The Tenth Post in the “Oh My Achin’ Head” Series: Republican Candidate for Congress in Virginia Thinks That Sometimes Incest Is “Voluntary”

BobMarshallBY ELAINE MAGLIARO

Bob Marshall, a senior Republican member of the Virginia General Assembly, is running for an open seat in the House of Representatives. He’s a political candidate who has already gained notoriety “for his long track history of controversial remarks.” Back in 1989 during the course of an interview with The Boston Globe, Marshall stated that he wouldn’t make exceptions for abortions—even in cases of rape and incest. He was quoted as saying, “What if incest is voluntary? Sometimes it is.”

Tom Boggioni of Raw Story reported recently that in 2010, Marshall called for an end to state funding for Planned Parenthood. At that time, Marshall “suggested” that women who have abortions “are more likely to face ‘vengeance’ from ‘nature’ in the form of children being born with developmental disabilities.” Marshall said, “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the firstborn of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”


Marshall has even been so bold as to question “the sexuality of a Supreme Court justice” who has favored marriage equality. While speaking to a pro-life group last year, Marshall discussed “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage…” At the end of his talk, Marshall said, “For all I know, Kennedy’s a homosexual”—and added, “You can’t be doing some of these things without this kind of conclusion,”

Abby Ohlheiser of The Wire called Marshall “the Culture War’s Four-Star General.” Kate Mcdonough of Salon said that Marshall “has a record of saying absolutely reprehensible things about absolutely everything …” Boggioni thinks that Marshall’s “colorful statements” could come back “to haunt him in the upcoming election…” Marshall, however, doesn’t appear worried about the controversial remarks that he has made in the past. He insists his colorful statements aren’t gaffes. Just last Thursday, Marshall said, “I don’t care. I mean, if I say something in public, I say it in public.”

We’ll have to wait and see if Marshall’s words do come back to haunt him in the GOP primary.

From Wonkette:

Virginia Democrats are reportedly looking forward to Marshall winning his GOP primary. Heaven knows he’s got our endorsement for the primary, as well as a shiny new nomination for Wonkette’s coveted Legislative Shitmuffin of the Year Award.

SOURCES

VA GOP candidate: No incest exception for abortion because sometimes it’s ‘voluntary’ (Raw Story)

Virginia Republican Bob Marshall stands by remarks that raise eyebrows (Washington Times)

Virginia GOPer: Incest exceptions in abortion restrictions unnecessary because sometimes incest is “voluntary” (Salon)

Congressional Candidate Bob Marshall Is Basically the Culture War’s Four-Star General (The Wire)

Virginia Congressional Candidate Pretty Sure God Made Your Baby Disabled Because You Had An Abortion, You Slut (Wonkette)

This entry was posted in Conservatives, Government, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The Tenth Post in the “Oh My Achin’ Head” Series: Republican Candidate for Congress in Virginia Thinks That Sometimes Incest Is “Voluntary”

  1. Anonymously Yours says:

    I guess if your sister consents it’s really not insest….. Just like Kennedy being a homosexual….. Maybe he prefers a close knit family…. With webbed toes…. Etc….. Just can’t think like that unless you do things like that….

  2. pdm says:

    What can be said in the face of such hatefulness?

  3. pete says:

    “What if incest is voluntary? Sometimes it is.”
    =========================================

    I really don’t want to know if he’s speaking from personal experience. Although it would explain a lot.

  4. Blouise says:

    Perhaps it is personal experience or maybe he knows his audience better than we do and tells them what they want to hear.

  5. Byron says:

    dont worry, he isnt going to win. A state rep by the name of Barbara Comstock is the most likely primary winner of that election. I think Marshall is running for Frank Wolf’s seat.

    You guys would probably find Comstock acceptable.

  6. pdm,
    That may not be hate. Just stupid. Hate can be treated with therapy and medication, but you can’t fix stupid.

    pete,
    Based on his remarks, I suspect his gene pool may be wide, but not very deep. Reckon he is telling us something? What you call a dating service, he calls a family reunion.

  7. Byron,
    I hear the Democratic Party is slavering and champing at the bit in anticipation of some of the extremists winning the Republican primaries. Charles Krauthammer of Fox News is a smart guy and a psychiatrist. He has told extremists they need to dial it back, but then they jump on Dr. Krauthammer for being too moderate. If I were a candidate running for office, I would want my opponent to be as obviously crazy as possible.

