Do you think there is anyone who would ever want scre this awful piece crap. Come on, am I othe only one that thinks she is a transvestite? What is up with that adams apple. You know a guy that I know that was her driver stated she said to him the only reason she does this is for the money.

Also, if you watched overtime, she thought that the US bombed Egypt. She’s a know-nothing, explains the whole republican thing.

Says the woman who’s been investigated for voter fraud.

Look up “dumb blonde” in the dictionary. Guess who’s pictured there?

AmericaSucks said:
Says the woman who’s been investigated for voter fraud.

by who?

You’re expecting an honest answer from a guy who calls himself America Sucks?

Perdido said:
You’re expecting an honest answer from a guy who calls himself America Sucks?

no, but he is ivy league educated, so its fun

I think America Sucks should go on tour to the bases where Navy SEALS are stationed. Go up to some of them and say “Hey, I think America sucks.” I think that’d be neat.

cjd ohio 1 said:
by who?

Probably by Republicans Are Liars’ chauffeur friend.

Perdido said:
I think America Sucks should go on tour to the bases where Navy SEALS are stationed. Go up to some of them and say “Hey, I think America sucks.” I think that’d be neat.

lol

Ann Coulter To Bill Maher: I Don’t Know Why Anyone But A Govt. Worker Would Vote Democrat

Oh, come on ANN – what would all those UAW unionistas, abortionists, blacks, communists, drug addicts, welfare moochers, slugs, slackers, deadbeats, losers, tax cheats, ACORN members and the lamestream socialist media stooges do without THEIR PARTY ?

Lets not forget that Maher doesn’t believe anything he says. When he first started on TV, he was a strong libertarian with a show called Politically Incorrect. He believed in less gov, low taxes . . . the works. After going to HBO- via ABC- the phoney ass IMMEDIATELY became a hard, leftwinger. The only thing different was the pay, so Maher pimped out his own personal “beliefs” for a few bucks. I heard if you gave him $20 and an ounce of weed, he;’d become a Tea Partier.

Maher = Phoney runt

Per Slate:
Ann Coulter Didn’t Commit Voting Fraud

“Daniel Borchers, a blogger who has written critically of Coulter, filed a complaint in 2009, claiming that Coulter used her parents’ New Canaan address in both 2002 and 2004 for absentee ballots.

“The state investigated, found that the address Coulter used was a her bonafide resident, that she was a registered voter in the state and only voted in the Connecticut, so they decided to take no further action. They also said the complaint was filed several years after the voting occurred.”

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/State-to-Tackle-Ann-Coulter-Voter-Fraud-Allegations-Next-Week—104509789.html

Republicans Are Liars said:
Do you think there is anyone who would ever want scre this awful piece crap. Come on, am I othe only one that thinks she is a transvestite? What is up with that adams apple. You know a guy that I know that was her driver stated she said to him the only reason she does this is for the money.

I see that you are another one of those “tolerant liberals”.

AmericaSucks said:
Says the woman who’s been investigated for voter fraud.

Not only were the frivolous charges by an enemy blogger dropped, I bet she pays her taxes, too – unlike most of Obama’s initial cabinet nominees, including our current Treasury Secretary.

LeviCoultify said:
Also, if you watched overtime, she thought that the US bombed Egypt. She’s a know-nothing, explains the whole republican thing.

I know. She thought that the US had 57 States! Oh……that was Obama.

CRW said:
Per Slate:

Uh, make that NBCConnecticut.com.

CRW said:
Per Slate:
Ann Coulter Didn’t Commit Voting Fraud

“Daniel Borchers, a blogger who has written critically of Coulter, filed a complaint in 2009, claiming that Coulter used her parents’ New Canaan address in both 2002 and 2004 for absentee ballots.

“The state investigated, found that the address Coulter used was a her bonafide resident, that she was a registered voter in the state and only voted in the Connecticut, so they decided to take no further action. They also said the complaint was filed several years after the voting occurred.”

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/State-to-Tackle-Ann-Coulter-Voter-Fraud-Allegations-Next-Week—104509789.html

Didn’t see THAT reported on MSNBC did ya? Liberals are a pathetic group of people who will say and do anything against those who dare to disagree.

BR said:
I see that you are another one of those “tolerant liberals”.

You mean tolerant, hate-filled liberals.

Are these guys happy about anything?

BR said:
Didn’t see THAT reported on MSNBC did ya? Liberals are a pathetic group of people who will say and do anything against those who dare to disagree.

Actually, they’ll do the biddings of their Masters at Kos, MM & HP. They don’t know any better…they automatically assume whatever they read from these clowns is true….without investigating themselves. Just look at the comment about AC being a vote cheat.

Puppets on a string.

GreyGoose said:
Actually, they’ll do the biddings of their Masters at Kos, MM & HP. They don’t know any better…they automatically assume whatever they read from these clowns is true….without investigating themselves. Just look at the comment about AC being a vote cheat. Puppets on a string.

I actually feel sorry for them…they’re being played like a 12 string guitar AND THEY DON’T EVEN REALIZE IT.

BR said:
Didn’t see THAT reported on MSNBC did ya? Liberals are a pathetic group of people who will say and do anything against those who dare to disagree.

No, you didn’t see that on MSNBC. It won’t surprise you either, I’m sure, that when you Google “Ann Coulter voter fraud” you come up with WAY more hits implying her guilt than you do with hits correcting the record to reflect that the unfounded charges were dropped. Ann Coulter innocent? No news, there.

Two intellectually dishonest political hacks arguing over their bullsh,

Put a true progressive up against a true libertarian and you’ll see a meaningful debate.

Perdido said:
I think America Sucks should go on tour to the bases where Navy SEALS are stationed. Go up to some of them and say “Hey, I think America sucks.” I think that’d be neat.

I would chip in some to get him there but since he is ubber rich and all….

As if anyone can defend Ann Coulter after all the stuff she has come out with over the years. Its a sad indictment of just how right wing America is when a woman as extreme as Coulter regularly gets a platform to voice her nonsense.

cjd ohio 1 said:
by who?

The Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission. I think that she was investigated in Florida, too.

2012freedom said:
I would chip in some to get him there but since he is ubber rich and all….

No, not uber-rich (spelling does count, kiddo, when you’re trying to communicate). Just comfortable.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…….

I think Bill probably pleasured Ann like old times after the show Friday night. She was very flirty with him for the entire show – not at all like her churlish self.

I watched the whole episode. Maher was spot on as usual.

AmericaSucks said:
(spelling does count, kiddo, when you’re trying to communicate).

Thanks for pointing that out Gramps.

AmericaSucks said:
The Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission. I think that she was investigated in Florida, too.

The idea that one person could impact an election is laughable, so its so obvious that some hack “investigated” her. Despite it being laughable to any clear, self-thinking person, the Kos Puppets eat it up like it really happened & AC was charged w/ a crime.

Think for yourself Puppets and you wont look so pathetic when you’re talking to reasonable people

They got into an argument because Coulter swore that we were bombing Egypt…everyone was looking at her like wtf? but she insisted.. lol

Girth Brick said:
I think Bill probably pleasured Ann like old times after the show Friday night. She was very flirty with him for the entire show – not at all like her churlish self.

did you see the part where she insisted Obama was bombing Egypt?

Girth Brick said:
I think Bill probably pleasured Ann like old times after the show Friday night. She was very flirty with him for the entire show – not at all like her churlish self.

This comment PROVES that you’re a Puppet who’s never seen AC outside of clips on your fav. liberal website and that you blindly believe anything they tell you. You know, those website that tell you how to think. Because anyone who’s truely seen AC on other programs, knows she flirts with everyone she talks to. Watch her with Larry ODonnell

GreyGoose said:
Lets not forget that Maher doesn’t believe anything he says. When he first started on TV, he was a strong libertarian with a show called Politically Incorrect. He believed in less gov, low taxes . . . the works. After going to HBO- via ABC- the phoney ass IMMEDIATELY became a hard, leftwinger. The only thing different was the pay, so Maher pimped out his own personal “beliefs” for a few bucks. I heard if you gave him $20 and an ounce of weed, he;’d become a Tea Partier.

Maher = Phoney runt

He is still 100% pro-liberty.

Bush pushed a lot of libertarians over to the Dems.

Look at the Reason Mag (all Libertarians) writers and editors who voted Obama.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote/10

oh – this was already explained to you – density is like a learning handicap.

Ann Coulter isn’t fair to the Democrats. It’s not just government workers who have a good reason for voting Democrats. But also lobbyists, felons and pornographers.

Girth Brick said:
He is still 100% pro-liberty. Bush pushed a lot of libertarians over to the Dems. Look at the Reason Mag (all Libertarians) writers and editors who voted Obama. http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote/10 oh – this was already explained to you – density is like a learning handicap.

Thats all you have Puppet? I already smacked down your Reason/Obama argument (rather easily I might add.) If i’m correct, you never answered my question about modern & classical libs. I just suppose it was to tough for you. I understand dude, you didn’t want to look like a dolt by trying to answer.

GreyGoose said:
This comment PROVES that you’re a Puppet who’s never seen AC outside of clips on your fav. liberal website and that you blindly believe anything they tell you. You know, those website that tell you how to think. Because anyone who’s truely seen AC on other programs, knows she flirts with everyone she talks to. Watch her with Larry ODonnell

So Ann sleeps with all her interviewers?

