"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"David E. Powell" wrote in message
...

Baba Wawa acted like her servants delivered her cold coffee or
something. What a maroon.



she acted like the lournalist she used to be and asked tough questions
and
she refused to accept pat bull**** answers



The View, home of great journalism??? Sorry, but when I hear make dumb
as comments about Slavery from Whoopi, you lose all credibilty. Those
hags have a agenda as left as yours......

What are you, in 8th grade? Barbara Walters has had a lifetime of careers,
unlike your one stop at the fry counter. Shut up until your masters tell you
to sit up and beg.

On Sep 13, 12:44*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wf3h wrote:

:On Sep 13, 12:43*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:: "wf3h" wrote in message

:
....
: On Sep 12, 9:55 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
:
: which she inherited. unlike mccain, i've worked for everything i have.
: that's why mccain wants to take what i have and give it to his rich
: buddies. he, like all republicans, hates the middle class.
:
: Maybe you should have become a gigolo. *Then your jealousy would not rear
: it's ugly head.-
:
:and mebbe members of the GOP should quit lecturing people on the moral
:superiority of the rich.
:

And maybe you should stop lying about things that never happened.


you mean mccain's not a gigolo?

when did he get an honest job?

On Sep 13, 2:59*pm, Tiger wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:55 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

the same can be said for mccain. he's a gigolo living off his wife's
wealth

which she inherited. unlike mccain, i've worked for everything i have.
that's why mccain wants to take what i have and give it to his rich
buddies. he, like all republicans, hates the middle class.

So what do you call John Kerry?????

i call him irrelevant. and he's not trying to tell me, as the GOP
does, that god loves him because he's rich, so i should pay more taxes
so he can stay that way.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:51:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote: :
:What does orientation or sexual preference have to do with McCain's
lies? :
:
What lies would those be?

Don't play stupid, you know very well.

McCain-approved TV ad claims Obama championed "legislation to teach
comprehensive sex education . . . to kindergarteners! Learning about sex
before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for YOUR
family."

In reality, the legislation referred to allows local schools to teach
"age-appropriate" sex education, meaning that kindergarten kids could be
warned about sexual predators and inappropriate touching, but not taught
about sex.

Fact check:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/mar...ory/52169.html

Actual video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs&e

Here's the text of the bill in question. It states explicitly that "(2)
All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education
and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally
appropriate." (Language in the existing Illinois law is in plain text;
language that would be added to the law by the bill is underlined;
language that would be removed from existing law is struck through.)
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...Sess=&Session=

=================

"Obama called Sarah Palin a pig" -- John McCain on Tuesday, September 9th,
2008 in a Web ad

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/706/

'Pants-On-Fire" lie:

If there's lipstick on a pig, it's this McCain ad Pants on fire!

The story begins, like so many these days, with Gov. Sarah Palin's speech
at the Republican National Convention last week. Having stirred the crowd
to its feet more than once, Palin delivered a knockout line when she
deadpanned:

"I love those hockey moms. You know the difference between a hockey mom
and a pit bull? Lipstick."

The line drew cheerful applause and has echoed ever since, which seems to
explain how Sen. Barack Obama found himself in the middle of an uproar
when he uttered a time-worn phrase to denigrate Sen. John McCain's
proclaimed agenda for "change" in Washington.

"John McCain says he's about change, too," Obama said. "And so I guess his
whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy,
health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl
Rove-style politics, we're really going to shake things up in
Washington.'"

"That's not change," Obama said. "That's just calling something the same
thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig.
It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called
change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of
the same old thing."

Gasp! He just said lipstick! Did he just call Sarah Palin a pig??!!!

That's the charge.

Later that day, the McCain campaign arranged a conference call for
reporters with Jane Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts. She said
that when you add up Obama's comments and Palin's comments, you get Obama
calling Palin a pig. Swift said Obama should apologize.

"Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a 'pig' is
not exactly what we want to see," Swift said.

The issue has dominated the presidential campaign for two days, with the
McCain campaign stirring a controversy by having local lawmakers call for
Obama to apologize, and the Obama campaign responding with examples of how
often he and others have used the phrase. The next day, Obama called the
McCain's campaign tactics "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat
politics."