  8. Elaine M. says:

    Quite a few extreme right-wing and/or flaky Republican candidates have defeated more moderate politicians in primary races in recent years.

  9. And it is backfiring in some spectacular ways, Elaine. Just look at Vance McAllister from Louisiana. These know-nothing extremist clowns get in to office and quite often proceed to cut their own throats.

  10. swarthmoremom says:

    It backfired in Virginia last year. Cucinelli and the rest of the republican ticket was so far to the right that they were defeated by the democrats.

  11. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    But it was uncomfortably close and the more rural areas went for Cucinelli in large numbers (60 – 70%).

  12. swarthmoremom says:

    Blouise, Yep, but it was an off year election and just glad for the defeat. The Republican Lt. Governor candidate was way out there.

  13. Byron says:

    SMOM:

    Blouise is right, TM only won Richmond, Virginia Beach area and Northern Virginia, the rest of the state went for the Cucci.

  14. Byron says:

    it is too bad the republicans are stuck on abortion and contraception.

    Although it could be that old Sun Tzu informing the democrats, fight on ground you know and is favorable to you.

    Those are really small time issues and it is too bad the Christian right is pushing this shit. From my understanding 3-4 million of them stayed home and wouldnt vote for Romney because he was a Mormon.

  15. Tony C. says:

    Back to “sometimes incest is voluntary”: He only believes that because Momma told him so.

  16. Elaine M. says:

    Remember Christine “I Am Not a Witch” O’Donnell and Sharon Angle?

    Just read this news story:

    WSJ: GOP Massaging Tea Party to Keep Unelectable Candidates Home
    Tuesday, 15 Apr 2014 07:55 AM
    By Melissa Clyne
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/2014-Mississippi-Colorado-North-Carolina/2014/04/15/id/565631/?promo_code=165C6-1

    Excerpt:
    A quiet campaign has been underway by traditional Republicans to assuage the tea party as part of the GOP’s bid to reclaim the Senate in the midterm elections, according to The Wall Street Journal.

    The crusade has been mostly successful, according to the newspaper. One exception is Mississippi, where tea party state Sen. Chris McDaniel has momentum in his Republican primary campaign against U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, Breitbart reported.

    In addition to filling conventional candidates’ campaign coffers, party leaders have also resorted to “diplomacy” with members of the tea party, according to the Journal.

    “We did that by going to the tea party groups and saying, ‘We want to win,'” Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told the newspaper. “I think we did it a little smarter this time.”

    In past elections, the tea party’s decision to run unelectable candidates, such as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Todd Akin in Missouri, negatively affected the party, the Journal reports.

  17. Byron says:

    Todd Akin would have won except for his stupid comment(s).

    The TEA Party is more about taxation and limited government, positions which many, many people support.

    You run a person who is a live and let live on abortion and contraception but who holds individual rights, limited government and lower taxes as his platform? He or she will win.

    The problem isnt people for limited government, it is people who want government to be in other people’s pants. Which is what abortion and birth control is about, government control. So looking at it another way, by voting against anti-abortion candidates; people are rejecting government intervention in their lives. Only the evangelical Christians dont seem to understand this and the people voting seem to be saying their individual right to their bodies is more important than their pocket books.

    There will come a time when the repubs figure that out, I think that will be the twilight of the democratic party and their hold on government in this country.

  18. Mike Spindell says:

    “He has told extremists they need to dial it back, but then they jump on Dr. Krauthammer for being too moderate.”

    Chuck,
    Sadly and ironically Krauthammer is anything but a moderate. So wacky has the Republican Party turned that real right wing conservatives like McCain are also considered moderates today.
    Damn but Dick Nixon would be seen as a flaming liberal.

  19. Tony C. says:

    Byron: You’ve got the problem wrong; the “problem” is there is no significant number of politicians that really want “limited government,” because their personal riches are derived from helping corporate America circumvent the byzantine laws and tax code. There are damn few politicians that want to make that easier or cut the number of laws or taxes, their bread and butter is selling the power of the State to the highest bidder, for campaign donations, PAC donations, sweetheart jobs when they leave office, sweetheart business “partnerships” while they are IN office, speech fees and seven figure lobbying jobs.

    Especially with your philosophy, why in the world would you expect a politician to vote to curtail his own power? Why would you expect a politician to vote to endanger himself or his friends by passing a law against something he knows he is doing (or that they are doing)?

