2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:27:06 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:08:07 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
:


You mean the surplus that didn't exist, because the government
spent more than it got in revenue?


Ssshhhhhh, they can't handle the truth.

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

China is financing that debt with our worthless dollars.

Who can't handle the truth?

Attempt to change the subject, and hence your surrender, is noted.

Your stupidity is duly noted.

Let's see if that's really the case, or rather if this is a comment on your
own stupidity.


I'm simply following up on your ill-conceived notion that Dems are bad
stewards of the federal budget.

Really? Care to cite where I stated such a notion?

Since you can not do so it's looking like the only stupidity speaking is
yours.


Have a look at the history of federal debt during presidencies and
you'll find the deficit has gone down during D administrations and up
during R administrations.

Agreed, the D's generally have less debt, though it's looking like Obama is
going to wipe that out during his first budget, but that's not really
relevent to the point you are attempting to make.

However, a lower debt, is still a debt, and an increasing deficit still
means the government spent more than they took in. The only difference is Ds
spend us into debt, generally, at a slower rate. Further, one has to
question how much of the debt incurred by future administrations is a result
of the costs of entitlement programs enacted during a D administration. If
you factor that in, it could have a significant impact on the numbers you
refer to because adding spending to future budgets isn't included (and it
should be) in the accounting of the administration that imposed the
expendature(s).....not just when it came due for payment, but again not
directly relevent to your point.


Doesn't matter who it is, if you spend more than you have, then the deficit
increases.

Unless you can't handle the truth, which I'm certain is the case.

Where as you seem to be utterly ignoring the small truth I presented to you
for your edification and enlightenment.

So who can't handle the truth? The one that confronts it as I do, or the one
that changes the subject rather than to accept the deficit increased under
Clinton because his adminstration did, in fact, spend more than it took in
and there was no real surplus beyond numbers on paper?


And don't tell me to cite it. Prove that you have half a brain and
can use google.

IOW, don't bother asking you to back up your claims.

I acknowledge your inability to handle the truth. I accept you want to
change the subject rather than to deal with that truth. I am disappointed
that you claim positions for me which I have not expressed. Finally, I am
sadden by your self admission of stupidity by expressing all of the above.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

"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

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

jps wrote in news:8k2sd5p7vbrodu7r9v859k887upfpgd001@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:05:03 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
.. .
"Clave" wrote in
news:RJGdnQXeVYHNCkbXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:nKudnW3sNKyq_kfXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

..

You can take your pick too, moron. Or are you still allergic to
facts?

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...TF-8&rlz=1T4GW
YE_ en US316US317&q=court+rules+fox+can+lie

Those are opinion sites...

OK, you retards just go on believing it never happened. Your
collective need to deny recent history is even more well-documented
than the FOX case.

Then why do you have such a problem producing a cite for it?


I produced 83,000 of them.

I'm not interested in playing birther games with you or any of your
slurp buddies.

Jim

Birthers. Weren't they formerly known as "The Klan"?

They'll never believe anything if it goes against the grain of their
assumed/ratified/cemented ignorance. Cannot compute.


Ahhhhhh, Clave......you found a butt buddie......

That's your rebuttal? You're afraid of the truth so deflect.

It's not going to change the facts nor your fear of them.


And what exactly are the "facts"? All we saw was 83,000 opinion pieces.

If I get the gist some malcontents claimed they were told to lie by the
management of thier station. They refused, got fired and brought suit. The
suit failed suggesting that they did not present a convincing case.

What's your point? Are you now going to damn an entire network becuase at one
station some malcontents "claimed" that they were told to lie, though a court
apparently wasn't buyibng thier argument?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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

...

If I get the gist some malcontents claimed they were told to lie by the
management of thier station. They refused, got fired and brought suit. The
suit failed suggesting that they did not present a convincing case.

Hold onto that ignorance like grim death, retard. Without it you'd have
hardly any personality at all.

God forbid you inform yourself.

Jim

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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
m:


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.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:34:39 -0700, jps wrote:

Have a look at the history of federal debt during presidencies and
you'll find the deficit has gone down during D administrations and up
during R administrations.

Stop being stupid, please. Congress has budgetary power, not the
president. The 104th Congress - during Clinton's administration - was
the last one with any semblance of fiscal responsibility, and they
opposed Clinton's proposed spending, so far as to cause a showdown over a
government shutdown.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

"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.

--
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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

jps wrote in news:8bisd5hsdoc1lq6u3chuq92j5316bsmnin@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:29:32 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:vvgsd5la3co9o1rvtctgf5lvilqs2er0fn@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:06:38 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:44:16 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:8k2sd5p7vbrodu7r9v859k887upfpgd001@ 4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:05:03 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:248qd5hfmn9stmaia6a1rnpmuck0qbre03@4a x.com:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:RJGdnQXeVYHNCkbXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote
in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:nKudnW3sNKyq_kfXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

..

You can take your pick too, moron. Or are you still
allergic
to facts?

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...lient&ie=UTF-8
&rlz=
1T4GW
YE_ en US316US317&q=court+rules+fox+can+lie

Those are opinion sites...

OK, you retards just go on believing it never happened.
Your
collective need to deny recent history is even more well-
documented
than the FOX case.

Then why do you have such a problem producing a cite for it?


I produced 83,000 of them.

I'm not interested in playing birther games with you or any of
your slurp buddies.

Jim

Birthers. Weren't they formerly known as "The Klan"?

They'll never believe anything if it goes against the grain of
their assumed/ratified/cemented ignorance. Cannot compute.


Ahhhhhh, Clave......you found a butt buddie......

That's your rebuttal? You're afraid of the truth so deflect.

It's not going to change the facts nor your fear of them.


What truth or what facts? You haven't posted any.

It wouldn't matter if I did, you can't handle the truth.


Code words for I can't back up my mouth.

Code words for I couldn't stand to read it even if you did.


You won't produce anything. I really don't like to debate things with
folks that won't produce cites, so I if I don't see anything tomorrow,
consider yourself plonked.

Plonk me now you worthless ass.

OK....PLONK!!!

Your word games are a waste of time and you don't give a **** about
the truth. Little ego games.

**** off.




--
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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

"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

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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

...

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

Are you denying it?

Jim

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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 to have half a
chance at making any sense.

Too bad you're overmatched even with three.

Doesn't help that you talk like Eddy Haskell.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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 for one of your butt buddies to chime in. Pretty
brave for a little squeaker toy.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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!

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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
m:


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.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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
om:


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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

"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?

Jim




My you are a agitator aren't you?

It is clear the "reporters" didn't make thier case convincingly enough.
Apparently you think that just becuase they brought the charges they are
automatically true.

Let's try that on you. Yes officer this pervert was seen touching little
boys. Arrest him.

The charge is certainly serious enough to warrant action irrespective of the
truth of it.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

"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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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!

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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?

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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

jps wrote in news:oj21e59k00jg5ulesn35480hbuhco8l13f@
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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.

2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
 

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.