But, but, but those tax cuts only help the rich!

Friggin moronic Demo'Rats...

"The Bush Economy." Liberals USED to love saying that.

Not only that Matt but during the past 3 years the Bush economy has grown.........are you ready for this? An astonishing 20%! Think about that for a minute. The entire economy has expanded 20% since the tax cuts were signed into law. That is simply stunning!

Democrats:With jobs and the economy growing like this shouldn't we all be buried under a pile of burgers by now. Or is Bush hiding all those patties in the mountains of Colorado.

Democrats:With jobs and the economy growing like this shouldn't we all be buried under a pile of burgers by now. Or is Bush hiding all those patties in the mountains of Colorado.

Recently I asked a liberal friend of mine (who hates Bush of course), what her #1 issue was, and guess what she responded? That's right, the economy. She was so troubled about the economy that she had absolutely no clue that it was in such great shape. If this isn't proof of A) The blind liberal hatred of Bush which is not rooted in anything real and B) Despite the popularity of Fox, talk radio and the conservative blogs, the Elite media still has enormous powers of propaganda. This administration needs to tout its successes better. Why is the left always louder?

Democrats:With jobs and the economy growing like this shouldn't we all be buried under a pile of burgers by now. Or is Bush hiding all those patties in the mountains of Colorado.

"Worst economy since Hoover ©"

/sarcasm

"But, but, but those tax cuts only help the rich!

Friggin moronic Demo'Rats..."

"The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses."

hmmmmmmm. corporate profits up. capital gains up. executive bonuses up. those poor people sure are having a field day!

who are the morons, again?

Sorry my friends, it's over. Clap as you might, the truth is upon you. Unfortunately for you, the clear light of day shines very brightly.

Cheers.

Yeah, the newspapers are always throwing out throway comments on the "bad economy" and TV talking heads love to toss the phrase around and then move on quickly before anyone can call them on it.

One of my favorites is the one about cutbacks in entitlement spending being needed to "pay for the tax cuts". The last time I told a Lib that tax revenues were up, first I was told I was wrong, then challenged on my sources (claiming the info came from Rush) and then I was told that if it were true, they would have talked about it on Air America. Swear to God. You can't make this stuff up.

I am beginning to think that the neorads should be required to wear T-shirts proclaiming "Economically Ignorant----And Proud Of It".

You neorads do realize, don't you, that "corporations" include local businesses? You do realize, don't you, that no matter how much Ranty Rhodes rants on about the evil "corporations" (such as the ones who keep her on the air) that most of the businesses in this country are incorporated? George's dry-cleaners, Mary's coffee shop, the paint store, the hardware store, the cafe down the street, the cleaning service, the car mechanic-----EVIL CORPORATIONS ALL!!!!!

This whining anti-capitalist, anti-productivity, socialist, anti-corporation, sniveling is just getting out of control. Don't you people WORK?

Who pays your salaries? Who makes it possible for you to sit around your expensive computers and have the time to bother us with your illogical, ill-reasoned, rantings? (For that matter, who MAKES those computers? The software? The house you sit in? The desk? The chair?) How much money have you ever been paid by a poor person? How many jobs have you ever had, or your friends ever had, that did not come from a corporate entity?

You pick up on some catch-phrase, like "corporation", and you put Pavlov's dogs to shame.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

This country was a better place when people looked at those who had more than they did and saw this as proof that tney, too, could achieve and prosper.

It is a much poorer place now that so many look at those who have more than they have and merely want to drag these achievers down to their level.

Yes, we know that what is good for America is bad for you neorads. Catching terrorists is bad for you. A booming economy is bad for you. Happy people are bad for you. Success in Iraq is bad for you. Aresting and killing mass murderers is bad for you. Freeing millions is bad for you. When I look at all the things that make you so miserable, it givees me a better idea of what the country would be like if you were running it. And that is not pretty at all.

"Democrats:With jobs and the economy growing like this shouldn't we all be buried under a pile of burgers by now. Or is Bush hiding all those patties in the mountains of Colorado."

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

" Sorry my friends, it's over. Clap as you might, the truth is upon you. Unfortunately for you, the clear light of day shines very brightly."

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Have you people simply given up TRYING to make sense? Actually, that would be merely accepting the obvious.