    The problem, as always, is money in politics and the chance to make big bucks in politics by acting against the best interest of citizens and in one’s own selfish interest — Precisely your philosophy, that altruism is a fool’s game and selfish interest is all that should matter. Well this is where it gets us; with intractable politicians that have, entirely within the law and Constitution, manipulated the boundaries and rules of the voting system to make it nearly impossible to vote them out of office.

    Every two years when a newly elected House or Senate meets to start a new session, they can change the rules by which they operate, and they can do that at as fine a level as they like: Add or modify or repeal even just one rule, even just one word, and all it takes to do that is a majority vote. They could get rid of filibusters altogether; or secret holds, or the phenomenon of bills dying in committee, and on and on. All the rules are up for grabs, not just the filibuster; the nuclear option applies to every self-governing rule of the House and Senate.

    But they do not change. They vote to keep the rules as they are, nearly every time. That is for one reason only: For every rule that stands in the way of getting shit done, there is a majority that LIKES that rule, and doesn’t want to give it up. They love those rules, even if they violate the spirit or will of the people, because that is how they make the big bucks, by exercising those rules. Not just some of them, the majority of them, and a super-majority at that, because we don’t ever hear about abolishing those rules. You want to know when they DO change? When the rules are abused, like the filibuster, so that not everybody is making money off them, or somebody powerful gets pissed.

    There is only one party, Byron, the party of money.

  20. Byron says:

    tony c:

    “You’ve got the problem wrong; the “problem” is there is no significant number of politicians that really want “limited government.”

    I think people are waking up to that fact and I think they see the corruption.

    No, there isnt only one party of money.

  21. “No, there isnt only one party of money.”

    Really.

    Do tell.

    Because if you don’t recognize that reality, then you simply aren’t paying attention to either “campaign finance” or lobbying practices.

  22. Byron says:

    There may be 2 political parties which are corrupt but there are many people trying to change that culture.

    You arent going to fix DC by reforming campaign finance and getting rid of lobbyists. It also isnt where the real money sits, the real money sits in the re-writing of the tax codes and regulations to give one company a competitive advantage over another.

    The way to do it is to reform the tax code and eliminate unnecessary regulations. Eliminate the reason for lobbyists and who cares if uncle fred puts 10 grand in a congressman’s pocket. If the congressman cant make a law or create a special regulation for uncle fred to get a leg up on the competition, ole fred is going to start having to work to compete and will need that 10 grand.

    You properly identify the problem but you dont identify the underlying principles which are causing the problem.

  23. Byron says:

    tony c:

    Selfish is different from self interest. Why would a rational person want to live in a country whose government abuses power? That is usually a dictatorship.

    I’d love to have a big pot of money but if I had to write a law to favor one person over another because person A gave me that pot, it wouldnt be worth it. Some things are more important than money.

  24. I not only identify the problem, I do so correctly. And the rest of your statement? Truly, that may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen you say, Byron. If you think that’s the solution, you truly have no fucking idea how government works or is supposed to work.

    None whatsoever.

  25. pdm says:

    “…eliminate unnecessary regulations”

    I do believe we have had some problems in deciding just what are “unnecessary” regulations.

    I suppose we could start with whether American gas companies can accept capital infusion from the Chinese government.

    And then we could move on to whether coal slurry can be dumped into our rivers.

    Or how about fertilizer plants being located smack dab in the middle of a town with no zoning regulations.

  26. pete says:

    From my understanding 3-4 million of them stayed home and wouldnt vote for Romney because he was a Mormon.
    =============================================================

    True, but for the most part it didn’t matter because the states where they live went for Romney anyway. With the electoral college it doesn’t matter if you win the state by 2 or 2 million, a win is a win.

    If the losing party voters in the non-swing states got together and voted for a third party by the next election cycle that third party would have the percentage clout needed to make a possible difference.
    As it is no one wants to tell the democratic presidential voters in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, and Wyoming or the republican presidential voters in California, and New York that they’re wasting their time and their vote. They might make a difference in local or some statewide offices but not the presidential race. Their dollar vote might make a difference but not in their media market.
    There is the great untapped potential. The downside is that if they realize they don’t count they might stop voting altogether. Or they might demand the end of the electoral college and I’m not sure either party wants that. Hard to game a straight up or down system.

  27. Tony C. says:

    Byron says: There may be 2 political parties which are corrupt but there are many people trying to change that culture.

    With no hope of success, from what I have seen. And frequently corrupted by their very attempt to do so.

    Byron says: You arent going to fix DC by reforming campaign finance and getting rid of lobbyists.