She honestly probably still has a thing for Bill after lack of attention from all the noodly little Christian conservatives.

Ann Coulter looked like a complete moron suggesting that we were going to bomb Egypt. That’s something Sarah Palin would say.

Girth Brick said:
So Ann sleeps with all her interviewers? She honestly probably still has a thing for Bill after lack of attention from all the noodly little Christian conservatives.

Yawn.

Girth Brick said:
So Ann sleeps with all her interviewers?

She honestly probably still has a thing for Bill after lack of attention from all the noodly little Christian conservatives.

I was just curious. I checked her wikipedia page. Her last serious reported boyfriend was a big Democrat from New York. So she’s obviously not adverse to donkeys. You may be on to something.

GreyGoose said:
Thats all you have Puppet? I already smacked down your Reason/Obama argument (rather easily I might add.) If i’m correct, you never answered my question about modern & classical libs. I just suppose it was to tough for you. I understand dude, you didn’t want to look like a dolt by trying to answer.

Modern and classic liberals are the same like modern and classic Coke are.

You’re referring to something called a “progressive”.

The GOP has different factions too. Ivy League Republicans look down on Teabaggers – for instance.

WillP said:
Ann Coulter looked like a complete moron suggesting that we were going to bomb Egypt. That’s something Sarah Palin would say.

At least she didn’t say the the 9/11 terrorists were braver than American soldiers. Remember?

MAHER: We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly

GreyGoose said:
At least she didn’t say the the 9/11 terrorists were braver than American soldiers. Remember?

MAHER: We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly

That’s a pretty sensible statement, actually. It still hold up after all these years.

Girth Brick said:
Modern and classic liberals are the same like modern and classic Coke are. You’re referring to something called a “progressive”. The GOP has different factions too. Ivy League Republicans look down on Teabaggers – for instance.

I see why you didn’t want to answer the question…sorry I forced you to & made you look pretty pathetic

Girth Brick said:
Modern and classic liberals are the same like modern and classic Coke are. You’re referring to something called a “progressive”. The GOP has different factions too. Ivy League Republicans look down on Teabaggers – for instance.

Unlike you libs, I don’t go after folks who are “a little slow” and I didn’t realize you were like that, so I’ll leave you alone so you can actually think you’re able to debate with the big boys.

I think Ann should be permanent on that show, it’s really interesting watching her and Maher interact. She’s someone that can dish it back to him and make the audience cheer against him, it’s hilarious.

“Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[”

(Wikipedia)

Hayek and Rand would approve – hasn’t changed since Jefferson.

Oh and the guy calling her Ann Cooter at the end was hilarious, that sort of backfired on her, lol.

Girth Brick said:
“Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[” (Wikipedia) Hayek and Rand would approve – hasn’t changed since Jefferson.

Good for you buddy….you can cut and paste. I’m proud of you fellow

GreyGoose said:
Unlike you libs, I don’t go after folks who are “a little slow”

I’m guessing you’re a Palin supporter?

I think Coulter was adding an unspoken “or else” to Obama’s call for Mubarak to resign and conflating Egypt with Libya. Obama’s been calling for so many rulers and dictators of various sorts to “step down”, and either bombing or firing off Predator drones in so many countries in that part of the world that it’s hard to keep track of what’s going on without a good look at Hillary’s scorecard. I’d let her off with a light spanking and an admonishment to pay closer attention, but really, it’s a full time job keeping track of who’s “for us” and who’s “agin us” in the Reign of Obama the Least.

glenn113 said:
did you see the part where she insisted Obama was bombing Egypt?

No, but Ann is a stranger to the truth. She called the anti-government Christian conservative terrorist group The Hutaree a liberal mob in her new book.

AmericaSucks said:
That’s a pretty sensible statement, actually. It still hold up after all these years.

As a paid blog poster, that ought to get you a 5 cent bonus.

cjd ohio 1 said:
by who?

cjd…And all others…PLEASE DON’T RESPOND TO THIS MORON!….

Girth Brick said:
No, but Ann is a stranger to the truth. She called the anti-government Christian conservative terrorist group The Hutaree a liberal mob in her new book.

cite the quote in context.

timzank said:
cite the quote in context.

The context of her being a batsh#t crazy?

I keep hearing about these “paid” blog posters. Where do you sign up? I could make dollars a day, right? In no time at all I’d be able to buy a 12 pack, maybe even a case. Oh, Happy day!

LeviCoultify said:
The context of her being a batsh#t crazy?

No, just the quote (in context) from her book stating what he claimed. He doesn’t answer when I ask for proof.

BR said:
I see that you are another one of those “tolerant liberals”.

Whose says we are tolerant. I am sick of idiots like you and I don’t care who knows it.

When I named Obama as “the Least”, I was referring to his role as the “Iron Fist” of American foreign policy. If we were still in the age of Gunboat Diplomacy, Empires would no doubt tremble when they espied Obama nearing their shore in his teleprompter strewn rowboat, ready to slay his enemies by the handful, after long and laborious consultation.

Ann ignores the reality of public sector job cuts… Unsurprising.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/08/263718/public-and-private-employment/

Republicans Are Liars said:
I am sick of idiots like you and I don’t care who knows it.

Yes, yes, we know. You have been blathering on and on about it for quite some time. As a matter of fact, that is all you have said. Nothing of any substance, just non stop name calling to make yourself seem important.

Hahahaha…Ann Coulter is so misinformed that she thinks we were bombing Egypt?

And you Conservatives listen to this imbecile?

TOP STORY!

ANN COULTER!

JUST TAKES WHAT BILL MAHER JUST SAID AND TRIES TO GIVE IT A RIGHT WING SPIN ON AN INTERNET AFTERSHOW!

TOP STORY!

Gotta love the neo cons that run this site, they see a few sites running what Bill Maher said on the actual show and it going viral so they feel it’s necessary to try and boost the neo con weak, incredibly wrong response without any actual fact checking. The government, city, federal and state, cover 12 mil. Which is 3% of 310 million, not 40% as that dummy said. Unlike Ann Coulter I have actual sources
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

But please, continue to push the neo cons agenda, Mediaite.

The fun? It was really boring television. Coulter kept on trying to mimic a human being by imitating what she thought was laughter the entire time. That would be creepy enough, but Maher and the rest of the panel (why was a British historian with a book about the British involvement in the Civil War on the panel in the first place?) brought not even the mildest sort of amusement.

Not too happy to see the Midget ass-clown Geithner saying things will ‘Hurt for a long time to come.’ This, before he’s ready to scurry back to the safety of academe.

Damn everyone in the Obamo regime to hell. I just want to make sure that Timmy’s ‘long time to come’ stops right after election day 2012…

Coulter you’re making us conservatives look bad. Where have you been the last few months, at the zoo?

OENOLICIOUS,

Etymologically speaking, “oenolicious” is a made up word. Furthermore, epicureans appreciate wine, hedonists simply drink it to gluttony.

Someone like, Ann Coulter, who is both intellectual and sophisticated would enjoy wine as an epicurean would,

Uncouth narcissists such as Maher, would be more hedonistic.

As for you, I doubt you even own a good watch.

Purveyor of Rhetoric

== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===

A new season,

In our website can be found

in many cheap thing,

fashion for your choice.

Your charm start from here,

welcome to our website:
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===
Dedicated service, the new style,

The new update, a large hot
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===

Paul G said:
cjd…And all others…PLEASE DON’T RESPOND TO THIS MORON!….

Stop deflecting. You know you love me.

purveyor said:
OENOLICIOUS,

Etymologically speaking, “oenolicious” is a made up word. Furthermore, epicureans appreciate wine, hedonists simply drink it to gluttony.

Someone like, Ann Coulter, who is both intellectual and sophisticated would enjoy wine as an epicurean would,

Uncouth narcissists such as Maher, would be more hedonistic.

As for you, I doubt you even own a good watch.

Purveyor of Rhetoric

Oy. I find your use of commas to be neither intellectual nor sophisticated. Where the hell did you go to school?

ChrisNH said:
Not too happy to see the Midget ass-clown Geithner saying things will ‘Hurt for a long time to come.’ This, before he’s ready to scurry back to the safety of academe.

Damn everyone in the Obamo regime to hell. I just want to make sure that Timmy’s ‘long time to come’ stops right after election day 2012…

Wow. You have obvious taken the idea of being misinformed to a whole new level.

If you’re this far out of the loop on politics, I feel compelled to ask you in a spirit of brotherly concern: Are you aware of the benefits of refrigerating food? Do you understand why brushing your teeth is a good idea? And has anyone filled you in on the danger of looking directly into the Coulter’s adam’s apple?

I don’t denied with this thing, she’s on one site. She is right but that matter is public and they will have to solve it. with democrat.
http://shakeaway.posterous.com/shake-away-review-revoke-your-appetite-and-ge

AmericaSucks said:
Wow. You have obvious taken the idea of being misinformed to a whole new level.

If you’re this far out of the loop on politics, I feel compelled to ask you in a spirit of brotherly concern: Are you aware of the benefits of refrigerating food? Do you understand why brushing your teeth is a good idea? And has anyone filled you in on the danger of looking directly into the Coulter’s adam’s apple?

lol

AmericaSucks said:
That’s a pretty sensible statement, actually. It still hold up after all these years.