Hint: Merely stringing together words does not make coherent posts.

On the other hand, being a Lib Neorad does not allow for coherent thought, so there is some consistency here after all.

My dear friend Almiranta, it's called poetry or perhaps in this caee, poetic justice. Sorry it's beyond your present capacity to grasp. Please, just keep on with your name calling. Maybe, someone is actually listening.

Oh, BTW, if all is so well in the US economy, why does your beloved Dick, Cheney have 1/2 his money in European bond funds? Is he getting nervous about the value of a dollar? Hmmm...Can't be that...No way...'Course not...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13851.htm

Don't be paranoid, be informed.

ALmiranta,

You leave no room for differences between your run of the mill incorporated family business, and multi-national corporations who have more power than the average citizen to push their agenda.

Corporations aren't bad when they are bound by the ethics of their neighbors, but a company who can engage in wanton capital flight, and the repression of economies to bolster their bottom-line is against all human dignity.

Who CREATES the products we use? People make all those things that corporations sell, yet it is those same people who are disregarded when it comes time to cut costs by moving production to third-world countries, and it the workers in developing nations who are buried under massive debts to produce the infrasructures that are required to house these multinationals; yet the workers are not blessed with the fruits of their labor, instead they are made to work long hours for slave wages. This scenario is repeated day after day in devoloping nations and yet these production hot-spots still seem mired in the abject poverty they had before the factories moved there, all the while the ruling class retains the profits.

Look at Indonesia, Venezuela, Mexico etc.

"In response to these health and safety concerns, the government of Guatemala could decide either to ban the cyanide process or to require the company to compensate surrounding communities for their risk. The vice president has said that the government wouldn't do anything the people don't want. But stopping the Glamis project now could be costly: Under CAFTA, the government of Guatemala could be liable for tens of millions of dollars"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300099.html

"Social audits of clothing factories in developing countries are failing to detect excessive and forced overtime, abusive treatment of workers and violations of freedom of association, says a report by the Clean Clothes Campaign, a coalition of trade unions and pressure groups, to be published today.

Interviews and focus groups with 670 workers in 40 factories producing clothing and sports shoes for big brands, retailers and mail order companies found that the audits, commonly used to check compliance with codes of conduct, were often short, superficial and sloppy."

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12753

"About 50 Cofan Indians, some holding handkerchiefs over their faces to fend off an acrid chemical stench, gathered around two contaminated open pits they say were left behind and never adequately cleaned up by the former Texaco Corp.

A 35-year-old Cofan woman stood near one of the black pools. Nearby was a marsh, covered by a dense layer of crude and toxic waste that the Cofan Indians say seeped into streams and rivers used for drinking water by almost half of their 900 people, driving them from the area."

by Gonzalo Solano, Associated Press
October 20th, 2005

--So, no one in their right mind says that companies shouldn't be allowed to do business, but what I think most people in America would say is that we do want some protections to basic human needs that are secondary, at best, to the multinational corporation, they cannot be expected to watch their own behavior, and yet our economy runs on the products produced in these nations.

Almiranta makes no distinction between the types of corporations you describe because the data we were discussing (corporate tax revenues being up) also made no such distinction.

You seem to want to believe that all of that increase in tax revenues is from huge corporations, but if you look at the numbers ($250 BILLION... in more taxes paid, so only a small percentage of the increase in corporate income), it cannot logically be from a just a few... it's across the board.

Well said, Almiranta!

LNC

Third eye open is just economically ignorant. I wonder if he knows that 80% of the American workforce works for people like me? The small business owner. The majority those tax receipts are coming from restaurant owners, mechanic shops, bowling alleys, etc....

CJ,

How many small business' do you know that are mutli-billion dollar international corporations with the clout to change government policy in developing nations?

Didn't think so, try reading the posts next time, instead of seeing what you wish to see.

Almiranta, please take some relaxants. You will blow a gasket and who would we enlightened have to laugh at?

So please, be it a glass of wine, or busiprone, take the rant out of almiRANTa.

Your friend,

Ash

With nothing to refute the facts of this string, the moonbats moved right into inane comments, insults, and "other" subjects. Professional posters. They stick to a prepared attack plan far too well to be anything else.