    On the contrary, if politicians could not get rich in office, but only earned the already-generous salaries we pay them, they would be far more inclined to please their constituents to be re-elected than to please corporations for what is now legalized bribery and graft. The ruthlessly and criminally greedy form a cluster-fuck around money like ants congregate around spilled honey. The more difficult it is to get rich in politics, the fewer of those we have, and the more they represent their constituents. We have always had some corruption in government, since this country was founded. But it is only since WW II that the psychopaths and sociopaths have thoroughly hijacked the system.

    Byron says: It also isnt where the real money sits, the real money sits in the re-writing of the tax codes and regulations to give one company a competitive advantage over another.

    Why do you think politicians do that, if they aren’t getting personally rich from the practice? Why would they act in direct opposition to the majority they need to get elected and keep their job? Why would they help people engaged in profit-by-harm unless they were getting a piece of the action?

    Yes, the byzantine tax code is their bread and butter, but they are engineering it that way for a reason: Money. Money in their pocket. They have also gutted the laws, as Stephen Colbert showed with his own PAC and Super PAC, so that campaign donations can be diverted into their pockets, tax free and with complete legality. And they continue to define political money as free speech, the recent Supreme Court ruling proves that, by so narrowly defining graft and bribery that it only accounts for about 1% of graft and bribery, the moronic explicitly expressed quid pro quo. That isn’t how you bribe a politician.

    In fact, if you ever need to bribe one, be certain you do NOT ever express precisely what you want them to do, in any form. A smart politician will throw you out of the office, call you out on the spot, and distance themselves from you fast. A smart politician knows they can be recorded at any moment without their knowledge, so anything said that can be construed as quid pro quo is just trouble from an amateur that must be put down.

    Byron says: The way to do it is to reform the tax code and eliminate unnecessary regulations.

    I see, and then magic unicorns will frolic on the rainbow emanating from my ass.

    Why in the world would corrupt politicians ever agree to reform the tax code that is making them millionaires?

    Why in the world would corrupt politicians ever agree to eliminate regulations without getting paid to do so? Especially when the regulations protect people from those intent upon harming them for profit? Those harmed people may retaliate at the ballot box, and allowing them to be harmed may have a backlash.

    The majority of people LIKE regulations, even today the majority supports raising the minimum wage, and the majority are in favor of greater environmental regulation enforced on those dumping toxic crap into rivers and lakes.

    Byron says: Eliminate the reason for lobbyists and who cares if uncle fred puts 10 grand in a congressman’s pocket. If the congressman cant make a law or create a special regulation for uncle fred to get a leg up on the competition, ole fred is going to start having to work to compete and will need that 10 grand.

    And what super-body prevents the Congressman from making a law or creating a special regulation for Uncle Fred?

    You argue in circles, you are talking about a law that prohibits Congress from making a law. Who enforces that law? You have no system, it dead ends! You need a system that makes and enforces law, to deal with new circumstances and ways that people can be harmed.

    Byron says: You properly identify the problem but you dont identify the underlying principles which are causing the problem.

    Incorrect. The underlying principle is that politicians, in the upper tiers (Congressmen, Governors, some Mayors from large cities) can get rich from graft. If they can abuse the power of their office to help an entity profit off of a few million constituents or so, and get a piece of that action, then the office attracts criminally minded sociopaths that will do exactly that.

    You are the one that fails to understand the underlying principle: People can make profits by harming other people whether laws prohibit that or not. Without laws and regulations, when harming other people for profit is legal, you end up with slavery and other forms of coerced labor and exploitation; you end up with profit-by-harm. Bad actors drive out good ones, because being good to workers costs money and produces less profit.

    That is the underlying principle: A company with no conscience and no morals that cares about nothing but profit gets what it aims for: Maximum profit, regardless of the fallout or wake of destruction they may leave behind; as long as they do not have to pay for damage they have done and do not get punished for it.

    Their conscience or morals must be externally imposed, in the form of taxes and regulations, to prevent them from earning profit by harm, and restrict them to earning profit by creating value through work. They will resist that imposition because it makes it harder for them to earn a profit, and reduces their profit, and even exposes their wealth to risk of loss. So if they can, they will engage in they bribery of politicians to prevent that external imposition of conscience and morals that puts a brake on their profits by preventing exploitation, pollution, usury, abuse, monopolization, and various forms of coercion or arm bending or effective robbery of citizens.

