PDA

View Full Version : How Bush Tax Cuts Will Benefit Fox Hosts



Qtec
12-03-2010, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alan Grayson Shows How Bush Tax Cuts Will Benefit Fox News Prime Time Hosts

Wow. Despite Alan Grayson losing his election last in November, he has not softened up, at all. Case in point, his tour de force on the House floor earlier today. The issue at hand? The Bush Tax Cuts, that Grayson alleges only benefits the wealthiest Americans. The targets? The conservatives talking heads that populate Fox News every evening, often championing the very Bush Tax cuts at hand. The strategy? Demonstrate just how much each pundit stands to make by the extending of the tax cuts. The result? Brilliant television that is certain to both get attention and rile Grayson’s adversaries. Just what he wants.

Website editors often refer to online slideshows as “link bait,” a cheap trick to attract visitors and boost pageviews. What you are about to watch appears to be the House of Representatives version of an editorial slideshow. And look, it worked! Read the rough transcript that follows the video from C-Span below: </div></div> link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-grayson-shows-how-bush-tax-cuts-will-benefit-fox-news-prime-time-hosts-on-house-floor/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Madam Speaker, we’ve heard endless braying from the Republicans, time after time, demanding an extension of tax cuts for the rich in this country. They tell us that somehow extending tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs. When we’ve had tax cuts for the rich for nine years and I haven’t noticed a lot of jobs being created in nine years.

They tell us it will boost the economy well I haven’t noticed that happening for nine years either. So you have to wonder why they persist in this mania, this obsession of theirs that we need to have tax cuts for the rich when the economy is flat on its back and unemployment is almost 10%. I think I have the answer. The answer turns out to be very simple.

They want tax cuts for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves. What do I mean by that? Let’s take a look at the people who are really in charge, the ones who actually run the Republican party.

Let’s start with this gentleman here, the man with the cigar, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn’t he look happy? According according to Newsweek, he makes $58.7 million a year, and extending the tax cuts means he’ll have another<span style='font-size: 20pt'> $2.7 million.</span> Mega dittos, Rush, and mega money. Let’s look at the next one.

Here’s Glenn Beck, according to Newsweek Glenn Beck makes $33 million a year as a pundit and <span style='font-size: 17pt'>extending the Bush Tax Cuts means a cool $1.5 million for Glenn Beck’s ongoing imitation of Howard Beale from Network. </span>Now let’s look at the next one. </div></div>


I must confess, if I was going to get millions or 100,s of thousands I'd be all for the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well but I wouldn't go about trying to convince everyone that its for the good of the country. Would would buy that?

All those politicians who go on tv/radio etc pushing for this should have to declare how much they personally would benefit from a full extension of the Bush tax cuts.

When you vote for something that personally benefits yourself there is always a conflict of interest.

Q

LWW
12-03-2010, 04:40 AM
Why don't you care for the hundreds of jobs these small business entrepreneurs have created?

Why are you wanting to punish those they employ, and may employ in the future?

The first thing you need to learn about economics ... and which leftists seldom do ... is that the economy is far from static. Each action ripples throughout the economy.

LWW

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The first thing you need to learn about economics ... and which leftists seldom do ... is that the economy is far from static. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Each action ripples throughout the economy.</span>

LWW</div></div>

It certainly does.

The people who lost their jobs because of Wall St corruption understand that. They are facing a bleak winter.
The people who lost their houses because of Wall St corruption understand that. They are facing a bleak winter.
The people who are having their lifeline cut off [ unemployment extensions] understand that. They are facing a bleak winter.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why don't you care for the hundreds of jobs these small business entrepreneurs have created? </div></div>

LOL..you mean Rush, Beck and Hannity? LMFAO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u> Why are you wanting to punish those they employ,</u> and may employ in the future?</div></div>

Did I say that? You lost me here. Explain.



Quite simply, the party who demands everything be paid for wants to borrow another 800 Billion to pay Rush L another 2.5 Million a year.

That's the first thing YOU need to learn.

Q

eg8r
12-03-2010, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow. Despite Alan Grayson losing his election last in November, he has not softened up, at all. Case in point, his tour de force on the House floor earlier today. The issue at hand? The Bush Tax Cuts, that Grayson alleges only benefits the wealthiest Americans. The targets? The conservatives talking heads that populate Fox News every evening, often championing the very Bush Tax cuts at hand. The strategy? Demonstrate just how much each pundit stands to make by the extending of the tax cuts. The result? Brilliant television that is certain to both get attention and rile Grayson’s adversaries. Just what he wants.

</div></div>Why wouldn't he refer to this as just how much he wants to steal from them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must confess, if I was going to get millions or 100,s of thousands I'd be all for the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well but I wouldn't go about trying to convince everyone that its for the good of the country. Would would buy that?

</div></div>What is wrong here is your way of thinking. These people are not "going to get" anything. Why do you ignore the way taxes work. Taxes take earned money away. They are not GETTING anything. They are KEEPING what they earned. Just because your life did not turn out as well as theirs did does not justify your greed driving you to want to steal from them.

