Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HeiressofBickworth

HeiressofBickworth's Journal
HeiressofBickworth's Journal
June 29, 2012

And don't forget the taxes

on the garbage bill, the telephone bill, the cable bill, the internet bill, the water bill, the sewer bill, sales tax, use tax, LID (local improvement district) taxes, ambulance tax (we have to pay it in my county), etc., etc. Even if you make less than minimum wage, if you squeek by paying any of these services, you are paying taxes. Unless you live on the street, drink pond water and dumpster dive, you are PAYING TAXES; every time you plop down an item of currency, you are paying taxes in one form or another. Personally, being grateful for the services I'm able to obtain, I don't mind paying those taxes at all. But Palin and her ilk refuse to acknowledge people who pay a larger portion of their income to taxes than the wealthy.

June 27, 2012

Here's what I don't understand

The notices sent out by the State of Florida tell people they have been removed from the voter lists and it's up to the individual to prove they are legally registered.

I spent my entire working career in the field of law. It was always my understanding that one's rights couldn't be taken away without due process of law (i.e., a trial and conviction). And furthermore, under the Constitution people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

So how can the state, without a trial and conviction, unilaterally declare that an individual is deprived of his/her right to vote? Isn't there something basically wrong with this? It's utterly backwards -- they should prove that an individual is illegally registered to vote before depriving them of their right to vote.

What am I missing here?

June 27, 2012

My fear and utter terror

of these "personhood" bills relates to the unintended (or maybe not) consequences. My particular concern, as I've detailed on DU before, is in the area of ectopic (tubal) pregnancies. The fertilized egg sticks in the fallopian tube where it grows, stretches the tube, ruptures and causes the host (mother) to bleed to death internally. Only surgical intervention (removal of the tube and egg) can save her life -- I should know -- it happened to me and because of a doctor who didn't believe in such nonsense, they prepared the operating room at midnight and took me right in. I survived. Under the draconian personhood laws which allow for no exceptions to the removal of a fertilized egg, women like me would not survive. This is further proof of the War Against Women.

I appreciate Reid trying to keep it out of the insurance bill, but somewhere, somehow, someone needs to take on the issue of how dangerous the personhood theory is in the first place.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Current location: Snohomish County, WA
Member since: Wed May 18, 2011, 02:12 AM
Number of posts: 2,682

About HeiressofBickworth

Retired corporate paralegal.
Latest Discussions»HeiressofBickworth's Journal