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign released a Web ad called "Lipstick." It
begins with a clip of Palin delivering her lipstick line, then text
flashes on the screen saying "Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin." A moment
later, the ad plays a small portion of Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark,
but not enough of his quotation to make clear what he was talking about.
The ad concludes with a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric soberly remarking
on sexism on the campaign trail.

The ad has two big problems, as does the complaint of former Gov. Swift.
First, in the full text of the remarks it's clear that Obama isn't talking
about Sarah Palin. He's talking about McCain's argument that he represents
change.

Second, "putting lipstick on a pig" is a popular put-down, especially
among politicians. It generally means taking a bad or unattractive idea
and trying to dress it up.

We weren't able to pin down the origins of this folksy expression, but we
found tons of instances of people using it. The political newspaper The
Hill labeled the phrase "Congress Speak" back in June, and gave it an
official definition: "an expression used to illustrate that something
unattractive cannot be beautified or otherwise positively changed by any
amount of makeup or other exterior alterations."

In 1986, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Jim Hightower used the phrase to
criticize Ronald Reagan's farm policy. During the 2004 presidential
campaign, both Dick Cheney and John Edwards used it to attack the other
guy's running mate. Earlier this year, Democratic Congresswoman Linda
Sanchez of California gave a speech on trade policy. "You know the old
saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Well, I smell bacon," she groused.

Obama and McCain both have used the expression.

In September 2007, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson quoted Obama
using the phrase to discuss Iraq policy:

"I think that both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people
who have been given an impossible assignment," Obama said. "George Bush
has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to
figure out how to put lipstick on a pig."

In Iowa on Oct. 11, 2007, McCain panned Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care
plan, calling it "eerily reminiscent" of the plan that failed during Bill
Clinton's administration, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune.

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig," McCain said, "but it's still a
pig."

On Feb. 1, 2007, McCain blasted a Senate resolution that would have
criticized President Bush's strategy in Iraq. Some had praised the
resolution as a compromise measure, but McCain disagreed. "It gets down to
whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don't,"
McCain said. "You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it's still a pig, in my
view."

It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude
that he's making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never
is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it's hard to see how one could
interpret Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to
McCain, either. We think it's very clear that Obama was saying McCain's
effort to call himself the "candidate of change" is like putting lipstick
on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree
with Obama's point, but his remark wasn't the smear that McCain's people
have tried to make it.

If anyone's doing any smearing, it's the McCain campaign and its
outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No,
and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.
-------------------
Phoney Outrage:
McCain using the phrase "Putting Lipstick On A Pig" himself, 02MAY08:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlI...eature=related

=================

"Actually, they are not lies," McCain said during an exchange with host
Barbara Walters:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...3gpQgz_1ep_L6A


:McCain, the "straight talker" took on Karl Rove as an advisor :
:
Speaking of lies, there's one.

Stop playing stupid:

Mehlman, Rove boost McCain campaign
By: David Paul Kuhn
March 8, 2008 11:33 AM EST

John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and
fundraising help for his campaign. He's getting Bush's staff.

It's no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush's attack dog in the 2004 election,
and Mark McKinnon, the president's media strategist, are performing
similar functions for McCain now.

But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.

Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush's 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid,
outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president's top
political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and
soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain
adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the
campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.

The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush
White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said
they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.

Rove explained that he and McCain "got to know each other during the 2004
campaign." In a separate interview, Mehlman noted that "McCain was
completely loyal to the president in 2004 and worked incredibly hard to
help him get elected." According to Taylor, "The Bush Republicans here in
town are excited for John McCain."

Despite the president's low approval ratings, there are clear benefits to
McCain for this cozy relationship with the Bush team. They are seasoned
operatives with a track record of winning back-to-back national elections
in tough political environments. But there are obvious drawbacks. First
and foremost, any association with the Bush administration helps Democrats
make their case that McCain represents a clear extension of an unpopular
presidency.

One of those making that argument is Matt Dowd, Bush's chief strategist in
2004.

"[McCain] has sided himself so closely to the administration, especially
on Iraq, now having various Bush advisers -- that doesn't sit well with
the public," said Dowd, who has recently broken with the Bush inner
circle. "The public wants the non-Bush candidate."

