iLounge

1

Now there’s a shocker - Democrats are more willing to add a new tax!  Who’d a thunk it?

Posted by ludite on April 13, 2006 at 1:26 PM (PDT)

2

Shocking findings, unless you give them any sort of thought whatsoever. Next they’ll be telling us Christians are more likely to support Jesus.

Posted by Michaelp on April 13, 2006 at 1:53 PM (PDT)

3

And you know what I bet those taxes will go towards? Funding obscene arts or some kind of educational facility! I could get behind it if those taxes were earmarked for getting more bombs overseas, but you know those Democrats. They’ll just waste it on AIDS research.

Posted by Multimoog on April 13, 2006 at 2:41 PM (PDT)

4

Oh yes, all Democrats are such HUGE proponents of only spending tax money on AIDS research and schools.  Brilliant analysis there, Multimoog.  Democrats never spend money on pork projects, or fund insanely offensive art, or create a subservient underclass by imposing poverty instead of assisting and training.

Nope.  Never.  Democrats are never ready to spend other people’s money at the drop of a hat.  That NEVER happens.

Posted by stark23x on April 13, 2006 at 3:07 PM (PDT)

5

Stark23x: I think Multimoog is giving an example of the word sarcasm, you might want to look it up…

Posted by Devil's Advocate on April 13, 2006 at 3:36 PM (PDT)

6

I think stark was being sarcastic too, i’m just not entirely sure what his (her?) point was.

Posted by Whenders0n on April 13, 2006 at 4:38 PM (PDT)

7

Well, the last 6 years have pretty much proved that the idea that Democrats spend more frivilously than Republicans is (and always has been) an urban myth.  Anytime you get one party controlling congress and the white house, money is spent and spent and spent and spent and spent some more.

At least the Democrats find ways of paying for what they promise…the Republicans have spent 6 years spending money they don’t have, and we will all pay for it in the long run.

To be honest, I’m not saying Dems would be any better if they controlled the Whitehouse and Congress…I am a strong social liberal, but in terms of fiscal policy…I’m a huge proponent of split government.  Only way to ensure some reasonable checks nad balances on who is spending what.

Politics and iPod message boards never mix well…so bring on the flames

Posted by bluecow on April 13, 2006 at 4:56 PM (PDT)

8

<<Oh yes, all Democrats are such HUGE proponents of only spending tax money on AIDS research and schools.>>

It may have been an overly simplistic statement, yes. But I’d much rather have insanely offensive art (a subjective term at best, by the way) than a bloated military. That the past few years have shown we don’t need.

Also, since when was cutting off educational funding ‘assisting and training’? Kinda sounds like the opposite to me.

But getting back on topic: just how much IS this imaginary ‘downlad tax’ for, anyway? If you’re going to be spending money downloading things on, say, iTunes, you can probably afford the small fraction that would likely be added. So isntead of $.99 it’d be, what, $1.05 or so? Outrageous.

Posted by Multimoog on April 13, 2006 at 6:54 PM (PDT)

9

Yeah, I’m with multimoog!  Instead of attacking the Taliban, we should have just lobbed copies of the “piss christ” at them!  That’ll learn ‘em.

<insert rolleyes “smiley” here>

Posted by Chris on April 13, 2006 at 8:07 PM (PDT)

10

“But I’d much rather have insanely offensive art (a subjective term at best, by the way) than a bloated military. That the past few years have shown we don’t need.”

1. I think an attack on our country that killed almost 3000 civilians just a few years ago shows we do need a well or over funded military.

2. I thought the Democratic line was that the military was NOT being taken care of and Bush wasn’t arming them enough. Now they’re bloated?

3. Who comes to an iPod website to talk politics! 

Posted by J3 on April 13, 2006 at 9:52 PM (PDT)

11

“lobbed copies of the ‘piss christ’ at them!”

Now you’re just being silly.

“attack on our country that killed almost 3000 civilians ... shows we do need a well or over funded military.”

If by ‘military’ you mean ‘airport security’, then yes, I suppose we do. But one of the things you have to consider when you live in America is that you’re not going to be able to keep tabs on every person in said country’s borders at all times without violating certain rights. How does funding to the military - possibly gained from digital media taxation - improve that?

“I thought the Democratic line was that the military was NOT being taken care of”

That’s the first I’ve heard of that.

“Who comes to an iPod website to talk politics!”

Um… you and everyone else who’s made a political comment on this page?

Posted by Multimoog on April 13, 2006 at 11:43 PM (PDT)

12

I think J3 is just stating the fact that we have clear known enemies that we must be ready to defend ourselves against. Over funded is better that under funded any day if you ask me. Regardless of who would support this possible tax I would hate to see songs go past the 99 cent price and most albums pat the 9.99… I think those very reasonable prices are what draw people in… cheap people like me.

Posted by JeremytheIndian on April 14, 2006 at 1:03 AM (PDT)