“It still hold up after all these years.” When you, real racist king, post typing and grammar flames about others you really look stupid (in other words you give the correct impression of yourself) when you post a sentence that is grammatically incorrect.

Fact: Democrats do seem to fabricate false impressions and not follow written as well as verbal instructions. I think they are to educated to the law because in their minds it is suppose to change the law as it was written and what it means no matter what the cost are because that’s just being liberal and laws were not meant for them. Again Ann Coulter is right on the money exposing the liberal morons among us!

welcome to our website:

(http://globalsell.org/ )
shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.

if you like to order anything you like.

More details,

please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;

Service is our Lift.
thank you!!

purveyor said:
OENOLICIOUS,

Etymologically speaking, “oenolicious” is a made up word. Furthermore, epicureans appreciate wine, hedonists simply drink it to gluttony.

Someone like, Ann Coulter, who is both intellectual and sophisticated would enjoy wine as an epicurean would,

Uncouth narcissists such as Maher, would be more hedonistic.

As for you, I doubt you even own a good watch.

Purveyor of Rhetoric

You are a rather queer fellow. I do not know many who take the time to discuss the etymology of someone’s “handle” on a website.

I’m a sommelier, so it’s a joke name I created a few years ago for e-mail purposes. I suggest you look into another line of work, because you are a rather poor “purveyor of rhetoric”.

Phraseology like “intellectual and sophisticated” (the latter is assumed in the former) and “uncouth narcissist” (either would have sufficed). It sounds like you are less a rhetorician and more someone who suffers from logorrhea.

I really don’t understand the comment about ownership of a fine time piece either.

Now did you have something pertinent to say about my post, or am I hitting the mark a bit too close with my comment about logorrhea?

Oenolicious said:
You are a rather queer fellow. I do not know many who take the time to discuss the etymology of someone’s “handle” on a website. I’m a sommelier, so it’s a joke name I created a few years ago for e-mail purposes. I suggest you look into another line of work, because you are a rather poor “purveyor of rhetoric”. Phraseology like “intellectual and sophisticated” (the latter is assumed in the former) and “uncouth narcissist” (either would have sufficed). It sounds like you are less a rhetorician and more someone who suffers from logorrhea. I really don’t understand the comment about ownership of a fine time piece either. Now did you have something pertinent to say about my post, or am I hitting the mark a bit too close with my comment about logorrhea?

Fact: Two minutes worth of slop jaring and not one point. Lberals are the educated ones.

Oenolicious said:
“handle”

“nom de plume” would have had more “panache” and less colloquial.

Moreover, apparently and typically, I made my point just fine.

“Logorrhea,” good word. I picked up the word “prolixic,” or, “prolixity” from Judge Robert Bork. Prolix does not carry with it, unpleasant baggage, shall we say? (rhea)

Here is one for you: I prefer “callipygenous” women. (“callipygian”, word varies by dictionary)

Purveyor of Rhetoric

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Two minutes worth of slop jaring and not one point. Lberals are the educated ones.

Hmm? I must be a little slow this morning, because I responded to a rather silly post by asking if there was actually anything to discuss with such a “gifted” rhetorician who meandered on without ever addressing my actual post.

Your response to my response to his response (it’s getting rather opaque rather quickly) is puzzling.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are your fingers working so quickly that your brain hasn’t caught up to your “slop jaring” (sic)?

purveyor said:
“nom de plume” would have had more “panache” and less colloquial.

Moreover, apparently and typically, I made my point just fine.

“Logorrhea,” good word. I picked up the word “prolixic,” or, “prolixity” from Judge Robert Bork. Prolix does not carry with it, unpleasant baggage, shall we say? (rhea)

Here is one for you: I prefer “callipygenous” women. (“callipygian”, word varies by dictionary)

Purveyor of Rhetoric

What precisely was your point again? Since I pointed out it was a nickname in my post, it seems odd that I would use it as a “nom de plume”.

I am still waiting for some sort of actual rhetoric. You have not been clear from the start, nor persuasive.

Your title as “purveyor of rhetoric” is sorely wanting, but by all means you could clear it up by actually making some sense of what you took offense to in my original post.

One thing is for sure…if Democrats keep getting elected, this Country will become a bankrupted third world Country.
We absolutely cannot afford their social hand outs and greedy Unions any longer!!
This Country needs to face the facts before it’s too late!!

Rich, the King points out spelling and grammar errors of others, but when he makes one, he says he didn’t have his contacts in. I’m sure the same thing is happening to America Sucks. They’re very close.

purveyor said:
“nom de plume” would have had more “panache” and less colloquial.

Moreover, apparently and typically, I made my point just fine.

“Logorrhea,” good word. I picked up the word “prolixic,” or, “prolixity” from Judge Robert Bork. Prolix does not carry with it, unpleasant baggage, shall we say? (rhea)

Here is one for you: I prefer “callipygenous” women. (“callipygian”, word varies by dictionary)

Purveyor of Rhetoric

I do apologize, because I did have other things on my mind (Italian debt problems), but again I’m confused.

You say, “apparently and typically” (you have proof of neither) and then try a bit of displacement by trying to knock my usage of the word logorrhea by saying that you learned from Bork prolix instead. Reading his books or do you Bork? That would be interesting. The former is just boring, as I know the Greek philosophers, but I don’t hang out with Aristotle.

Your choice as to women is not interesting, even as an etymological exercise, because it does not illuminate anything about my original point.

You may have a great thesaurus, but I am still waiting for some sort of actual rhetoric.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Democrats do seem to fabricate false impressions and not follow written as well as verbal instructions. I think they are to educated to the law because in their minds it is suppose to change the law as it was written and what it means no matter what the cost are because that’s just being liberal and laws were not meant for them. Again Ann Coulter is right on the money exposing the liberal morons among us!

And how, my main mensa candidate, is this a fact? You apparently confuse opinion with fact.

P.S:
Learn how to spell and compose before trying to argue.

== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===

A new season,

In our website can be found

in many cheap thing,

fashion for your choice.

Your charm start from here,

welcome to our website:
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===
Dedicated service, the new style,

The new update, a large hot
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===

Colorado_Conservative .. I find comments like this pointless. Are you here just to jab or to actually learn and debate. I think one of the problems with the current political climate is that most people feel they are 100% correct and that there is no option of being wrong on any issue and that bending is “giving up” or failing. When did that happen? I can respond to the “greedy union” and “social handouts” comment, but I’m wondering what the point would be. I 100% agree that handing money to people who have no intention on finding a job or earning their way in life is ridiculous. I can’t see how anyone other than the freeloader him/herself would feel differently, but your comment assumes that all those that receive government assistance are freeloaders. The majority of the social assistance we offer are to seniors and do we really want to call them freeloaders? I find it amusing that conservatives are all for cutting programs that help people in favor of reducing the tax burdens on companies and individuals who are already reaping the benefits of hard working people. If you think that dropping the corporate tax rate will convince US companies to move jobs from overseas to America, then you need to take a better Economics course. Taxes aren’t want moves jobs, its costs and with all the write offs and breaks that companies get, they never end up paying the full corporate tax just like you and I never actually pay the full tax amount. We get deductions and all kinds of other items to offset our taxable income. Blaming Unions for the woes of the country is a slap in the face to all the rich benefits that many of you receive now because until Unions, no one had paid holidays, overtime pay or health benefits. I am not saying that all Unions are good and that there aren’t abuses, but blanket statements like yours don’t help things, they just keep us farther apart and make compromise harder to achieve.

Oh and just for the record, I’ve never been in a Union, don’t work for a Union and am not affiliated with any Union. I don’t take or use any government subsidy or assistance and do not have a government job so I make my comments as a fully employed tax payer who wants to find a compromise situation where we don’t waste our money on freeloaders and also find it in our human hearts not to allow people to suffer when companies and communities fall apart.

Forty percent of the national debt is owed to the Federal Reserve (the nation’s bank) In other words, all of our politicians (not just one party or the other) spend more than we take in. If you did that with your local bank, they’d stop giving you loans. Why hasn’t the Fed?

Perdido… why does it matter if its owed to the Fed or not? Do you believe the Fed will force the government to default? I understand that the numbers look big and daunting, but I don’t understand the fear or looming calamity. The Fed does not work like a normal bank so the comparison makes no sense. The Fed is a collection of private banks with Federal money that services its constituent banks and the economy as a whole. I 100% believe in reducing both the deficit and the national debt, but I don’t see the doom and gloom. There is no weakening dollar conspiracy. The dollar could be devalued by 300% and most American’s would be no worse off as long as inflation did not go up to weaken their buying power. I’m sorry, but as an Economist, I just don’t understand the irrational fear.

hankdward said:
Blaming Unions for the woes of the country is a slap in the face to all the rich benefits that many of you receive now because until Unions, no one had paid holidays, overtime pay or health benefits.

The Unions of the old are definitely not the Unions now. They had their place at one time in our history. They are now just corrupt thugs. I don’t mean the Union members (although a lot of them do take full advantage of the work-less philosophy) I am talking about the Union bosses. We can’t afford them. It is simple mathematics. People are paying in a very small amount and taking out a very large amount. It will never work and we are now seeing it come to full fruition.