    Crime pays, Bron. Coercion works, brutality produces submission. That is how the slave trade came to exist in the first place, when there is no punishment, then men with guns and chains will profit. The ONLY thing that can make crime NOT pay is a force dedicated to exacting costs (personal and financial) that exceed the profit to be gained, and that is “government”.

    The problem is corruption, but there is only one reason corruption exists, and that is because it is profitable. That profit is what must be stopped. The underlying problem is an overwhelming amount of corrupting money in politics.

    The problem is NOT, in my view, excessive political speech or campaigning, I do not care about that. Unlike many others here, I think money actually has a very limited effect in determining people’s votes, I don’t think Democrats can be badgered by TV ads or billboards into becoming Republicans, or vice versa. As I noted earlier, Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown five to one for Governorship, and still lost by 13 points. And that is not the only example, there are many such examples where big money failed. Money doesn’t make a candidate popular. THAT kind of money in politics is of very little concern to me; I almost do not care how much money is spent on ads (although I do care about lies in ads).

    The money in politics I really care about is corruptive money, it is money (even if the money is eventually used for ads) given to politicians with the ultimate goal of securing favors for a minority over the super-majority wishes of their constituents. That minority may be a company, an industry, a family, the wealthy, a profession (like lawyers), or even themselves.

    That is corruption; violating one’s obligation to serve or abusing one’s power in return for personal enrichment, either immediate or in the future, in the form of cash or other consideration.

  28. I’d like to thank Tony for psychically extracting a very close approximation of my long form answer to Byron that I didn’t have time to compose yesterday. Well done, Kreskin. 😀

  29. Byron says:

    Tony C:

    So you disagree with Gene about campaign finance reform apparently. Good for you.

    “The underlying problem is an overwhelming amount of corrupting money in politics.”

    Now why is that? It is because government has favors to grant and sells them to the highest bidder, those favors are regulations and amendments to the tax code which favor the person tendering the cash. I used to see it done, I worked for an association. It made me sick and I quit.

    If you guys cant see that, you arent nearly smart as I thought you were.

  30. Byron says:

    Gene:

    I dont think you understand how government works. You may understand the law and the rules but you certainly dont understand how it works.

    Even Tony C is disagreeing with you on campaign finance reform, he said so above in a nice way.

  31. Byron says:

    you guys just refuse to see that big government with all its rules and regulations is the problem. I understand why, small government cant give free sh*t away.

  32. B,

    No, Tony and I don’t disagree on basics. We disagree on some specifics, but both of us recognize that money is the driver of corruption and not the backwards way you seem to think it works. This isn’t a surprise though. You’ve always had a problem with quantifying causal connections.

  33. Also, your preoccupation with size is a dead giveaway. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, size is not the primary metric. The primary metric is does the goal defined get accomplished. Size is a factor in operational efficiency, not completion of task. Focusing on size as the defining metric of government is one of the biggest misdirections Libertarians have ever thrown out. It’s an illusion – a lie – used to justify their desire to privatize and monetize everything in society. It is, in short, a lie to justify their lust for profit above all.

    I now return you to your previously scheduled blinkered perceptions.

  34. Tony C. says:

    Byron says: Now why is that? It is because government has favors to grant and sells them to the highest bidder, those favors are regulations and amendments to the tax code which favor the person tendering the cash.

    That is corruption, to be sure, but you are mistaken about the motivation of the buyer. Their primary purpose is not to gain an advantage over their competition, the exceptions they seek to the law are the right to exploit their workers, harm their customers, pollute the environment and use the publicly-funded infrastructure without paying for it, because all those things are profitable.

    In the Gun industry, Cabella and Ruger and Smith and Wesson all collude with the NRA to ensure no legislation passes to control guns. They aren’t trying to beat each other, they want the right to sell a harmful product that produces unnecessary death by the thousands without any consequences to them.

    In the Alcohol industry, other countries have proven for decades that the best way to combat alcoholism and drunk driving is to raise the unit price of an ounce of alcohol; EVEN if that raise in price goes 100% to the producer of the alcohol products. But they band together to prevent a minimum price on alcohol because, in truth, for the sellers of cheap alcohol (beer and rotgut), up to 50% of their profits are derived from alcoholism. Studies have also shown that the ads telling people to “drink responsibly” (in various forms in various countries) are actually counter-productive; they are processed by alcoholics as commands to drink and a form of permission to drink, which is something they cannot do responsibly because the first drink impairs their rationality.

