On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:45 GMT, KK wrote:

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.

That's likely because you don't really know what we sound like.

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.

That's not necessarily true. Many of us are straight C corps who
leave the value in the company at the end of the year.

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

If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you
think that's going to make a difference for me?

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.

The top 1% took the majority of those tax cuts. They didn't need
them. As Warren Buffet proposed, they should have given 1 million
middle class taxpayers $1000 each. The money would have gone straight
back into the economy, not into savings.

You trickle down idiots don't bloody get it, nor will you ever.

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

Did I say they were? Trickle down has been around since Regan's
supply siders convinced him of the theory. It was bull**** then and
it's bull**** now.

I doesn't trickle down.

The middle class is getting slammed and you idiots think the rich need
more money.

Meanwhile the disparity between rich and poor grows and more lose
their homes and livelyhoods.

Get a ****ing clue.

"John H." wrote in message
...
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.


They're going to start reporting news?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote:

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
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.


They're going to start reporting news?

Hell no! There's no profit in telling the truth.

Ailes and Murdoch are on exactly the same page.

How might they profit by distorting news in the WSJ? Their court case
confirmed they can legally tell employees to lie!!!

Arrr matey!!!

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
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.


They're going to start reporting news?

I believe the subject was about lying. You'd have to follow along.

Oh, I almost forgot....lol lol

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
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.


They're going to start reporting news?

I believe the subject was about lying. You'd have to follow along.

Oh, I almost forgot....lol lol



Yes, Fox "news" knows all about lying!

Question: Do you self-identify as a Republican or something else?

--
Nom=de=Plume

thunder wrote in
t:

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.


I wouldn't the poster. He has been asked for a cite from the case or
from a reputable newssource. He has not provided either.

--
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?

queenie wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote:

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that
the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush
for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one.

The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on
both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate,
financial houses and many CEOs.


--
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:
queenie wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote:

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying
that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't
blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the
right one.

The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on
both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real
estate, financial houses and many CEOs.

And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:21:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
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.


They're going to start reporting news?

I believe the subject was about lying. You'd have to follow along.

Oh, I almost forgot....lol lol



Yes, Fox "news" knows all about lying!

Question: Do you self-identify as a Republican or something else?

Are you saying your eyes are blue?