Let me give you an analogy Perdido… if you lost your job and so did your spouse and you lived in a town where there was one large business that shuttered its doors. All of your family and friends lived in this same small town so there was no other town or place you could move to for help. In the beginning, you would use your savings to get buy and try to find a job. Without Unemployment benefits, I would imagine that on your coal miner, factory worker or whatever other job you had that you would soon run out of savings (if you had any savings of much worth to run to). In the end, you’d be forced to borrow on credit cards or take a 2nd on your home to survive while you desperately tried to find a job in your town or came up with a way to move to where there were jobs. Well, in the end you’d need to BORROW your way into the next situation. The debt problem has been compounded by the fact that the Federal Government and any other Government for that matter, never saves. They always spend what they take in or more. When there is a recession or depression, all the sunny day scenario jobs and expenditures don’t disappear, they have to continue to be funded and everyone has their hand out for help (like the poor guy with his family that lost his job and has nowhere else to turn). Its in these situations that the government then spends far MORE than it brings in. This isn’t a good thing, but just like the poor soul who is forced to borrow to stay afloat while he tries to find a job, we can’t really assume the government to let all its workers go and cut entitlement spending at precisely the time when people can’t find jobs and need help. I hear you, I really do. I think we need to spend less than we take in, but to do it on the backs of poor people who for no fault of their own lost their jobs is not the right way to go about changing things.

Where’d I say I was afraid? And even if the Fed is a collection of private banks, that’s still where 40% of the money is owed. As for the deficit, the average manufacturing job in China pays $130 a month, and we have a $270 billion trade deficit with them. So how does raising taxes on our ‘rich’, as so many on the left suggest, solve that problem?

Castro took every dime from the rich, and created social programs. How’d that help the economy and job situation in Cuba?

2012freedom said:
The Unions of the old are definitely not the Unions now. They had their place at one time in our history. They are now just corrupt thugs. I don’t mean the Union members (although a lot of them do take full advantage of the work-less philosophy) I am talking about the Union bosses. We can’t afford them. It is simple mathematics. People are paying in a very small amount and taking out a very large amount. It will never work and we are now seeing it come to full fruition.

Listen… I hear what you are saying and I agree that there are some corrupt Unions and bosses as there are in every single industry and in every single job market. I don’t believe, however, that this is where the country is falling apart. Most Union pensions are solvent and doing well. Teachers Unions, to the contrary of what the recently Republican governors have tried to paint to us, are not causing the local governments to fall. It is a lack of revenue due to a severe recession. There are plenty of other things that are causing problems in the economy. Govt works may cause some slippage, but they aren’t the problem by any means, not compared to companies. I am all for making a living and being able to earn and gather wealth, but greed is no different now than it was in 1900. Corporations today are doing the very same thing they did a hundred years ago and for some reason we are trying harder and harder to give them “incentive” to create jobs. Trust me, America is a very lucrative market and there are companies that would love to sell us things or have factories here because of how productive we are, but why should they when they can pay someone else less money? The change needs to happen with American buyers. When we are willing to pay more for a Dryer or a Television or our PC, then we’ll be able to buy things made in America, until then we force companies through the very system we claim to believe in (Capitalism) to move to where labor is cheap and the hard fought Union rules are not applied.

Perdido said:
Castro took every dime from the rich, and created social programs. How’d that help the economy and job situation in Cuba?

Taking everything isn’t the answer any more than taking nothing is the answer, but the notion of rich people being “job creators” is just a conservative label. While its true and quoted often by people like Hannity and O’Reilly that they’ve never worked for a poor person, its also true that Businesses and Rich people tend to look out for themselves far more often than they care to look out for others (like those they work for). The drive to move jobs overseas was not something forced on companies due to draconian regulation in America, but a simple cost decision because foreign workers make the $130 a month or far less. Taking those with more is fair in that these are the people who have reaped the majority of the benefits from this country and the fact is that someone has to work at Arby’s or sweep the streets. Everyone can’t be a billionaire. Someone always loses and that is ok. Rugged Individualism and all that is a good thing, it drives us to excellence, but Sportsmanship is also something we pride ourselves on and the Rich seem to forget that it is on the backs of the workers that they live the way they do. When CEO pay is 320 times what a normal worker’s pay is and has grown as a ratio of the common worker proves that this country is not poor or hurting, but rather that those at the top are gleaning more and more and paying less and less. I don’t mind wealth, but I also feel it is everyone’s responsibility to do more when we have more. I’m not talking 70%, 50% or anything crazy like that. I’m not talking about nationalizing things. I’m not a communist, but a larger share to me is fair.

Now you’re getting there. As Castro proved, simply taking money from the rich doesn’t do anything. You’d have to make it as costly to corporations to do business abroad as it is to do it here. The Chinese certainly wouldn’t like it, and Americans wouldn’t like having to pay more. But there’s going to have to be some pain involved to fix the problem.

hankdward said:
Corporations today are doing the very same thing they did a hundred years ago and for some reason we are trying harder and harder to give them “incentive” to create jobs. Trust me, America is a very lucrative market and there are companies that would love to sell us things or have factories here because of how productive we are, but why should they when they can pay someone else less money?

I am not blaming the entire country’s woes on the Unions. However, the Unions have outlived their purpose. They are sucking the State’s and the companies dry with their never ending demands. It is a combination of lower revenue on top of lavish pensions that are creating the problem in the States.

Companies are in the business to make money. Who is to say that if they are making too much it is “greed?” Who gets to make that decision?

I agree that they would love to sell us things or have factories here, but we continually slap them down with crazy regulations and taxes. It is costing them billions of dollars so they move the jobs overseas where they don’t have to worry about those things. It makes perfect sense.

Take for instance the smack down given to Boeing about their plant in South Carolina. It was about the Unions and Government interference. Why do companies want to put up with that? Why should they have to?

hankdward said:
Oh and just for the record, I’ve never been in a Union, don’t work for a Union and am not affiliated with any Union. I don’t take or use any government subsidy or assistance and do not have a government job so I make my comments as a fully employed tax payer who wants to find a compromise situation where we don’t waste our money on freeloaders and also find it in our human hearts not to allow people to suffer when companies and communities fall apart.

Just for the record, I am a 30 year retired teamster who has voted Republican more than democrat. I believe in Capitalism but also believe in barganing by numbers. Unions protect the middle class period. I believe in no strike clauses in certain industries and believe in right to work laws “IF” they don’t make the union back those not willing to pay their dues for the representation offered to full members and ofcourse benefits they will recieve regardlesson the backs of union paying members. I am a strong advocate towards unions to bring and maintain a middle class, which trickles down to raising non-union company wages as a side effect.

I have to side mostly with Republicans due mainly to gun control. Right to keep and bear arms is stronger in my eyes than welfare and social programs. I hope Ron Paul the best, even though he is for right to work laws. He still believes unions are welcomed in the private sector and should run their course of voted in or out. Corruption in Unions? Not as much as in Washington D.C., Military or Police Depatments without unions. And I can honestly say I did my 30 years without corrupting a soul.

hankdward said:
Colorado_Conservative .. I find comments like this pointless. Are you here just to jab or to actually learn and debate. I think one of the problems with the current political climate is that most people feel they are 100% correct and that there is no option of being wrong on any issue and that bending is “giving up” or failing. When did that happen? I can respond to the “greedy union” and “social handouts” comment, but I’m wondering what the point would be. I 100% agree that handing money to people who have no intention on finding a job or earning their way in life is ridiculous. I can’t see how anyone other than the freeloader him/herself would feel differently, but your comment assumes that all those that receive government assistance are freeloaders. The majority of the social assistance we offer are to seniors and do we really want to call them freeloaders? I find it amusing that conservatives are all for cutting programs that help people in favor of reducing the tax burdens on companies and individuals who are already reaping the benefits of hard working people. If you think that dropping the corporate tax rate will convince US companies to move jobs from overseas to America, then you need to take a better Economics course. Taxes aren’t want moves jobs, its costs and with all the write offs and breaks that companies get, they never end up paying the full corporate tax just like you and I never actually pay the full tax amount. We get deductions and all kinds of other items to offset our taxable income. Blaming Unions for the woes of the country is a slap in the face to all the rich benefits that many of you receive now because until Unions, no one had paid holidays, overtime pay or health benefits. I am not saying that all Unions are good and that there aren’t abuses, but blanket statements like yours don’t help things, they just keep us farther apart and make compromise harder to achieve.

Could careless what you think about my comment, this Country is bankrupt, we do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.
The porkulus bill the Democrats shoved down our throats by making middle of the night, shady backroom deals was nothing more than a money laundering scheme for Democratic pet projects that would never pass on their own merits and fund Unions which in return will go to finance Democratic elections…..the only jobs it created were more Government and Union jobs. Those are facts and the people need to start putting the greater good over political partisian because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Washington are willing to do it…..that is why the Tea Party has had such a huge impact and will continue to replace tax and spend Republicans and Democrats with fiscal Conservatives. 2010 was did not happen by accident!!

btw, The Democrats could have passed any budget and debt limit that they wanted to when they controlled all three branches…why didn’t they? Because they knew it would be political suicide…they knew the 2010 elections would be even worse for them. Yet now they want to lay blame on the Republicans for not getting a new debt ceiling passed…and of course the lame stream media refuses to report the truth.

The best thing that could happen for this Country is to get Obama booted out of office next year and have the Democrats lose control of the Senate and have all 3 branches controlled by fiscal conservatives.

