On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:53:05 GMT, KK puked:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:07:09 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:08 -0400, queenie puked:

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
news:d8ard51tv37dg3lb0g6rotjkj667a9vvd0@4ax. com:


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.


First, I wouldn't have spent all that money on the stimulus package. It
hasn't netted a single job. I would have attached stipulations to the
bank bailout that they couldn't sit on the money, but had to get it
responsibly into the private sector to stimulate business and home
buying. I would target small businesses instead of using trickle down
economics and handing big bucks to huge corporations. I would keep
taxes low until the recession started heading up. Health care would be
off the table until we got a handle on Afghanistan and the economy.

That's for starters.

I'd vote for you.

I have to warn you, I have a lot of skeletons in my closet, and
probably a lot of people that would come forward regaling the press
with witness of my misbehavior and sins.

OTOH, maybe that wouldn't hurt me...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:20:22 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:53:05 GMT, KK puked:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:07:09 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:08 -0400, queenie
puked:

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
news:d8ard51tv37dg3lb0g6rotjkj667a9vvd0@4ax .com:


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.


First, I wouldn't have spent all that money on the stimulus package.
It hasn't netted a single job. I would have attached stipulations to
the bank bailout that they couldn't sit on the money, but had to get
it responsibly into the private sector to stimulate business and home
buying. I would target small businesses instead of using trickle down
economics and handing big bucks to huge corporations. I would keep
taxes low until the recession started heading up. Health care would
be off the table until we got a handle on Afghanistan and the economy.

That's for starters.

I'd vote for you.

I have to warn you, I have a lot of skeletons in my closet, and probably
a lot of people that would come forward regaling the press with witness
of my misbehavior and sins.

OTOH, maybe that wouldn't hurt me...


Wouldn't hurt you in my esteem. People experimenting with substances -
especially when they're younger - doesn't seem to me to be a good measure
of their adult judgment. Except, that is, if *they* experiment and then
once in the seat of power, decide that it's okay to punish others who do
the same thing.

In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past
(unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so-
clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't
inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about
decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and
injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug
offenders.

And I don't care if a candidate enjoys sex. I don't care if they're
married or single. Or divorced. And (I'm sure we'll part ways here) I
don't care if they're gay, either.

"Clave" wrote in
news:fvOdnQFn4oHVMkLXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

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

...

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

Are you denying it?

I'm waiting for you to cite the actual case instead of blogs. Either do
it or you will be ignored.

--
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?

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:50:39 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:20:49 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:04:16 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

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?
It's funny that you all have to tag team one poster
What, is your gaping asshole seeking relief too?
Why didn't you wait
Because you asked with your eyes, faggot.

Wow. You've just self-identified as a seriously creepy asshole.

What a waste of life.

Plonk!

****ING LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

DING!

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:29:30 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:26:41 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:50:39 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:20:49 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:04:16 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

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?
It's funny that you all have to tag team one poster
What, is your gaping asshole seeking relief too?

Why didn't you wait

Because you asked with your eyes, faggot.

Wow. You've just self-identified as a seriously creepy asshole.

What a waste of life.

Plonk!


I especially like how the conversation went from the credibility of the
original poster, who failing to post anything besides blog vomit about
this case to attacking the doubters.

Again are you claiming that the reporters cases was absolutely foolproof
and that the court somehow subverted that? Post some actual proof.

It appears, based on the blog vomit posted so far, that they simply had a
weak case, which kinda puts thier allegations into question.

No more, no less.

Having a weak legal case doesn't decrement the fact that it was
revealed in court that Fox News isn't above fabricating information to
press its cause.


If the court did not find it favor of the plaintiffs, on what basis do you
beleive the material they presented is factual?

They found it wasn't against the law for Fox News to insist its
reporters lie. They didn't question whether Fox News asked its
reporters to lie.

Why are you focused on the outcome rather than the evidence presented?

The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople
to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask
their employees to lie. The court agreed.

How many ways can you parse that to support your claim?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote:


The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to
lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their
employees to lie. The court agreed.

It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie,
let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:28:31 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in newsj21e59k00jg5ulesn35480hbuhco8l13f@
4ax.com:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@
4ax.com:

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.


Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier
products and services, how do you figure?

If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government.

Another tinkle down economist heard from.

Have you heard it doesn't work?


No, but I have heard that government controlled economies don't work and
destroy men's souls.

No, I'm talking about the real world.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com:

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.


Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier
products and services, how do you figure?

If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government.

Another tinkle down economist heard from.

Have you heard it doesn't work?

No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs, and
companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best.

I'm a small business owner and I'm likely to create jobs if the
economy recovers. I'm all in favor of helping small business and
individuals who need to stay afloat.

What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business
owners are among the top 1%?

Idiot.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:50 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote:


The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to
lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their
employees to lie. The court agreed.

It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie,
let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral.

If it occurred, then it's a damn shame FOX is following in the
footsteps of NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com:

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.


Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier
products and services, how do you figure?

If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government.

Another tinkle down economist heard from.

Have you heard it doesn't work?

No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs, and
companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best.

I'm a small business owner

You don't sound like one.


and I'm likely to create jobs if the economy
recovers. I'm all in favor of helping small business and individuals
who need to stay afloat.

Most small business owners file under their personal tax returns and are
most likely to get ****ed by the tax increases on those "rich" people
making $200K + that he specifically targeted in his campaign.

Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be
able to hire more employees? or fewer?


What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business
owners are among the top 1%?

As I showed you (again), those tax cuts did not only benefit the "top 1%"
that you seem to have a raging hard-on for.

And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the Bush
cuts you're bitching about.



Idiot.