Kahn,

I also find it interesting that once you completely discredit their arguements on one thread, they never respond, but just jump to another thread and start up with the same drivvle.

On one thread, instead of staying on topic, we have "axis" pushing the conspiracy theory that Bush was behind the WTC towers coming down: His brother was in charge of security at the WTC (when actually, he was a principle in the company that provided the security) and allowed in technicians who rigged the buildings with explosives. Of course, the visual and scientific proof reveals that a airliner laden with tens of thousands of pounds of aviation fuel crashed into the buildings, weakening the structure, the fuel burned at over 2,000 degrees, further weakening the steel floor supports until they could no longer bear the weight of the floors above. But who cares about facts when you can push a good moonbat conspiracy theory.

A-10,

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees, but the jet-fuel was burned up in roughly 10 minutes, the rest of the fires were being fed by the tertiary contents of the offices [rugs, paper, furniture etc.]

The stuff which was burning in the offices was obviously oxygen-starved, due to the black, sooty smoke we were seeing, not the white-grey smoke we would expect from a high-temperature fire. So we would expect to see temperatures around 500 degrees with the tertiary goods burning in those offices, not nearly the 40 minutes of 2000-degree fires that would be needed to have brought down three steel buildings.

The "pancaking" of floors is an obvious non-starting argument since the building fell in almost free-fall speeds, you would have to have the building providing absolutely NO resistence to these falling floors, and even then you would be off your mark by about 1.5 seconds. [9/11 commission 10 seconds vs. other reports at 14 seconds]

You have a building which is 1362 ft, if you were to calculate freefall in a vacuum [read: no resistance at all] then you would come up with freefall of roughly 9.2 seconds. Now we have estimates of the building falling at between 10-14 seconds.

There is a scientist, named Jim Hoffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman) who has studied the collapse, he puts forth the data that even if the 110 floors were floating in mid-air [no building resistance] standard slowing from 'conservation of momentum' would have taken 15.5 seconds, so somewhere physics was suspended that fateful day in september.

You say poetry, I say gibberish.

Ashinine, I just calls it like I sees it. You can read anything into it you want to. I myelf see a dark note of frantic hysteria in your cut and pastes-----you must not be breathing deeply enough on those hikes of yours. Try eating an extra apple a day....

The eye needs to open up a little more, to let some facts in. The architecture of the Twin Towers was explained and discussed in a very long program on TV not long after 9/11 in which they explainmd and discussed, in great detail, showing the original plans and specs, the strength of the girders and columns, the construction of the walls, the placement of the elevator shafts, and all of the components of the buildings which contributed to the eventual collapse.

So "a scientist" offered his opinion on wikepedia, put forth an opinion he called "data" and this is all you need. The only thing he offered that was of real importance was the opportunity for a few window-lickers to feel important and superior by believing the unbelievable. Because that's what conspiracy theory is all about----it's the only way that some can ever feel really good about themselves. In this case, you can all high-five each other for being so much smarter than everybody else, so much more alert and discerning, and above all so much more SPECIAL. It's a short cut to specialness, much easier than actually being GOOD at, or for, anything.

I heard one of the Bush Did It proponents on Michael Medved today----it was Conspiracy Theory day, always a favorite magnet for nutters----and though she started out sounding pretty OK, with a good-sounding CV and a rational delivery, she simply fell apart. She would go on, for example, about all the people involved in this massive coverup, and then when he asked her how many she thought were really involved, she would spin out in some loop in some other direction. She finally acknowleged that there might ave been as many as 20 people involved. And so on. When a proponent refuses to answer a simple question but goes off into "But what you don't understand is...." non-answers, it's a dead giveaway. At every simple question, she would veer off into yet another even more complicated skein of people, motives, relationships, interrelationship, and so on---but every new direction was really an effort to dodge the question about the last list of "facts" she had rattled off.

The earth is flat, the moon shots were filmed in a studio, JFK is alive and living in the Bahamas, millions are implanted by aliens with transmitters which dart out of danger from one part of the body to another when approached by scalpels, we have billions and billions of barrels of oil stashed away and hidden to artificailly jack up prices, Dan Rather is really a robot, the Bushes were supporters of Hitler, aliens communicate with some people through their radios (oops---that's Air America) blah blah blah blah blah.