DEMOCRATIC vs REBUBLICAN ARGUMENT:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives w/o working for, another person must work for w/o receiving.
3. The government can’t give anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take
from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the
other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what
they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any NATION!

MARGARET THATCHER: “THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM IS THAT
EVENTUALLY YOU RUN OUT OF O.P.M. (OPIUM) OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY”

2012freedom said:
I am not blaming the entire country’s woes on the Unions. However, the Unions have outlived their purpose. They are sucking the State’s and the companies dry with their never ending demands. It is a combination of lower revenue on top of lavish pensions that are creating the problem in the States.

Companies are in the business to make money. Who is to say that if they are making too much it is “greed?” Who gets to make that decision?

I agree that they would love to sell us things or have factories here, but we continually slap them down with crazy regulations and taxes. It is costing them billions of dollars so they move the jobs overseas where they don’t have to worry about those things. It makes perfect sense.

Take for instance the smack down given to Boeing about their plant in South Carolina. It was about the Unions and Government interference. Why do companies want to put up with that? Why should they have to?

The Boeing situation is a bit difference as both locations are within the US. I agree, it makes no sense and in that it is just political, but the greed factor is clear. If a company could sell us poisonous food or defective goods and have no liability they would do it if it made them money. There are millions, literally millions of examples of this. The bottom line is all that matters with large companies and this clearly inhuman drive must be tempered, through regulation, to force companies to consider the good of people and not just the bottom line. I am not for regulation for the sake of it or for holding people down. Caps on pay and things like that are not American, but neither is taking tax breaks and exploiting loopholes and then shipping jobs overseas. Nothing is absolute. Unions are useful, but have been overreaching. The Car industry is a good example of this, but in many other cases like with Teacher’s unions and Firefighers, they do a lot more good than they do harm. In each of these cases there are examples of overreach and benefit, but no system is perfect and a blanket statement of “Unions are the problem” is a vast oversimplification of the issue. Teachers should make MORE money not less, to entice better quality teachers, healthcare benefits should be given to all people, not just unionized government workers as it is a basic human right that our current system exploits and in the current system we end up paying more by forcing those who don’t have insurance to use the most expensive options when they do need it and they never pay for it. I’ve lived in England and that system is not perfect by any stretch, but it is much better than what we have here. I agree changes need to be made in terms of cost many things, but we also need to take a step back and realize that there is real human cost and not be so quick to turn our heads away from those who legitimately need assistance.

Snowspot said:
I think Ann should be permanent on that show, it’s really interesting watching her and Maher interact. She’s someone that can dish it back to him and make the audience cheer against him, it’s hilarious.

Yes, I was suprised at how many supporters she had. They must have known she would be on in advance.

2012freedom said:

Take for instance the smack down given to Boeing about their plant in South Carolina. It was about the Unions and Government interference. Why do companies want to put up with that? Why should they have to?

What Boeing was trying to do is as evil to middle class as it gets. Interference was needed and legal. You need only go back in history to determine Unions should be stronger now more than ever. No Unions are not outdated by a long shot. I agree with right to work states, but not at the expense of union busting. It was the Union worker that made them the company that they are. Union work is always of higher standards regardless what most think. They deserve a fair shake at middle class benefits for this alone. It’s strongly known that the south is a very weak union backed sector due mainly to the slave mentality(color is not assumed or suggested). And boeing wanted to cash in on the slaves still in the south.

Unless you “OWN” your own company, you should always be happy to see Unions in your industry. Even non union companies benefit with trickle down wage increases in worker and management postions. we can’t all just keep kissing the Master’s ass, just not enough room on that ass.

“Republican thinking”–isn’t that an oxymoron?

gene said:
DEMOCRATIC vs REBUBLICAN ARGUMENT:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives w/o working for, another person must work for w/o receiving.
3. The government can’t give anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take
from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the
other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what
they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any NATION!

MARGARET THATCHER: “THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM IS THAT
EVENTUALLY YOU RUN OUT OF O.P.M. (OPIUM) OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY”

That is quite a simplistic argument. I’ll counter each of them, while also agreeing with each point.

1. This is true and undeniable. What you can do is ensure those that have the wealth (prosperity) pay their share for being blessed with the opportunities to earn and garner wealth. I am not saying take it all or limit what can be earned, but I do believe that opportunity is not something every person has. Everyone can’t be a CEO, but everyone can try to earn that role. In the end, someone has to work at McDonalds. If every single person in America got a degree and worked hard and did everything possible to be their best, someone would still lose out and need to clean the streets or pick up the garbage. I know this is not what is happening now, but we must all remember that just because someone does not earn $250k or more a year, it doesn’t mean they didn’t work hard to try to earn that much or that they are lazy because they work at Walmart. The responsibility of those with Wealth is to understand that those with less still require the minimum basics like Healthcare, which will never be afforded to someone who earns $8 an hour or be possible for someone who lost their job, can’t find work because the only factory in town shipped the jobs to China and doesn’t earn enough to move his family. So you are correct, but its not cut and dry.
2. True, can’t argue that at all, except in the case of interest. In this case money is considered to do the work and in the case of those who have money, they can do no work while simultaneously gain from the wealth they have. This is not something they always earn. Wealth begets wealth and those without wealth have an infinitely more difficult time to obtain it. So yes, you are correct, but there are many out there who do little work, yet reap quite large benefits from what they inherited or what they earned in the past.
3.True again. I think “take” is a strong word for it. I don’t consider it taking when I pay my taxes. I consider it my civic duty and an honor to contribute to the armed forces, to road construction, to all the things that these taxes take care of that make America better than so many other countries. We can spend it better, we can probably take less of it and I’m all for being more frugal and more efficient with what we have, but I’m not begrudging of what is taken.
4.I agree on this point because it is a calculation. I get what you are driving at. You are trying to prove that by taking money from the Rich to give to less fortunate, you in fact remove opportunity, Well, quite a few “inventions” and innovations in this country that have pushed us to the forefront have come from tax dollars at work, namely the space industry which has not just paid for the initial investment, but has kept the US ahead of other nations. It is here that you fail to see that while dividing is poor, investing can be done in many ways. Education is an investment that benefits everyone. Government investment in education, technological advancements and innovation is not dividing wealth. I agree that creating government jobs to simply replace private sector jobs is probably inefficient, but pulling money from tax payers to allow those without means to go to college or to support science and technology at Universities is not a waste of money, it builds our society and that is a good thing.
5.Again, I have to agree with this, but you are lumping all those that receive assistance into a monolithic group of freeloaders that have no desire to work and only want to take. Do you really believe this? There are certainly people who game the system and try to live off of others, but there isn’t a system in existence where people don’t do this. You don’t destroy the system because people abuse it, you correct the problems. Entitlements aren’t the problem, the abuse of them is. I thought the Clinton/Gingrich solution in the 90s was terrific. Wean people off welfare, offer jobs training, give business incentives to move to impoverished communities to create jobs and put limits on entitlements. These are pragmatic solutions that treat people as humans with dignity, not leaches who want to hurt.

In the end, I believe the difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are interested in themselves and have little interest in the world outside of their small community. They usually believe that because they were able to keep a job or meet their needs with their hard work, or help from families that everyone can do it. The reality is that everyone doesn’t have the same support system. Some people start life with less of a chance and are essentially forced to be in roles that can’t allow them to reach the dreams of others. Government shouldn’t pull from some to hand to others, but it should help provide opportunity for all of its citizens and enable those of its citizens who have less opportunity to be able to reach their potential. Every child deserves this and that is the kind of America I want to live in, not one that looks at just the dollars and cents and cuts off hope and chances.

hankdward said:
The Boeing situation is a bit difference as both locations are within the US. I agree, it makes no sense and in that it is just political, but the greed factor is clear. If a company could sell us poisonous food or defective goods and have no liability they would do it if it made them money. There are millions, literally millions of examples of this. The bottom line is all that matters with large companies and this clearly inhuman drive must be tempered, through regulation, to force companies to consider the good of people and not just the bottom line. I am not for regulation for the sake of it or for holding people down. Caps on pay and things like that are not American, but neither is taking tax breaks and exploiting loopholes and then shipping jobs overseas. Nothing is absolute. Unions are useful, but have been overreaching. The Car industry is a good example of this, but in many other cases like with Teacher’s unions and Firefighers, they do a lot more good than they do harm. In each of these cases there are examples of overreach and benefit, but no system is perfect and a blanket statement of “Unions are the problem” is a vast oversimplification of the issue. Teachers should make MORE money not less, to entice better quality teachers, healthcare benefits should be given to all people, not just unionized government workers as it is a basic human right that our current system exploits and in the current system we end up paying more by forcing those who don’t have insurance to use the most expensive options when they do need it and they never pay for it. I’ve lived in England and that system is not perfect by any stretch, but it is much better than what we have here. I agree changes need to be made in terms of cost many things, but we also need to take a step back and realize that there is real human cost and not be so quick to turn our heads away from those who legitimately need assistance.

Fact: Unions are worthless vehicles for democrats fundraising. That’s it!

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Unions are worthless vehicles for democrats fundraising. That’s it!

