World Politics

[patricknd]

Did they tell you that?





Didn't think so...

as i said earlier, evidence is not a requirement. opinion = fact. you'll be happier when you learn that.

 

[redtreviso]

as i said earlier, evidence is not a requirement. opinion = fact. you'll be happier when you learn that.

rumor has it that andrew breitbart has syphilis..he hasn't denied it

 

[Anonymous]

rumor has it that andrew breitbart has syphilis..he hasn't denied it

Did he get it from you?

 

[Hugh Januss]

“[The President] made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than (under former President) Reagan,” Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told The Hill following the meeting. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joked that during the meeting, “We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history … lower than Reagan!”

That House Republicans find this preposterous is symptomatic of the hold Reagan mythology has over them. After all, for seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.

For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

Republicans are very fond of saying that the U.S. has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” But the truth is that revenue has plunged due to the recession and to continued misguided tax cuts, and revenue needs to be raised to eventually bring the budget into balance. And Reagan knew that taxes were an important part of the budget equation. After all, he “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.

Suck it, teabaggers.

 

[patricknd]

Did he get it from you?

he hasn't denied it

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Ayn Rand's protege?

Greenspan 'Scared' Over Deficit, Urges Clinton-Era Tax Structure.

That can't be right. Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in history, and to take all of the rich people's money by increasing their tax rate to where Clinton had it would destroy the economy.

Or so the Republicans of today tell us.

I also find it so fascinating the defense and military spending is such a sacred cow. More than Medicare or Social Security. We must cut the government, but we can't touch defense.

 

[redtreviso]

he hasn't denied it

I heard he got it from Rush Limbaugh..

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=andre+breitbart+syphilis&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&biw=1024&bih=618&cad=cbv

 

[Anonymous]

That can't be right. Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in history, and to take all of the rich people's money by increasing their tax rate to where Clinton had it would destroy the economy.

Or so the Republicans of today tell us.

I also find it so fascinating the defense and military spending is such a sacred cow. More than Medicare or Social Security. We must cut the government, but we can't touch defense.

Yup. One of the reasons I'm not a republican. However, national defense has a basis in the Constitution (Article 1, section 8).

The US Constitution requires the Federal Govt to provide defense (Article 4, section 4).

Unless I am mistaken, while SS and Medicare are Constitutional, there is no basis in the Constitution for either.

 

[redtreviso]

Yup. One of the reasons I'm not a republican. However, national defense has a basis in the Constitution (Article 1, section 8).

The US Constitution requires the Federal Govt to provide defense (Article 4, section 4).

Unless I am mistaken, while SS and Medicare are Constitutional, there is no basis in the Constitution for either.

cough cough-----------------------------------------

 

[Anonymous]

Suck it, teabaggers.

You didn't include a link but some of this is pretty good. Particularly this,

Republicans are very fond of saying that the U.S. has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” But the truth is that revenue has plunged due to the recession and to continued misguided tax cuts, and revenue needs to be raised to eventually bring the budget into balance.

Just so I understand, if we just raise taxes on everything we can bring the budget into balance? It's just a revenue problem, or did I miss something?

We can't possibly cut spending even though we are borrowing about $4 Billion a day.... nooooooo. May I ask you, when was the last time the Federal Government has spent the same or less than the prior year?

 

[JRTinMA]

I think my party is safe for another four years...either that or Paul Revere is a traitor.

http://gawker.com/5808271/sarah-palin-explains-paul-reveres-midnight-ride

 

[Anonymous]

I think my party is safe for another four years...either that or Paul Revere is a trader.

http://gawker.com/5808271/sarah-palin-explains-paul-reveres-midnight-ride

Traitor, I think (ironic, spell check coming from me)

Did you see this comment from NomNom?

I ask you, would you trust a medical version of Sarah Palin to treat you?

Patient: "So doc, I'm a little nervous about this procedure. Can you walk me through it?"

Doctor Palin: "Well I'm gonna git on there and just, you know, take it out. I'm gonna git in there and take it out so you won't have it anymore, so you won't be sick anymore. And then you're...uh...going to be better and it'll, you know, be gone. It'll just all be gone."

You're right, too much of a stretch. Gotta dumb it down... How about a waitress version of Palin?

Customer: "What's the special of the day?"

Waitress Palin: "Our special...uh...cod. The Cod Special."

Customer: "Okay. How's that prepared and does it come with anything?"

Waitress Palin: "Well...uh...that's a good question and...uh...I appreciate you asking that question because it's good. The Special Cod is specially prepared by our fantastic chef who's just a real good, real hardworkin' American. He'll cook that right up for you, special-like, and it's just delicious. And then I'll bring it out and you'll like it, it's just real tastey."

Customer: "Okayyyyy...I'll just have the fish and chips with a Diet Coke."

Thirty minutes later, no fish and chips, no diet coke.

Customer to random other waiter: "Hey, can you get my waitress...Sarah, yeah her name was Sarah. I ordered the fish and chips with a Diet Coke thirty minutes ago and I haven't seen her since."

Random Other Waiter: "Ooh, sorry bro. Sarah just quit. Just up and quit and it was only halfway through her shift."

