john doe

I think I heard last night that it is now too late. I believe the deadline was a day or so ago. At least now you'll have four more years to decide how to use your next one.

Yes. How else do you account for the Matheson family? One of them is a congressman as we speak, cancelling out a good republican representative's votes in the house. If nothing else, it would help the republicans see where they need to improve their message if more democrats got votes. I always thought Scott Matheson was an honorable man. Your post (on this particular topic) reminds me of the small-minded marmans who complained bitterly when their sons were called to serve their missions under mission president (and democrat) Wayne Owens... as if being democrat (as most Mormons were decades and decades ago, were somehow immoral. Yes, Scott Sr. probably was, I didn't know him, didn't live here then. But his son Jim the congressman, has not impressed me with his voting record. He wants to be the John Kerry of the West. I had my own issues with Wayne Owens, but they did not include worrying about him brain-washing missionaries. To be honest, I have issues with the former republican governor Leavitt and his lame-duck successor, as well. There are a lot of ways that republicans in Utah have got things wrong, but there are also many ways they have gotten it right. Yes, many Mormons were democrats decades ago, dating back to when Brigham Young and others went out and divided them up as such, but in recent decades, they have tended to congregate toward the party that most reflects their value systems. Plus, the democratic party of 50-60 years ago was much different that it is today.

Yes. How else do you account for the Matheson family? One of them is a congressman as we speak, cancelling out a good republican representative's votes in the house. If nothing else, it would help the republicans see where they need to improve their message if more democrats got votes. Well, didn't Al Gore get more votes (in total) in 2000? If that was supposed to send a message to Bush saying he should be a little less conservative, he sure didn't listen. No, I think voting in Utah is pointless. Even if 49% of Utah voted for Kerry, Bush would consider it a victory and not change his message or actions. Okay, you got me. I agree. You should not vote this coming election day. Stay home. That way when you don't like the way things are going, you can always say "well I didn't vote for that guy, in fact I didn't even bother to vote at all".

deleted

I still disagree. Like it or not, the US, along with certain allies, has become the de facto "cop of the world". I don't like it that everyone one else in the world relies on us to defend their freedom when others won't, but that's the way it is. A complete US withdrawal from the mid-east would be a destabilizing factor, and would not make the world as a whole safer. I think it would have a similar effect as if all cops suddenly decided to withdraw from the most gang-ridden part of town because the criminals don't like them being there. We haven't interfered in Sudan, and look at how well-behaved they are.

Disagree. You can't "undo" the past. You can only deal with the present and make plans for the future.

Yes. How else do you account for the Matheson family? One of them is a congressman as we speak, cancelling out a good republican representative's votes in the house. If nothing else, it would help the republicans see where they need to improve their message if more democrats got votes.

I think I've heard this comment before. I think it was in regards to bearing testimonies. Ahaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaa!!!!!

I gotta admit that even as a believing LDS, I never thought of this passage as having anything to do with masturbation before.

No, I blame Clinton for other things. What surprises me today is that you and your buddies are slamming George Bush, claiming he is a draft dodger for joining an arm of the US military, yet you ignore the fact that Clinton blatantly was a draft dodger, and hold him up as a hero of your cause. And please, don't try to be patronizing by calling me a boy. I haven't resorted to calling you names, please return the favor.

Okay. Or I could just send you a dollar so you can buy a sense of humor.

I agree. The problem is, they are few and far between. Many of them are just punching in their time and counting the days until retirement.

Hey, Cal? It was a joke, or could you not tell that by the smilies? I think you're getting a little too worked up about a small joke. I wonder why you don't use those smilies more often, it would help those of us who think you are serious about your hatred for George Bush and the reasons for it. The only problem I see is if you unleash your laughable attacks on republicans onto your impressionable students, that would be uncalled for. If you wish to start a new thread on how teachers are unappreciated, I would be happy to relate my observations and thoughts with you on the subject.

keep repeating it, eventually you will start believing it.

Good to see that you've finally entered the workforce. You know what they say, those who can, do, those who can't, teach.

But I'll bet their campaign staff knows how to spell. I wouldn't be knocking other people's intelligence if I couldn't spell.

George Bush did all those things all by himself? Hmmmmm, he's more powerful than we all thought. Apparently congress doesn't exist anymore, it's just George bush running the whole show now. News to me.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, it was only 10 minutes? I knew that story couldn't be true!!!

And yet, the country that does not subscribe to your theories had a vibrant economy going, with more than enough left over to force the Soviets into submission, and to admit that their ideas do not work. A government taking from the rich and giving it to the poor does not work. And just who were they trying to defend themselves from? It seems to me that their policies were much more aggressive and punitive to nonbelievers than the democratic movement was. I remember the "we will crush you" speech at the UN, do you?

But don't most dead people have heirs, usually multiple heirs? I always thought that one of the biggest reasons many people accumulate wealth is so their children or spouse can live comfortably after they die. It seems to me that most times when people inherit money, many of them spend that money, thus putting people to work and driving the economy. Or if they are smart, they will invest that money, loaning it to businesses, thus driving the economy. If the government takes their money, what percent do you think actually goes back into a productive portion of the economy? And how many beaurocrats are scrambling and fighting to get their grubby hands on it for their little fiefdoms? Question-- how well do you think your ideas worked for the Soviet Union? They took the money from the evil rich and "redistributed" it to the poor. I don't recall anyone during the cold war talking about how well that drove their economy. Perhaps you could enlighten me? It seems to me that the eventual downfall of the Soviets was the fact that their economy was doing so poorly that the government crumbled under the weight of it. Another question-- if the government is going to take money from the wealthy, where is the incentive for someone to do well in business? If everyone knows that Big Brother will always cover them even when they make mistakes, where is the incentive to ensure that you don't make mistakes? And as long as we're dragging this into a political scrap, why doesn't John Kerry's wife want anyone to know how much money she has? Why is she refusing to disclose her net worth? If she truly espouses these same values that you are touting, what would be wrong with her announcing that if her husband is elected she will donate half of her money to the government? I'm sure she could still live like a queen on what would be left over.

Wow, a sword-swallowing clogger. Now I'd like to see that! Are you still performing?

So, is that socialistic or communistic thinking? I don't believe in stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor. Robin Hood was a criminal, no matter how much the poor loved him. And where in this logic stream of yours and the government's is the provision that estate taxes go directly to the welfare system? Does it not go into the general fund? How does this help the poor? But don't the living wealthy already pay the vast majority of taxes now anyway? What is the justification for taking a dead person's money?

What does it matter? The actions of the teacher were unacceptable no matter what brought it on. Whatever brought it on should have been dealt with in some other way than making a kid take their own feces home.

I'm not up on this subject, so please enlighten me. What's so bad about raising the estate tax exemption? Why do we even punish people for dying in the first place by taxing their estates? Are we punishing their heirs for being relatives? I don't get it. It seems to me that people are bring taxed for dying when no commercial transaction has taken place, other than the burial expenses. I'm trying to figure out why the government has any business taking a dead person's stuff.