Can you really be an open minded person and make such unmovable statements? You think Unions were created and now exist solely for fundrasing? Come on man? That is supposed to be a fact? :) Unions do good things, but they also cause problems. Why not fix the problems and allow people to collectively bargain. I can’t see how a free country can want to prevent people from organizing? Let the market do what it will and if people want to group together to bargain for rights, let them. I do agree however that forcing someone to be in a Union or pay dues is not fair and should be stopped.

See how I can agree with some points and argue others? Why don’t you try being a bit more open minded.

Unions don’t protect the middle class, they protect themselves until they ruin the company and then they have to agree to cuts in salaries, that is if the company hasn’t gone bankrupt. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened to the rail roads that transported passengers? Unions ruined them and today we’re stuck with crappy Amtrack. Besides, this is the land of the FREE, not the land of the happy vibrant middle class.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

PoliticallyIncorrectLibertarian said:
Unions don’t protect the middle class, they protect themselves until they ruin the company and then they have to agree to cuts in salaries, that is if the company hasn’t gone bankrupt. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened to the rail roads that transported passengers?

You obviously didn’t notice planes, highways and other forms of transportation ruined rail passengers..
And while your blaming unions for all these shortfalls, look up Pullman Strike seeing we are talking rails and understand why unions exit and needed before a Private Socialist Society with slave mentality rises again.. Dems or Republicans.. neither work for middle class.. you either have to be rich or on welfare.. both fail in my eyes..

Girth Brick said:
“Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[”

(Wikipedia)

Hayek and Rand would approve – hasn’t changed since Jefferson.

LMAO! That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

Here, ladies and gentleman, we see the republican mind at work. They hear something in passing, catching only a few key points (possibly even none) then they fabricate the story into what they want it to be. Now, with hideously flawed and obtuse concept in hand, they run and scream as loud as they possibly can to anyone and everyone. Making sure to belligerently back down any and all opposition to their mistaken information in a very machiavellian manner. Thanks Ann, for your very comical portrayal of the common republican, I cant wait to see you in a movie with Will Ferrel.

PoliticallyIncorrectLibertarian said:
Unions don’t protect the middle class, they protect themselves until they ruin the company and then they have to agree to cuts in salaries, that is if the company hasn’t gone bankrupt. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened to the rail roads that transported passengers? Unions ruined them and today we’re stuck with crappy Amtrack. Besides, this is the land of the FREE, not the land of the happy vibrant middle class.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

JustPlayTheGame is correct. There were far more factors involved other than just Unions. Its an infrastructure based business that requires too much capital to maintain. The government tried a ton of times to save it with subsidy after subsidy and tax breaks up the ying/yang and its barely working. Unions don’t destroy industries. Like any system, they can and do overreach. I have to agree with you though that their workers can be lazy. JustPlayTheGame is a bit off in believing that Union workers are the best and hardest workers. I am a full believer that a healthy fear of losing ones job provides more incentive to work harder and its just too difficult to be fired from Union jobs, in this, I believe the Unions are overreached and this allows poor quality workers to take up space and draw down on the overall quality. This doesn’t happen all the time, but the mob mentality of the Unions and the “take care of our own” mind set weakens the whole unless they can police their own and sadly they often don’t do that too well.

Neither side is perfect or correct in all things….. taking money from the rich and having free loaders suck up the hard work of others is wrong, but so is allowing millions of children so suffer without proper healthcare or forcing them to have mountains of debt just to get a degree and on the way they are constantly trying to keep up with those with money who have private tutors, SAT prep sessions and dedicated stay at home moms who foster their education. I don’t think a world dominated by either party is good. I do wish all of you could find it in yourselves to see the other side for the virtues they believe in, even if you don’t think their methods work, you should at least see why the other side believes as they do and not reduce it to stupidity, laziness, greed or communism. That kills any chance at compromise and is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they started this whole thing. Debate is good, but not demagoguery. Back to the original topics. I can’t stand Ann Coulter, but she makes good points. She tries to be insane in her observations because it sells her books. The same goes for Bill Maher who genuinely believes the left is correct, but uses buffoonery to make his points because that’s what comedians do. We aren’t selling books, don’t have radio shows and aren’t comedians so can we please try to give the other side its due?

hankdward said:
JustPlayTheGame is correct.

I am a full believer that a healthy fear of losing ones job provides more incentive to work harder and its just too difficult to be fired from Union jobs, in this, I believe the Unions are overreached and this allows poor quality workers to take up space and draw down on the overall quality. This doesn’t happen all the time, but the mob mentality of the Unions and the “take care of our own” mind set weakens the whole unless they can police their own and sadly they often don’t do that too well.

Thanks for the first part..:)

Unfortunate as it seems, many believe and hold the mentality that if you got a union job your set for life.. way off base. What you have is a means to defend yourself and with repeated small offense your still fired and out right wrong will get you fired right off. to find if you really are offbase or if a young management was trying to get rid of you because your vocal and he wants some points with his boss usually is what happens. Union people know their job and are highly trained in what they do, they also are proud of their work much more than non-union labor. They aso have in writing what is expected from them and must meet those goals. What can’t happen is some management guy walking up to you and say YOUR FIRED and that’s all your recourse. Yes, it happens all the time..

I know one lady worked a place 35 years non-union. They started a no smoking policy, she had a smoke in the place they use to smoke and was fired on the spot..no recourse.. makes no sense.. that’s the real world for ya.. was she wrong? yes..should it cost her a 35 year job? no way in hell especially for first offense. but, non-union companies put this fear and disloyalty into their work force and less than quality work is the result in my opinion.

gene said:
DEMOCRATIC vs REBUBLICAN ARGUMENT:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives w/o working for, another person must work for w/o receiving.
3. The government can’t give anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take
from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the
other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what
they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any NATION!
MARGARET THATCHER: “THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM IS THAT
EVENTUALLY YOU RUN OUT OF O.P.M. (OPIUM) OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY”

Gene, this is so black-and-white. I wish it were about “legislating the poor into prosperity” because all of us would agree with you and we could move on.

We as a nation have been robbed! Jobs have gone overseas with a “giant sucking sound” just as Ross Perot said in 1992. And many of us who are working today in this country are facing reductions in work hours. Here’s the reality: millions of us are living on the edge of the financial abyss. We have paid taxes. We have worked all our lives. Yeah, I’ve collected unemployment a couple of times, but went back to work and moved on. Now, approaching 60 years of age, I’m living on half the income I need.

This is what you and majority of conservatives don’t get because apparently you’ve never been terrified of the prospect of aging while watching your resources draining away. Have you ever felt that terror, Gene? I don’t sleep well. I’m scrambling to find other employment, but the grim reality is that bills perpetuate whether one is working or not. Every day of life has to be paid for. So I totally understand why people stand on street corners with signs, asking for donations. Imagine looking at yourself in the mirror every morning, Gene, when your only credit card is maxed out and the next payment is coming due, saying to yourself “Where can I get some money today?” Because the next phase is overdrafts, fees, penalties, and plummeting credit scores.

I recently heard a local conservative talk-show host say that part of what defines conservatism is the idea that man is basically evil. If that’s true, why did the Bush administration refuse to regulate the banking industry???

This is why I loathe the Republican party. It isn’t that I’m in favor of putting people on the public dole. But while on that subject, why is it that Republicans have no problem swelling our military ranks and adding thousands of troops to the government teat????? Hypocrites! Hypocrites! My dad used to call the Republicans the party of small government. Ain’t that a flippin’ hoot? GWB expanded government more than any of his predecessors.

So Gene, your jingo about wealth and multiplying it by dividing it, yada yada yada is way off in pompous piffle land.

I’m talking about day-to-day survival as a working man. And what most Republicans don’t know is that there is a point of no economic return… the financial abyss that defies recovery. That’s what terrifies and enrages the ever-growing anti-conservative throng today!

JustPlayTheGame said:
Thanks for the first part..:)

Unfortunate as it seems, many believe and hold the mentality that if you got a union job your set for life.. way off base. What you have is a means to defend yourself and with repeated small offense your still fired and out right wrong will get you fired right off. to find if you really are offbase or if a young management was trying to get rid of you because your vocal and he wants some points with his boss usually is what happens. Union people know their job and are highly trained in what they do, they also are proud of their work much more than non-union labor. They aso have in writing what is expected from them and must meet those goals. What can’t happen is some management guy walking up to you and say YOUR FIRED and that’s all your recourse. Yes, it happens all the time..

I know one lady worked a place 35 years non-union. They started a no smoking policy, she had a smoke in the place they use to smoke and was fired on the spot..no recourse.. makes no sense.. that’s the real world for ya.. was she wrong? yes..should it cost her a 35 year job? no way in hell especially for first offense. but, non-union companies put this fear and disloyalty into their work force and less than quality work is the result in my opinion.

The same thing happens in non-Union jobs. I’ve never worked a Union job myself, but have seen enough losers with those jobs just milk it and not really care about what they were doing and I’ve seen non-Union people bust their hump. I don’t think you can make a generalization like that about the 2 types of workers. You may have personal history of this, but its not a fair assessment of the larger job force. I fully believe Unions have overreached and that one of the good things about the recession is that companies like GM and Ford were able to renegotiate with their staff to get things more even. They are not making McDonalds money at all and have great benefits still, but the days where a GM Factory job was a GREAT job are over and frankly they should have never gotten as much as they did for the type of work it is. I fully admit I’m an elitist. The higher the skill and the longer the road to get the skill to me should provide the largest reward. That’s why Doctors make good money and why Burger King doesn’t pay jack. Same for labor jobs, there is a real skill there, but should a laborer make as much as an accountant? Well? I don’t think so. In the end, I wish happiness and prosperity on everyone, but I also think that any organization, when it gets too big, can use some smacking down because they will usually try to overreach so in this, I agree with Republicans. I don’t think we need to get rid of Unions or put in laws to stop them… Collective bargaining is a good thing and one of the only tools we have as workers to keep a level playing field with companies who wold sell us down the river in a heartbeat if they could.