That right there is comedy gold.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting blog post.

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/paul-mladjenovic/job-creation-versus-job-destruction

At both the public and private levels, the talk is about “jobs” and doing “everything we can to create jobs” but the great tragedy is that federal economic policy makers (and many state level economic policy makers) simply don’t understand how to create jobs and are in fact enacting policies that destroy jobs. The reason why these policy makers are harming job creation and spurring on job destruction is really quite simple:

1.They have never run a business.
2.They have never met or managed a payroll.
3.They have never worked in the private sector.
4.They have never created goods or services.
5.They were educated by people with no business experience or knowledge.
6.Many are ideologues that understand politics but not real economics.
In addition, these same decision-makers don’t understand (or don’t care to know) the difference between “private jobs (VERY necessary) and “public jobs” (funded by private jobs!).

Fire away boys....

Bump........

 

[JRTinMA]

Traitor, I think (ironic, spell check coming from me)

Did you see this comment from NomNom?



That right there is comedy gold.

I'm so annoyed I did that, I'm going to claim lazy over stupid. The comments are awesome for sure.

 

[patricknd]

Bump........

you didn't really expect a response, did you?

 

[Anonymous]

Obama the warmonger?

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/

 

[Anonymous]

you didn't really expect a response, did you?

Well Red will argue about anything.

The 6 points are pretty salient, don't you think?

 

[patricknd]

Well Red will argue about anything.

The 6 points are pretty salient, don't you think?

especially #2 and #4. i should post those for some of my employees.

 

[redtreviso]

Bump........

That must have been about George W Bush.. His main credential for you is being a fellow DRUNK

 

[Anonymous]

That must have been about George W Bush.. His main credential for you is being a fellow DRUNK

Try not to be such a ******. It's Friday night, FFS.

 

[redtreviso]

I think my party is safe for another four years...either that or Paul Revere is a traitor.

http://gawker.com/5808271/sarah-palin-explains-paul-reveres-midnight-ride

That stupid mf thinks Paul Revere was the original founder of the NRA..


Lance Armstrong's moon landing shows what ordinary Americans can do when govurment just gets out of the way. #AccordingToPalin

 

[JRTinMA]

Try not to be such a ******. It's Friday night, FFS.

I will get buried on politics but I really like this thread. Its the last place on this forum where you can **** slap somebody.

 

[rhubroma]

as i said earlier, evidence is not a requirement. opinion = fact. you'll be happier when you learn that.

True, the lack of evidence that all of this was no more than a corporate war for oil decided at the table is appalling. Nor have we ever made war to satisfy the lobbyists, not even when we attacked Latin America for United Fruit Co. In fact all the evidence to the contrary in this case was properly submitted to the UN, so there's nothing further to discuss. Indeed, why bother? The initial story that was told by government in the dailies was completely factual and corroborated by all the subsequent events (like the weapons of mass destruction) and, consequently, there is no need to have any concerns or doubts, which would of course be completely irrational and unwise. Nor have we ever been purposefully misinformed by our leaders in the past, especially in regards to all the business arrangements that are discussed behind closed doors as they say with members of the board of directors. Or rather, no such such meetings have ever taken place and are only simulated in films. Everything simply gets reported as it occurred, with no detail left out and, above all, without the intent to deceive or to manipulate. While anybody who dares to challenge any of this is obviously either mentally unwell or one of our good for nothing enemies. This is why the world's just such a ***-dory place to you guys.

When you give up the banjo, though, and come out of your provincial hell into the world we are all immersed in and have to face every day, we will welcome you with open arms.

And perhaps it's now time to change the channel.

 

[redtreviso]

Cheney's energy task force.. Maps of Iraq


http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2002/mar/maps-and-charts-iraqi-oil-fields

 

[patricknd]

True, the lack of evidence that all of this was no more than a corporate war for oil decided at the table is appalling. In fact all the evidence to the contrary was properly submitted to the UN, so there's nothing further to discuss. Indeed, why bother? The initial story that was told by government in the dailies was completely factual and corroborated by all the subsequent events (like the weapons of mass destruction) and, consequently, there is no need to have any concerns or doubts, which would of course be completely irrational and unwise. Nor have we ever been purposefully misinformed by our leaders in the past, especially in regards to all the business arrangements that are discussed behind closed doors as they say with members of the board of directors. Or rather, no such such meetings have ever taken place and are only simulated in films. Everything simply gets reported as it occurred, with no detail left out and, above all, without the intent to deceive or to manipulate. While anybody who dares to challenge any of this is obviously either mentally unwell or one of our good for nothing enemies. This is why the world's just such a ***-dory place to you guys.

When you give up the banjo, though, and come out of your provincial hell into the world we are all immersed in and have to face every day, we will welcome you with open arms.

And perhaps it's now time to change the channel.

Perhaps it's time to make accusations that are backed up by evidence and not disclaimers like "I'll be proven right in 75 years." It's not your opinions I find appalling, it's your snotty attitude.
Why does it bother you so much when I correct you? Feeling insecure?