On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:46 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

thunder wrote in
et:

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.

You haven't bothered letting anyone in on the fact that the Weekly
Standard is way left of your requirement for a reputable news source.

It's have to be White Workers Party Weekly to be reputable enough for
The (head in the) Sandman.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "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.

Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both wars
still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes". And I
think if Bush stayed in Afghanistan and didn't veer off to Iraq, there
might not be any war going on now.

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.

All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. He even gave a tax
credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer.

The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to
resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking months!!!

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

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.

That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of
NO.

jps wrote in news:vkd1e5t49g4phgclrq6r2couo36jnri65s@
4ax.com:

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

jps wrote in
m:

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

jps wrote in
m:

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?

Well, if I actually had a NEWS story about this and not just opinion pieces I
might be able to make a judgement.

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
"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?

My you are a agitator aren't you?

...snip more game-playing...

Honestly, you people are worse than little children.

A R E Y O U D E N Y I N G I T ?

Jim

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

Tacit concession accepted.

Jim

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

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@4a x.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.

How does religion sit with ya?
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:19:23 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

And many - or most - aren't. And one year of $250K isn't "wealthy"
everywhere.




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?

Sure - if you need $45000 in the bank to justify a hire and you have
$41000. What about $50K of your $2500000 in gross earnings?



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.

First, having less confiscated from you isn't "taking". And again,
you're either an idiot or dishonest if you're comparing absolute dollars.

Should it have been an across-the-board cut *except* for the rich? The
top 1% pays a third of tax receipts.

They didn't need them.

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.



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.

And it would have disappeared afer that. A one-time shot does nothing; a
rate reduction increases investment.



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


Says the ignoramus who thinks that leaving those who create, those who
hire, and those who invest with less money won't decrease those behaviors.

You're the one who "doesn't get" the obvious.



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

Did I say they were?

When you brought it up in context of the Bush tax cuts, then yes, you
did.


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

Whenever the phrase originated, its effects predate it. That lower
taxes increase consumption, investment, and employment is not "bull****".



I doesn't trickle down.

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

"don't steal more from them" doesn't equal "they don't need more".



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

Get a ****ing clue.

People losing their homes are people who bet their "livelyhoods" (get a
dictionary) and bit off more than they could chew. That's not the fault
of 'the rich'.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:32 -0400, queenie wrote:

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.

That's about enough that stupid bleat you've adopted.


It doesn't take time to *not* force through "emergency" billions
(trillons?) that won't be spent for years.

It doesn't take time to keep to a promise to make bills available to the
public before signing them.

It doesn't take time to *not* dismiss the question I referred to above.

And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy.




Give him
time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come
first. Geez!!

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:43:39 -0400, queenie wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

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.

That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of
NO.

Zzzzz.