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2010, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It certainly does.

The people who lost their jobs because of Wall St corruption understand that. They are facing a bleak winter.
The people who lost their houses because of Wall St corruption understand that. They are facing a bleak winter.
The people who are having their lifeline cut off [ unemployment extensions] understand that. They are facing a bleak winter.

</div></div>Great, so now why do you want to add to that list? Why kill the small businesses and add a new bullet that reads like this: The people who lost their jobs because Obama and the liberals bankrupted the small businesses through greed.

eg8r

Qtec
12-03-2010, 07:53 AM
Are taxes theft?

Q

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:00 AM
Absolutely. Taken at gunpoint.

eg8r

Qtec
12-03-2010, 08:09 AM
So your problem is not with this Admin. Despite what you think according to the USCON the Govt has the right to levy taxes. I can't remember what amendment it was and I can't be bothered looking but I know its there.

Q

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your problem is not with this Admin. Despite what you think according to the USCON the Govt has the right to levy taxes. I can't remember what amendment it was and I can't be bothered looking but I know its there.

</div></div>Do I really need to give you the definition of theft? Are you that thick headed? If I don't pay, who shows up at the door with a gun?

eg8r

Qtec
12-03-2010, 09:09 AM
Ok.
You don't pay tax.

Tomorrow you get in your car and start it up and Q is there.
"Where do you think YOU are going?"

"To work" says eg8r.

" You want to drive on a road you haven't paid for? What makes you think you have the right to drive on other people's property," ie the TAX PAYER?

"Its going to cost you." says Q... "oh and there is a surcharge if you drive at night. Lights and stuff. "



etc

Q

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok.
You don't pay tax.

Tomorrow you get in your car and start it up and Q is there.
"Where do you think YOU are going?"

"To work" says eg8r.

" You want to drive on a road you haven't paid for? What makes you think you have the right to drive on other people's property," ie the TAX PAYER?

"Its going to cost you." says Q... "oh and there is a surcharge if you drive at night. Lights and stuff. "



etc

Q

</div></div>

Seems to me these folks think the country can survive, and thrive, with no consideration for the "Common good" of the country.

Speak about something so simple to grasp, AND constitutionally correct, and they call it socialism.

RW Brainwashing.

The system has been rewarding those who have hurt the country, for the entire tenure of the Bush Administration.

the figures prove, jobs were lost, not created.

They STILL don't get it.

They apparently don't even realize there ARE tax breaks, included in this bill, for those who create jobs, FOR Small Business!

Except for the right, the rest of the country see and refers to the Bush Tax cuts as tax cuts FOR THE RICH. From economists, to tax experts, and even by Greenspan...

" Tax cuts for the wealthy, that add to the deficit, do not pay for themselves."

Statement made by a wealthy, Repubican, former Federal Reserve Chairman!

STILL, they deny the facts!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
12-03-2010, 10:52 AM
Sorry buddy but those taxes were already being paid for, we are talking about changing legislation to steal more. If don't pay, they don't remove the right to drive on the road, the remove the right to live freely. They put you in jail or give you a job in the Obama administration.

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2010, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me these folks think the country can survive, and thrive, with no consideration for the "Common good" of the country.

</div></div>Seems to me you don't know when enough is enough. Again, are you going to be taking deductions on your taxes this year?

eg8r

LWW
12-04-2010, 04:43 AM
The reality of this all is that:

- Alan Grayson is an absolute moron.

- Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity et all will get no "BENEFIT" from the tax cuts being extended.

- Alan Grayson is a total idiot.

- All the extension will do is leave things the way they are.

- Alan Grayson is is a class warfare warrior/welfare pimp.

- The failure of the extension will penalize them.

- Alan Grayson is an insufferable dolt.

LWW

Qtec
12-04-2010, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we are talking about changing legislation to steal more. </div></div>

No we are not. If nothing is done, the rates go back to where they were when Clinton was Pres.GW and the GOP WANTED it that way!
It was a gimmick that they used to pass the bill and conceal its true cost.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the tax cuts were enacted, with an expiration date, Republicans and Bush officials understood the political advantages of the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“fiscal time bomb” </span>they were setting. As Kurtz puts it: <u>“At some point in the way distant future, Democrats could be accused of raising taxes if they tried to undo the Bush breaks and return to Clinton-era levels of taxation.”</u> Democrats understood this, too: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told the Washington Post at the time that “<u>[Bush is] going to be out of office when the roof falls in.</u>”

There was a <span style='font-size: 14pt'>more sinister motive</span> for sunsetting the tax cuts beyond politics, as well. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>It allowed the administration to pass the bill with a lower vote count in the Senate than would otherwise be necessary.</span> Card freely admits to Kurtz that the administration wanted “the law to be permanent but couldn’t muster the votes to trump the Byrd Rule,” which would have required a 60-vote margin for a measure that significantly increases the federal deficit more than 10 years in the future. By setting the tax cuts to expire just short of ten years, the measure passed with 58 votes.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The various sunsets also <u>hid the true cost</u> of the bill.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>As Paul Krugman wrote at the time: “The administration, knowing that its tax cut wouldn’t fit into any responsible budget, pushed through a bill that contains the things it wanted most — big tax cuts for the very, very rich — and used whatever accounting gimmicks it could find to make the overall budget impact seem smaller than it is.”</span>

Such deception and fiscal irresponsibility hardly seem cause for celebration. But because it appears that all of the tax cuts will once again be extended, resetting the fiscal time bomb in spite of public opposition, perhaps these Bush officials are justified in their mirth. </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/03/bushies-celebrates-taxes/)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There you go.</span>

I guess this must become a surprise to you and the other Righties on the board.



