(Gray Ghost) wrote in
. 97.142:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
:

"Clave" wrote in
news:qJOdncgTwPLFwkPXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:56edncvL3- :

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in

...

What exactly are you denying? That Wilson and Akre v Fox never
existed, that Fox lost the initial case, or that Fox appealed
and won, the court affirming that they had a right to lie?

I anxiously await your mother-of-all-retards reply.

And we anxiously await a cite to the case from you. I want to
read the actual case, not a Daily Kos take on it.

DYOFH, retard.

IOW, you can only blow the same smoke as your blogs do and cannot
produce a case cite. Noted....

You have yet to tell me what you think still needs proving, retard.

Jim




You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie. I
asked for a case cite.....you haven't provided one.


Given the little information provided one could surmise that the
indiviudals simply didn't make thier case.

Frank


Yep.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give it
to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited from
the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and most of
them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because they
pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give
it to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited
from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and
most of them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because
they pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the fact
that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked or
invested to obtain it.

And - regardless of who "needs" it (and in my opinion, a government whose
biggest expense is paying interest on its out-of-control-spending is the
abso****ing *LAST* one who needs it) if a tax rate - any tax rate - is
lowered, of course the ones who pay the most will save the greatest
number of dollars. It's just math.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give
it to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited
from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and
most of them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because
they pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the fact
that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked or
invested to obtain it.

What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the middle
class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their lot.

What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have
radically different views on parity.

Evidently so.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:54 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to
give it to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited
from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and
most of them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because
they pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the fact
that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked or
invested to obtain it.

What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the middle
class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their lot.


And excluding the wealthy from an across-the-board tax cut isn't going to
change whatever "wiping out" you think is going on. If you really think
people have zero claim to what they earn, you might as well advocate all
wages being put together and divided equally. I guess you'd think that's
"fair"?

I've asked others with no good answer. The state and feds take 50% of my
income (before gas tax, sales tax, property tax, liquor tax, etc., etc.,
etc.,). You apparently think that's not too much - but to you, how much
*would be* too much?


What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have radically
different views on parity.

Evidently so.

Yes, I believe in the crazy notion that people are entitled to what they
work for.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:56 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:


You have a lot to learn about surpluses, deficits and the national debt,
Queenie.

That's probably true.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:13:31 -0400, "lab~rat :-)"
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:59:14 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:18 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
:


That mess was caused by both sides of the aisle, not just one.

Bush tax cuts among other things. Still, Obama is doing what he can
to fix things.

He's not. He has an agenda that runs counter to fixing things. You
don't spend billions upon billions on pointless bull**** when you
inherit a deficit and fix anything.

So what would you do? What solutions did the Republicans offer?

queenie wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:56 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:


You have a lot to learn about surpluses, deficits and the national
debt,
Queenie.

That's probably true.



That's a start.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...

...

You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie...

Are you denying it?

Jim

Clave wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...

...

You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie...

Are you denying it?

Jim


Are you PROVING IT, clammie dear?