On the one hand we have Ralph Northam, down-to-earth, smart, compassionate, honest and reality-based.  On the other is Nick "FemiNazi" Rerras disturbed, disturbing and living in a world far, far away. 

Although on the surface it would appear that Northam might possibly be right in wanting to scrap abuser fees and raise the gas tax by 1.5 cents per gallon, let us objectively look at Rerras's position.

As we know, breaking one's vows, pledges or swearings is nothing less than a sin: we will have lied either to our inner values or to One greater than us.  If we pledge not to raise taxes, we must hold that position like a pit bull on your big toe, for nothing is more sacred than one's pledge.

As to the abuser fees being regressive, I see nothing in Writ that says the fees can't apply only to Virginians.  Further, why shouldn't some driver going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone be fined $3000--where is individual responsibility?  Even if the driver earns but $15,000 a year, do you honestly believe, Lowell, that the $3000 would be an  excessive fine?  I thought not.

But most important to this discussion is the economics of the gas tax raise.  Do you realize that I, for example, a typical American consumer, would be paying $2.65 a gallon at Costco instead of $2.63.  That extra $12 a year may not mean much to you, Lowell, with your wealth-bringing Web site,  but it sure would buy a lot of chemicals for my swimming pool, chemicals you don't want me to afford under this socialist increase. And once that door is opened, what's to stop the tax-and-spend Democrats from raising the tax yet another 1-1/2 cents 3 years from now?  Now I'd be paying $2.67 a gallon instead of $2.63.  How much more of this gouging can a typical Humvee owner take?

Remember, too, that 170,000 signatures do not equate to a  majority of Virginians.  It may sound big, but it is not a majority!

So, in the name of fairness to we typical Americans, I ask you to reconsider your positions on the tax raise and abusers' fees.

Rerras Si, Northam, NO.

Thank you

A fine Republican screed.  God, shameless invocation of the "personal responsibility" (for others), big trucks, destruction of natural resources, name-calling, selfishness and greed disguised as economic theory, stubborn, unthinking certitude, and tax cuts (for me).  Oh, wait, you left out gays, guns, and illegal immigrants.

wit.  Read it again and let me know what you think.

I guess I just didn't make that sufficiently clear.  Still waiting for soccerdem to work in the guns and illegal immigrants, though.

Wait a minute Soccer"dem".

You'd rather stick thousands of poor people who can't pay with $900-2000 abuser fees, create "a permanent underclass" as many studies have found, great a whole bunch of new bureacrats to administer this brand new system, and clog our courts with trials, rather than everyone in the state pay $12/year PLUS charge out-of-staters who help cause our traffic pay a few bucks a year?

While I'm trying to figure out exactly who is the fiscal responsible, small government, conservative here, can you please explain to me exactly who you expect to pay for our roads?

Funny, but when the blather I wrote in a progressive news venue can be taken seriously, despite the extreme  irrationality and hyperbolic nature of the writing, it shows how people who constantly listen only to the right-wing pundits are taken in completely when they are bombarded day after day by anouncers who BELIEVE in that crap, or make a living out of pretending to believe.  No reflection on you all at not sseing that I was using satire--you don't really see that much of it here to get acquainted with it, when some pops up.  Apology, by me.

BUT, amazingly, what I wrote is no different from what Bush and his media supporters speak daily to listeners who DO NOT get angry, as you did.  They actually agree with that line of crap, that illogical and inhumane garbage. That's the shame of it, and that's why I vote Democratic even though some candidates at the top like Lieberman or at the bottom like Houck will tick me off for their unlimited support for the war (Lieberman) or for stopping 2 gay guys down the street from getting married (Houck).  Heck, why shouldn't Larry Craig be allowed to marry anyone of the sex he prefers, I believe.

Thanks for your anger.  It's what our party needs. 

 

I meant to say, of course, in my above blurb, that I was using "sarcasm," not "satire," as Lowell correctly noted. 

By the way, writing ;) or :) or *SNARK ALERT* is a useful way to tip people off that you're using sarcasm.  The thing with the internet is that people can't see you rolling your eyes or whatever, so you've got to do it in words or emoticons.  Thanks.