Dowd also argued that he believes that the proximity of Bush's advisers
could lead McCain to a strategic mistake" Dowd added. "And I think some of
the things John McCain has done, and how he's done it, has been a fight or
a battle that's gone. I don't think this is going to be a terrorism
election or a national security election."

The McCain adviser said Dowd's concern is unwarranted, pointing to the
campaign's belief that the economy will play a far greater role in the
2008 race than it did in 2004.



That hasn't stopped Democrats from seizing upon the Bush-McCain axis. When
Bush and McCain met at the White House on Wednesday, a Democratic leaning
group aired an ad that day in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio
titled "McSame," attacking McCain as a Bush clone with similar policies on
taxes, health care and the war in Iraq. The Democratic National Committee
quickly posted a video of the news conference on its website. Beneath the
video, it read that McCain would carry on Bush's "failed economic and
foreign policies."

The McCain campaign, for its part, has been coy about how -- or whether --
the senator will distance himself from the president.

McCain said that he intended to campaign with Bush but quickly added a
caveat: only "as it fits into his busy schedule." The scheduling
disclaimer followed each of the five times -- in the 10-minute press
conference -- that McCain invited Bush to join him on the trail.

For now, said a senior adviser to McCain who spoke on the condition of
anonymity, the "the No. 1 strategic goal" was "to solidify the base of
the party." A strong majority of Republicans continue to approve of the
president.

Yet independents and Democrats do not share Republicans' approval of Bush.
And former Bush aides recognize the political exigencies surrounding the
McCain-Bush relationship.

"We agree on far more than we disagree on," Bartlett said. "Everybody will
do everything they can to help. And if part of being helpful means [to]
stay away, I'm sure people will stay away."

At the moment, McCain's campaign seems to believe Bush's assistance is
more valuable than not. But the McCain adviser noted that, down the road,
the campaign will "reinforce that [McCain] is an independent."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...6F9CBBFFC54DE3


Just when did this happen?

March 8, 2008 11:33 AM EST or earlier.

:... and now his campaign has gone negative, :
:
But not until after all the smears from the other side going into the
Republican Convention.

Irrelevant when one makes a promise.

The weirdest thing is that McCain has taken on the master of Slime to help
in negative campaigning, Karl Rove, even after being slimed himself in
1999/2000 by Bush/Rove.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush, Plunderer In Chief
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Sep 13, 2:57*pm, Tiger wrote:
hk wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

I think anyone with income of more than $5 million a year ought to be
paying twice the amount of taxes they're paying now.

Why? Because Karl Marx says so?

i see you're in favor of socialism...for the rich

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:53:23 -0700, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 13, 7:46*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: the poor?"
:
:
And the answer is "they shouldn't". *Income tax should essentially be
like a tithe; everyone pays the same percentage (and you only tax the
income ONCE).

nope. won't work. the middle class has certain basic expenses that consume
a far larger portion of their income versus the extremely wealthy. a flat
tax would decrease the viability of the middle class

Fair is the only system that does work.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 1:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wf3h wrote:

: :
: :c'mon harry...don't you have the $5,000,000 that mccain says makes
: :you middle class?
: :
:
: I think that's a great level at which to say taxes shouldn't be
: increased.
:
: You WANT to pay more taxes? I think we need a program that lets you
: folks pick your own tax rate and not steal from the rest of us...
:
:
:I think anyone with income of more than $5 million a year ought to be
aying twice the amount of taxes they're paying now.
:

Why?

--


why not? the largest increase in marginal tax rates occurs on the
middle class. the wealthy get a tax rate of 15% on capital gains
(which is alot less than the middle class pays) AND gets to write off
losses. they get the best of all worlds.

Same 15% you get to pay on capitol gains. They have left the investment
untouched for a long period of time. And those capitol gains can only be
written off up to the the capitol losses + $1000. Lose $10k and no gains to
write against, and you will still be taking a loss 10 years down the road.

Fair is the only system that does work.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.................................................. ..............
* * * *Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
* * * * * * * athttp://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Bull****. Take a decent economics course, if they offer any anymore.
Progressive income tax with higher rates for richest is the way to go.
Flat tax is worst on the poor. Hell everybody agreed on that until
these stupid Republicans under Reagan took over.

You know under Eisenhower, tax rate was 91% for some of the highest
brackets? You know some of them actually complained to the Treasury
Secretary, and his response was, pay your damn taxes, you can afford
it. You are gaining the largess due to what this country provides for
you. From infrastructure to safe means to park your funds.

