that-cute. Kinda like men who dismiss women's concerns as PMS. And about as grown up. Really Alex, it's not the MRAs who are the problem - it's the bigots like Kathryn who, while admitting that MRAs actually have a valid point, could care less about her fellow human beings known as men. Sorry Kathryn, but the salad days of man-hating are over - and we having such fun pointing out your sexism and hatred. And you make it so EASY. Your own words are the best recruiting tool MRAs have, and prove out point to boot - NICE one genius. Are you a "Womyn's Studies" graduate? (IOW: unqualified to hold a job other than "Cat Box Scooper") Nothin' but love for ya, Kathryn, lol. Steven Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:00:11 +0000 http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/11/feminism-men-rights/#IDComment35556689 http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/11/feminism-men-rights/#IDComment35556632 Ahhh, now we get to the gist of it. The men may be angry. See, when women are angry, hurt, damaged, or treated wrongly Kathryn actually feels, .... hmm, what's that word I'm looking for? Oh, yea, EMPATHY. She wants to know WHY they are angry. What made those women angry? How were they hurt? And, most importantly, what can be done about it. But, see, for the bigotry-challenged among us (that would be Kathryn) since it's just men, who cares if they have legitimate concerns. Let them eat cake. (cont below) Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:00:06 +0000 http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/11/feminism-men-rights/#IDComment35556632