    So the cheap alcohol industry profits from harm, not only to alcoholics but to others killed and slaughtered by alcoholics in drunk driving, drunken rages, and other forms of drunken accident. A similar thing could be said for those producing other addictive products.

    If the government did not exist, the industries that have found a way to profit by harm would do even more harm, and it would cost them less. The problem isn’t government, the government is the only plausible means of preventing people from profiting by harm. The problem is the corruption of government officials by offering them a taste of the overwhelming profit-by-harm that can be extracted in global, national, and regional markets of many millions of people that can be exploited.

    If you cannot see that, then you aren’t nearly as smart as I thought you were.

  35. Tony C. says:

    Byron says: I understand why, small government cant give free sh*t away.

    That isn’t why at all. Small government cannot protect me from psychopaths and sociopaths that would harm me, in many cases (during the production of food, medicine or other products I use) those people would harm me without my knowledge or consent, and with no regulations forcing them to divulge information about their processes or ingredients I would have no recourse but to buy their products and accept their complete lack of any liability, or do without and starve. Every regulation and law starts somewhere, Byron, and in almost every case a new restriction on the actions of for-profit entities has been the result of somebody doing harm for profit in a way that outrages people and scares politicians into preventing that harm for profit. You can see that now with the coal ash debacles of Duke Energy in N.C., some of the Republicans in charge are running scared and looking to throw their sugar daddy under the bus to save their jobs; they will eventually succeed, because Duke has been engaging in profit-by-harm for decades, and now people are pissed at the disaster that is the result of deregulation and lax enforcement.

  36. Byron says:

    tony c:

    “Their primary purpose is not to gain an advantage over their competition, the exceptions they seek to the law are the right to exploit their workers, harm their customers, pollute the environment and use the publicly-funded infrastructure without paying for it, because all those things are profitable.”

    What the fuk do you think those things are?

  37. Byron says:

    lets talk cars and pools instead of guns.

    The simplest way to prevent gun deaths from accident are to keep the fuking thing unloaded and the ammunition locked up.

    If you are too stupid to do that, then maybe you shouldnt own a weapon. That is a regulation I would be on board with. Give people the IQ test for entrance into the military, if you cant score enough to make it into the military then you arent smart enough to own a firearm.

  38. Tony C. says:

    Byron: You conveniently ignore the context I provided. Big companies (oil, banking, retail, insurance, pharma) collude WITH their competition to gut laws, it makes no sense whatsoever to think that is so they can gain an edge on each other. They do it so they can freely engage in profit by harm. Those things are NOT advantages over their competition, and they don’t give a crap about little startups they can acquire (if regulation didn’t prohibit it) or crush (if regulation didn’t prohibit it). It isn’t about advantage over competition. It is about not being punished for ruining people’s lives, ruining the environment, breaking their contracts, endangering the health and safety of their employees and customers, and not paying the taxes for the free ride they want on OUR infrastructure.

  39. Byron says:

    and that doesnt give them a competitive advantage?

    Since about 20% of the people pay 90% of the taxes, I think they arent getting much of a free ride.
    They pay for 90% of it, they have a right to use it.

    That free ride crap is just laughable.

    The 80%, most of whom, seem to be like my Dachshund. My big dog caught a squirrel on the porch and the little dog grabbed the tail and started shaking it and growling. He walked away all puffed up like he had done something, he hadnt done shit, the big dog did it all.

    And that is the way it is in human life as well, all these little dogs thinking they have done something and are somehow entitled, when it is the big dogs who make it possible for us little dogs to even have a chance at grabbing the squirrels tail.

  40. Tony C. says:

    Byron: Any competitive advantage it gives them is immaterial; and when they get big enough they are paying far less taxes than you and I pay.

    And yes, they are taking a free ride.

    And yes, I have done something; those big guys would not exist if it were not for me working and buying their gas, their insurance, their computers, their food, their products in general. They exist on MY back, I do not exist on theirs. They do not have to buy a damn thing from me to live, I have to buy just about everything from them to live, and that means when they gouge me and charge unfair prices they are stealing MY money. I certainly do not get the opportunity to do the same to them, I have no leverage against them. They have a collective monopoly on everything I need to live a normal life.

    They are the ones that haven’t done shit, the PEOPLE are the big dog catching the squirrel and the rich are the Dachsunds claiming all the credit and all the profit, puffing themselves up as if they DID something when all they actually did was provide some funding.

    You are just a wealth worshiper as you have always been, you mistake owning money for skill, intelligence, inventiveness, courage and risk taking and actual human worth.

Comments are closed.