The only people advocating a flat tax are the super rich who would
make a killing on it (its only income and they would not count
investments as income). Why the hell is Forbes so gung ho on it? To
help the middle class? Hell no. He has no clue how you live. Neither
does McCain or his wife. Anybody got a quarter mil earrings for the
wife lately? Thought not. Well, you can thank the Reagan / Bush tax
cuts for them getting richer and richer and ****ing away more than
you'd pay on a house for ear candy.

The tax cuts are for the rich. They are screwing the rest of us with
higher state and property taxes. Why the hell do you think Bush lives
in Texas? No state income tax. He's no more Texan than the Pope runs
the LDS. Their kids do not go to public schools.

Look at how many people are millionaires or billionaires. And how many
Americans have lost their jobs or houses? These tax cuts are killing
the US

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

:On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:05:55 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
:
:
: "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: ...
: Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
:
: :On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:07:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : hk wrote:
: :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : wf3h wrote:
: : : :
: : : :c'mon harry...don't you have the $5,000,000 that mccain says
: : : :makes you middle class?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : I think that's a great level at which to say taxes shouldn't be
: : : increased.
: : :
: : : You WANT to pay more taxes? I think we need a program that lets
: : : you folks pick your own tax rate and not steal from the rest of
: : : us...
: : :
: : :
: : :I think anyone with income of more than $5 million a year ought to
: : :be paying twice the amount of taxes they're paying now.
: : :
: : :
: : Why?
: :
: :The proper question, to both of you, is "Why should the rich pay _more_OR
: :_less_ than the poor?"
: :
: :
: And the answer is "they shouldn't". Income tax should essentially be
: like a tithe; everyone pays the same percentage (and you only tax the
: income ONCE).
:
:
: yes they should. they get more ao they pay more. taxes aren't punishment
: as you wingnuts like to pretend. its what keeps the country running. you
: take more you pay more.
:
:

Poor Ray. It apparently doesn't penetrate through to his tiny brain
that in paying the same percentage they WOULD BE paying more. In
point of fact, they would be paying precisely in scale with the 'more'
that they would get, even though they would receive it from their own
efforts rather than as some benefit they pay the State to 'provide'.

:
:Supporting a level playing field is not a sign of being a "wingnut."
:Giving the rich tax avoidance legislation or a "progressive" taxation
:in which the least productive become trapped on welfare.
:

Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the
least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:46:47 -0700, frank wrote:



Fair is the only system that does work.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.................................................. .............. Â* Â* Â*
*Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*
athttp://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous,
UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Bull****. Take a decent economics course, if they offer any anymore.
Progressive income tax with higher rates for richest is the way to go.
Flat tax is worst on the poor. Hell everybody agreed on that until these
stupid Republicans under Reagan took over.

"They" have you well trained.

You know under Eisenhower, tax rate was 91% for some of the highest
brackets? You know some of them actually complained to the Treasury
Secretary, and his response was, pay your damn taxes, you can afford it.
You are gaining the largess due to what this country provides for you.
From infrastructure to safe means to park your funds.

The only people advocating a flat tax are the super rich who would make a
killing on it (its only income and they would not count investments as
income). Why the hell is Forbes so gung ho on it? To help the middle
class? Hell no. He has no clue how you live. Neither does McCain or his
wife. Anybody got a quarter mil earrings for the wife lately? Thought not.
Well, you can thank the Reagan / Bush tax cuts for them getting richer and
richer and ****ing away more than you'd pay on a house for ear candy.

The "Super Rich" pay little or no taxes now so how would paying a fair
share help them? Smoke and mirrors, don't drink the Kool Aid...

The tax cuts are for the rich. They are screwing the rest of us with
higher state and property taxes. Why the hell do you think Bush lives in
Texas? No state income tax. He's no more Texan than the Pope runs the LDS.
Their kids do not go to public schools.

Look at how many people are millionaires or billionaires. And how many
Americans have lost their jobs or houses? These tax cuts are killing the
US

Precisely, everyone should pay an equal tax. Any disparity, any
exclusion, deduction, exemption, credit, or dependency allowance creates
special interests and an inequity. That's how we got here, learn from
historical mistakes and don't repeat the past.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-