MEN AND WOMEN OF REASON,

One of my very best friends is a local, ‘Private’ Union Boss in Denver. Intellectually, he completely understands the difference between Private and Public Unions, and the unethical disparity between the two.

He also knows that a State Governor cannot serve two masters, as in the Tax Payers and/or the Union. Such is as wrong as any allegorical tale you heard as a kid. Ergo, Government and the Governor, MUST be responsible to the taxpayer and State tax-income, First and foremost.

However, my Friends conundrum is his fear that if his Private Union does not stand with another Union, a Public Union, and that Union falters, the Private Unions will be next…

I understand his fear.

How can Conservatives and the Tea Party assuage my Friends fear? How can Conservatives overcome the shrill disinformation disseminated by the Left?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

purveyor said:
How can Conservatives and the Tea Party assuage my Friends fear? How can Conservatives overcome the shrill disinformation disseminated by the Left?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

first, I didn’t know the Tea Party was against unions? I might be blinded here? Please point me to this if at all possible so I can find yet another party to back? Make sure its a tea partier and not a republican stealing the name? Ron Paul can be considered a Tea Partier..he don’t vote by party, he votes what is right and although a right to work supporter, he has nothing against private unions publicly.

Satisfy Conservatives on unions, let alone public unions? wont ever happen, they are for the wealthy and as such cannot say they support unions private or public bargaining for middle class. Although they can feel the pain of the middle class, they choose to ignore it and would rather you didn’t have fair bargaining rights.. But, they can always say we support you in your right to bear arms, which democrats will not support and this brings some union people to their side (raises hand) while union busting will pull me far left.

How can Conservatives overcome the shrill disinformation disseminated by the Left?
Again, will never happen. Different party. we have two parties controlling media. One could never be pleased with the other and will always have a different view. it brings in the money..always follow the money. both evil parties using our tax dollars to play with.

Having public unions to some, is as hard as believing we have something called a laborboard which means unions are no longer needed. If the government gave a fair pay and benefit package to all public servants, unions would never have been voted in. At this point, The Governor needs to bargain fairly with the unions and understand the needs of the people, as well as those unions understanding the states side during bargaining. Those in the union are also taxpayers. If union busting becomes the norm, expect it to show at the polls. Less rich, social – freeloader programs and more fair practice in bargaining is all that is asked for by union members.

Once Democrats realise they only need to support more center than so far left as they have become, they would get all middle class support. Quit the dumb shit on gun control and freeloader programs and get back on track. First thing, quit giving guns to bad guys to promote anti-gun RHETORIC! Next, stick to your words that get you voted in or expect it to reflect again in the votes.

Me, im looking for that “3rd” party…

Ray Yurick said:
Ray Yurick :

Isn’t what somebody does on their shoes after they drink too much?

JustPlayTheGame said:
didn’t know the Tea Party was against unions

They aren’t. But try telling that to a stauch Union Man?

JustPlayTheGame said:
Satisfy Conservatives on unions, let alone public unions? wont ever happen, they are for the wealthy and as such cannot say they support unions private or public bargaining for middle class. Although they can feel the pain of the middle class, they choose to ignore it and would rather you didn’t have fair bargaining rights.. But, they can always say we support you in your right to bear arms, which democrats will not support and this brings some union people to their side (raises hand) while union busting will pull me far left.

For a brief moment, I thought you might have a unique perspective. Unfortunately, you only said something I heard before, too many times. Doom and gloom, evil Conservatives.

Re-read my Post. This is the actual perspective of an actual Union Boss with the United Electrical Workers.
He suffering form “cognitive dissonance,” over knowing what is the ethically correct, right thing to do, and what Unions do… And he is a Union Rep!

Even Union stalwart George Meany as well as FDR, the patron saint of Unions wrote and spoke of how Public Unions are improper and unethical.

So my old Friend has to convince his “Brothers” that NOT supporting Public Unions is the right thing to do. Now THAT is an example of cognitive dissonance. Ouch!

JustPlayTheGame said:
Me, im looking for that “3rd” party…

Actually, you expressed yourself well. I was hasty, my apologies.

How about “viable” 3rd party? Without viability, we tend to get exactly what we don’t want? LOL

purveyor said:
Actually, you expressed yourself well. I was hasty, my apologies.

How about “viable” 3rd party? Without viability, we tend to get exactly what we don’t want? LOL

I assume the internet is the only hope for a third party.. Media in other forms is to bought and paid for from the Two evils..One for wealthy One for poverty..both to far from center..none for the working man..possibly both with some agenda together? I smell a revolution before evolution comming..

One party actually working for the people with common sense for people that do work “and” do the work..would be something..(note, Management is also a do the work group. if you don’t “own” it..you work.) meh, not in our lifetime..least mine.. Ron Paul did best going for the Republican run.

JustPlayTheGame said:
I smell a revolution before evolution comming..

“A house divided against itself, cannot stand”

Abraham Lincoln

As a writer and philosopher, I could (you could?) easily make the case we are already engaged in a “Civil War” of philosophy. Who knows what the future holds?

The first philosophy is that of our founders: free enterprise and self reliance.

The second philosophy is that of Marx: Socialism and that is NOT far fetched at all. Just factual.

If America cannot peacefully decide which way to go? Personally, I will go with Jefferson, not Marx!

Anyway, GOOGLE this site. It is an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal about Public and Private Unions. I mean EXCELLENT! This article really messed With my Friends head.

Kimberly a. strassel wsj feb 25

purveyor said:
“A house divided against itself, cannot stand”

Abraham Lincoln

As a writer and philosopher, I could (you could?) easily make the case we are already engaged in a “Civil War” of philosophy. Who knows what the future holds?

The first philosophy is that of our founders: free enterprise and self reliance.

The second philosophy is that of Marx: Socialism and that is NOT far fetched at all. Just factual.

If America cannot peacefully decide which way to go? Personally, I will go with Jefferson, not Marx!

Anyway, GOOGLE this site. It is an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal about Public and Private Unions. I mean EXCELLENT! This article really messed With my Friends head.

Kimberly a. strassel wsj feb 25

As someone who has had his job as a professor challenged on here (though for what reason I cannot tell), I am genuinely curious: Are you a trained philosopher or an autodidact?

(Nothing wrong with either of these in my books. I’m just curious.)

Anne Coulter – Nazi She wolf of the SS.

gene said:

DEMOCRATIC vs REBUBLICAN ARGUMENT:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives w/o working for, another person must work for w/o receiving.
3. The government can’t give anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take
from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the
other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what
they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any NATION!

MARGARET THATCHER: “THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM IS THAT
EVENTUALLY YOU RUN OUT OF O.P.M. (OPIUM) OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY”

GENE

Well done! you received 20 or so thumbs down! LOL Many Liberals must have wandered through and read your piece… I liked it…

purveyor said:
For a brief moment, I thought you might have a unique perspective. Unfortunately, you only said something I heard before, too many times. Doom and gloom, evil Conservatives.

Re-read my Post. This is the actual perspective of an actual local Union Boss. He is enduring “cognitive dissonance,” over knowing what is the ethically correct, right thing to do, and what Unions do… And he is a Union Rep!

Even Union stalwart George Meany as well as FDR, the patron saint of Unions wrote and spoke of how Public Unions are improper and unethical.

So my old Friend has to convince his “Brothers” that NOT supporting Public Unions is the right thing to do. Now THAT is an example of cognitive dissonance. Ouch!

I hope this solves the moderation problem?

purveyor said:
GENE

Well done! you received 20 or so thumbs down! LOL Many Liberals must have wandered through and read your piece… I liked it…

Amusing is the best I could say about it. Read my response and let me know what you think of THAT?

“I don’t understand why anyone who isn’t part of the 40% of America working for state, local or Federal government would ever vote for the Democratic party, since that is what the Democratic party stands for.”

It is easy to understand why you think the way you do…because you’re ignorant. No mystery there.

Bruce said:

“I don’t understand why anyone who isn’t part of the 40% of America working for state, local or Federal government would ever vote for the Democratic party, since that is what the Democratic party stands for.”

It is easy to understand why you think the way you do…because you’re ignorant. No mystery there.

Speak again oh wise one…

purveyor said:
Speak again oh wise one…

Would you attribute Ann’s quote to me? That would be plagiarism, wouldn’t it?

I would give my left ball if the “conservatives” had waved the bullsh*t flag when Bush started his compassionate conservative spending binge. It led us inexorably to our present situation.

OMG, I just watched the clip of Coulter on Maher’s show. She’s an idiot. Where in the world did she come up with the notion that the U.S. bombed Egypt? That was completely insane. Hell the Conservatives chastised Obama for not doing anything in Egypt. Then Obama came out with his statements that Mubarak must go. As soon as he did the Conservatives chastised Obama for not backing Mubarak, and accused Obama for supporting Al Qeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. Conservatives were all over the place on this one. Conservatives were perfecting their hypocrisy.

