I just got a wonderful email from a friend, which I have copied below for your viewing pleasure. As my friends span both sides of the isle, every so often, I get an email with similar disinformation spun left or right, depending on the sender. I suppose my question is, who writes this stuff and why do people give it enough credence to pass it along? Enjoy.

Subject: Thought you had heard it all? Not quite!!



Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............


Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. You aren't going to believe this. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax
on all stock market profits (including Retirement funds, 401Ks and Mutual
Funds!) Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities! Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening. She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest. 'When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied: ' We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'

Send it on to your friends. This lady is out of her mind!!!

thats a bit meh
they never really see a limit.

It drives me nuts how polarized politics in this country are. I can't possibly imagine myself truly identifying with either party. The real problem is how most people feel that they HAVE to identify with one of the 2 parties....
Why can't I be for gay marriage and for the war in Iraq at the same time?
Why can't I be pro-life and against the death penalty?
More importantly, why can't a liberatarian run for president?!?!

Originally Posted by mork29

Why can't I be pro-life and against the death penalty?

By definition, if you're pro life you would have to be against the death penalty. That wouldn't be true if we didn't have technology like prisons and super max to isolate people from society when it becomes necessary. But since we do have these things, and since even carrying out a life sentence in super max is many times cheaper than carrying out a death sentence, there's only one reason to execute someone - the old fashioned joy of killing.

So, a person can't at the same time be pro life and pro death.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

So, a person can't at the same time be pro life and pro death.

But....

Isn't that how most conservatives feel? They are against abortion and stem cell research, but they support government executions and the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

and since even carrying out a life sentence in super max is many times cheaper than carrying out a death sentence,

Good point. We need to make it cheaper to carry out the death sentence. This 10 years on death row with appeal after appeal, only to have someone like Mike Huckabee commute the sentence or pardon, has got to stop.

Not to point out the obvious flaw in your argument, but obviously pro-life refers to the treatment of innocent unborn children and pro-death penalty refers to treatment of human refuse. I know you know, but I thought I'd waste my time and point it out anyway.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Good point. We need to make it cheaper to carry out the death sentence.

As a Republican, I whole heartedly agree. The only thing better than when people die is when innocent people are executed!

Originally Posted by cbwm

obviously pro-life refers to the treatment of innocent unborn children and pro-death penalty refers to treatment of human refuse.

Ahh, so you're saying it depends what the definition of is is. And life. And, well, what else you want to redefine?

How can a person who favors drunken driving say anything negative about other forms of "human refuse"?

Originally Posted by mork29

More importantly, why can't a libertarian run for president?!?!

You mean Ron Paul is not a Libertarian? Thing is, when most people hear the libertarian drivel, all the other candidates, both Republican and Democrat, look much much better.

I suppose I can un-hijack this thread by pointing out the obvious misstatement and exaggeration of saying I favor drunk driving, much like the silly chain letter I posted which twisted and misstated Pelosi's position on taxes. So answering my question of "Who does that?" (Answer: True Believers), it still leaves the question of why. Anyone who reads the link you provided will see I clearly don't favor drunk driving, just like anyone who checks up on the content of the chain letter will find it to be false. Is there a presumption that the viewing audience is stupid, or that maybe they just wont check? In my opinion, when you put out propaganda based on an easily discovered lie, it only makes those who distribute such information seem less credible. Maybe the voting populous really are just a bunch of sheep, waiting to be spoon fed the next bit of BS by the Left or Right wing party faithful....

Originally Posted by cbwm

Maybe the voting populous really are just a bunch of sheep, waiting to be spoon fed the next bit of BS by the Left or Right wing party faithful....

This is true of a good segment of voters.

I think that all of us who are debating these issues can agree on that one thing. The vast bulk of voters are sheep.

Originally Posted by cbwm

obvious misstatement and exaggeration of saying I favor drunk driving

If that's a misstatement, it's one you've emphatically made many times. All I've done is (accurately) remind you of your own words.

I got a chain letter ( aka – lets see how big of a lie we can tell and then see how many people we can send it to) that said that Obama was the anti-Christ. And Unfortunately I also had to hear this same thing when I went to Church the following day.

It really makes me sad what some people will believe.

This is off topic, but Phil's message is an example of something that bothers me.

I'm a Christian, and what a lot of people would call a moderate Christian. I believe in the Bible quite literally, but I also believe in science, evolution, gravity, and many of the advances of secular society. I've known Christians who hardly believe in life after death, and I've met others who hardly believe in life before death. It's not my place to say whether these people are "true" Christians. I don't think that's up to anybody except the person who professes to believe in Christ, and God.

I'm not in love with Obama by any means, but he says he's a Christian, and I don't think it's up to any living person to argue that point. It's more than fair game to question his actions, policy ideas, and such, but I do think nobody walking the Earth has a better insight into the beliefs in anybody's mind than that individual.

The same of course goes for John McCain, or even David Koresh. There's much I don't like about Crash McCain, but I won't call him a fake Christian.

He can call himself a liberal athiest, for all I care, so long as he cuts taxes and keeps the troops in Iraq.

You mean to finish the bankrupting of America Bush has done so much work on? Cutting off revenue while overspending is a great platform for you guys to run on - enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You mean to finish the bankrupting of America Bush has done so much work on? Cutting off revenue while overspending is a great platform for you guys to run on - enjoy it.

I like the sound of that, how about you cbwm; that sounds about right, eh?

I dunno Cat. I keep thinking about that tax receipt chart you put up showing Bush has created more tax revenue than any other president, and then I see the words "Cutting off revenue" and I scratch my head. I can actually agree with the idea of cutting spending, though that has always proven to be difficult during wars that ended in any kind of success.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I dunno Cat. I keep thinking about that tax receipt chart you put up showing Bush has created more tax revenue than any other president, and then I see the words "Cutting off revenue" and I scratch my head. I can actually agree with the idea of cutting spending, though that has always proven to be difficult during wars that ended in any kind of success.

Is there some reason you put a chart of public debt after quoting my statement of fact that Bush has generated more tax revenue than any other President? I know positive statements about our sitting U.S. President require some to rebut by pointing out negative things. I just want to make sure you aren't trying to deny the revenue generation.