But once again Ann is clueless of what actually happened. It is so reminiscent of the time she told the Canadian interviewer thhat Canada had sent troops to Viet Nam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc&feature=player_detailpage

She reacted the same way she reacted on Maher’s show, when the Interviewer told her Canada did not send troops to Viet Nam.( She refused to believe it. She did what Conservatives are taught to do, when caught in a lie, “double down” and stick to their story. Rewrite history, if you have to. I wonder where she got the idea that the U.S. bombed Egypt? Was she being fed some Conservative propaganda BS? Or had she watched what unfolded in Egypt and just had no fricken clue as to what she was watching? I was equally impressed how she equated Obama’s call for Mubarak to step down, to bombing Egypt. After watching her, I’m not convinced she is smart enough to write a book. I have not read the book, but if there are two sentences strung together in a coherent manner, she had to have had help. She couldn’t have done it on her own.

I hope the link I posted works.

She forgot to include union workers, welfare parasites, and Criminal aliens.

X-3 said:
She forgot to include union workers, welfare parasites, and Criminal aliens.

…and professional victims.

Bruce said:
OMG, I just watched the clip of Coulter on Maher’s show. She’s an idiot. Where in the world did she come up with the notion that the U.S. bombed Egypt? That was completely insane. Hell the Conservatives chastised Obama for not doing anything in Egypt. Then Obama came out with his statements that Mubarak must go. As soon as he did the Conservatives chastised Obama for not backing Mubarak, and accused Obama for supporting Al Qeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. Conservatives were all over the place on this one. Conservatives were perfecting their hypocrisy.

But once again Ann is clueless of what actually happened. It is so reminiscent of the time she told the Canadian interviewer thhat Canada had sent troops to Viet Nam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc&feature=player_detailpage

She reacted the same way she reacted on Maher’s show, when the Interviewer told her Canada did not send troops to Viet Nam.( She refused to believe it. She did what Conservatives are taught to do, when caught in a lie, “double down” and stick to their story. Rewrite history, if you have to. I wonder where she got the idea that the U.S. bombed Egypt? Was she being fed some Conservative propaganda BS? Or had she watched what unfolded in Egypt and just had no fricken clue as to what she was watching? I was equally impressed how she equated Obama’s call for Mubarak to step down, to bombing Egypt. After watching her, I’m not convinced she is smart enough to write a book. I have not read the book, but if there are two sentences strung together in a coherent manner, she had to have had help. She couldn’t have done it on her own.

I hope the link I posted works.

Bruce, there are so many wars going on, she probably just had a mental lapse and got them confused. I assume she knows we did not bomb Mubarek and force him out of office.

dougx said:
Bruce, there are so many wars going on, she probably just had a mental lapse and got them confused. I assume she knows we did not bomb Mubarek and force him out of office.

Thank you, and, of course.

Unfortunately, we do see that kind of “gotcha” petulance from both sides. HOWEVER, such is a virtual staple and codified tactic of the Left. Just read Marx, Mao or Alinsky.

Compliments DOUGX

Also: BRUCE, “plagarism?” Huh?

Bruce said:
“I don’t understand why anyone who isn’t part of the 40% of America working for state, local or Federal government would ever vote for the Democratic party, since that is what the Democratic party stands for.”

It is easy to understand why you think the way you do…because you’re ignorant. No mystery there.

Well, she is against the bombings in Egypt…sigh.. See, these people get to comment and boast on programs all over the USA and further and MAKE MONEY doing it. Yet they don’t even try to be credible in common sense or take a moment to know what the hell they are talking about half the time or insert percentage higher per guest. The bad thing, in this day and age it’s stupid across the board on every channel…my gawd, we havent a chance for common sense.

Oenolicious said:
I do apologize, because I did have other things on my mind (Italian debt problems), but again I’m confused. You say, “apparently and typically” (you have proof of neither) and then try a bit of displacement by trying to knock my usage of the word logorrhea by saying that you learned from Bork prolix instead. Reading his books or do you Bork? That would be interesting. The former is just boring, as I know the Greek philosophers, but I don’t hang out with Aristotle. Your choice as to women is not interesting, even as an etymological exercise, because it does not illuminate anything about my original point. You may have a great thesaurus, but I am still waiting for some sort of actual rhetoric.

I think Mediaite should have an official “Spot the real racist king’s new user name” contest.

hankdward said:
Perdido… why does it matter if its owed to the Fed or not? Do you believe the Fed will force the government to default? I understand that the numbers look big and daunting, but I don’t understand the fear or looming calamity. The Fed does not work like a normal bank so the comparison makes no sense. The Fed is a collection of private banks with Federal money that services its constituent banks and the economy as a whole. I 100% believe in reducing both the deficit and the national debt, but I don’t see the doom and gloom. There is no weakening dollar conspiracy. The dollar could be devalued by 300% and most American’s would be no worse off as long as inflation did not go up to weaken their buying power. I’m sorry, but as an Economist, I just don’t understand the irrational fear.

How would it be possible to devalue the dollar by 300% and not effect most American’s buying power? Do you only buy those items made in the USA? You do know, don’t you, that a devalued dollar raise the price of food raised and grown in the USA. As an economist, how would you have advised the Greek Government 10 years ago?

RichS said:
How would it be possible to devalue the dollar by 300% and not effect most American’s buying power? Do you only buy those items made in the USA? You do know, don’t you, that a devalued dollar raise the price of food raised and grown in the USA. As an economist, how would you have advised the Greek Government 10 years ago?

A devalued dollar would make our TVs and electronic goods more expensive, but food would not be devalued by much, however if this condition stayed this way for a while, it would be easier for us to sell our goods overseas so it would create jobs.

I’m not advocating a devalued currency, I’m just stating that the fear of Fed borrowing or lending isn’t something that people really need to be scared about. Its all within the same relative system. We need to be wary of borrowing and we need to reduce the deficit, but trimming during a recession is not the time….

As far as Greece goes, they should have started putting austerity measures in years ago. They have a corrupt government and no control of monetary policy (since its centralized). They are a social country with nationalized industries. Its not like the US so its a bit unfair to compare the 2 countries, but lowering the debt ratio should have been done years ago.

hankdward said:
Amusing is the best I could say about it. Read my response and let me know what you think of THAT?

On the preceding page, your Post, your rhetoric is as old as Marx. I read it, I try not to let it bother me as I hope I can stop it, “kill it before it grows” stronger, so to speak.

Your rhetoric bares the seeds of Socialism and revolution. (despotism, misery and death) You try to sound reasonable, compliant, even benevolent… However, such is the legerdemain of Leftist ideology. I’ve seen the monster, Unfortunately, the quirks peculiar to American Capitalism and free enterprise allow such to rise from dung heap, time after time.

I hope this may be the quantum moment that brings on the final demise of Socialism and its permutations.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

To me Obama isn’t that much better, if at all than the Republicans. They both want cuts from social programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid. Meanwhile the military budget gets increasingly larger and when was the last time corporations paid their fair share in taxes? So instead of executives paying their fair share in taxes, the burden is shifted to the middle class, working class and low income. Govt it seems to me just caters to big biz and the corporations are running this nation. Witness the US Supreme Court “Citizens United ruling that essentially says big business can literally buy elections and there is absolutely no responsibility either.

Coulter seems testy. did he forget to take his hormone replacement pills?

dougx said:
Bruce, there are so many wars going on, she probably just had a mental lapse and got them confused. I assume she knows we did not bomb Mubarek and force him out of office.

Republican, please. Coulter was flabbergasted when they told her no bombs in Egypt. She said “Well ok we’re dropping bombs or something…” then “We were threatening to which is why Mubarak left.” then “Ok, well, Libya then.” I personally thought she was smarter than that, too. Maybe she meant Libya and IRAQ as the 2 countries that didn’t hit us on 9/11 but somehow I doubt it.

Like rich Mr. Maher? I haven’t noticed him posting his 1040 online for all to see! Ditto for all the MSM talking heads. You show me your deductions & I’ll show you mine. Then we can discuss who is paying more total taxes as a percentage of income. I’m sure fawning audiences would be surprised. http://bit.ly/qCiGXh

This is the first we have seen of Ann Coulter since she went into mourning upon the Limbaugh Fourth Try. – Hell Hath no Fury,,,, and she’s off!!!!!!!

It isn’t the rich that are opposted to any tax increases or consider GiveBack and Taxes Four Letter words,,,, it’s the ignorant, angry, scared someone else will have the same opportunity and take something from them NEW RICH!!!! Listen to them,,,,all they talk abou is THEM and MONEY,,,,, and anyone who doesn’t feel the same way,,, well you know the classics,,,,, Idiot -Moron-Socialist-Liberal- Elitist,,,,and on and on and on.

I have watched them for years — They are the biggest threat to anyone’s American Dream, beause their bigget nightmare is someone will have the same advantages (all of which they are ashamed to admit they ever had) as they did.

All cut from the same cloth.

I believe this lady needs vitamins of some thing to stimulate the brain, my God get out of our GOP, you lady are a nut case

http://creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/ration-of-ceo-pay-to-average-worker-by-country/

Why occupy wall street? This is why