Q

LWW
12-04-2010, 05:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we are talking about changing legislation to steal more. </div></div>

No we are not. If nothing is done, the rates go back to where they were when Clinton was Pres.GW and the GOP WANTED it that way!
It was a gimmick that they used to pass the bill and conceal its true cost.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the tax cuts were enacted, with an expiration date, Republicans and Bush officials understood the political advantages of the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“fiscal time bomb” </span>they were setting. As Kurtz puts it: <u>“At some point in the way distant future, Democrats could be accused of raising taxes if they tried to undo the Bush breaks and return to Clinton-era levels of taxation.”</u> Democrats understood this, too: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told the Washington Post at the time that “<u>[Bush is] going to be out of office when the roof falls in.</u>”

There was a <span style='font-size: 14pt'>more sinister motive</span> for sunsetting the tax cuts beyond politics, as well. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>It allowed the administration to pass the bill with a lower vote count in the Senate than would otherwise be necessary.</span> Card freely admits to Kurtz that the administration wanted “the law to be permanent but couldn’t muster the votes to trump the Byrd Rule,” which would have required a 60-vote margin for a measure that significantly increases the federal deficit more than 10 years in the future. By setting the tax cuts to expire just short of ten years, the measure passed with 58 votes.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The various sunsets also <u>hid the true cost</u> of the bill.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>As Paul Krugman wrote at the time: “The administration, knowing that its tax cut wouldn’t fit into any responsible budget, pushed through a bill that contains the things it wanted most — big tax cuts for the very, very rich — and used whatever accounting gimmicks it could find to make the overall budget impact seem smaller than it is.”</span>

Such deception and fiscal irresponsibility hardly seem cause for celebration. But because it appears that all of the tax cuts will once again be extended, resetting the fiscal time bomb in spite of public opposition, perhaps these Bush officials are justified in their mirth. </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/03/bushies-celebrates-taxes/)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There you go.</span>

I guess this must become a surprise to you and the other Righties on the board.



Q </div></div>

Oh Snoopy ... you are SO EASY!

After 21 months of hearing you bleat about how the R's invented the filibuster rule, now you are suddenly claiming it as the "BYRD RULE" which it actually is.

Now, here's something so simple that even an O-cultist can figure it out.

If an extension is not passed ... will taxes go up, stay the same, or go down?

LWW

eg8r
12-06-2010, 08:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was a more sinister motive for sunsetting the tax cuts beyond politics, as well. It allowed the administration to pass the bill with a lower vote count in the Senate than would otherwise be necessary. Card freely admits to Kurtz that the administration wanted “the law to be permanent but couldn’t muster the votes to trump the Byrd Rule,” which would have required a 60-vote margin for a measure that significantly increases the federal deficit more than 10 years in the future. By setting the tax cuts to expire just short of ten years, the measure passed with 58 votes.

</div></div>How is this any more sinister than the Dems raising their limit to the $1 million limit to try and get more votes since the 250k limit was a no go and just a gimmick on the Dems side to look like they were trying.

eg8r

eg8r
12-06-2010, 08:13 AM
You guys just cannot make up your minds. When the Reps do not compromise you say they are blocking, but when they do you call it a sinister gimmick. No matter what the Rep does you are never happy.

eg8r

Qtec
12-07-2010, 04:57 AM
The GOP fillibuster every bill.


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Are they all Reconciliation Bills?</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills</span> </div></div>

You can be such a FKN moron sometimes.


Q

Stretch
12-07-2010, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GOP fillibuster every bill.


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Are they all Reconciliation Bills?</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills</span> </div></div>

You can be such a FKN moron sometimes.

At least he's consistent. St.


Q </div></div>

Qtec
12-07-2010, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GOP fillibuster every bill.


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Are they all Reconciliation Bills?</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills</span> </div></div>

You can be such a FKN moron sometimes.

At least he's consistent. St.


Q </div></div> </div></div>


Got to give him that.


LOL

Q

LWW
12-07-2010, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GOP fillibuster every bill.


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Are they all Reconciliation Bills?</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills</span> </div></div>

You can be such a FKN moron sometimes.


Q </div></div>

Incorrect, as usual, Snoopy.

LWW

LWW
12-07-2010, 08:02 AM
Back to school Snoopy:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[4] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson (D)

Finally, in 1975 the Democratic-controlled Senate[4] revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which require two-thirds to invoke cloture. ...</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_U.S._Senate)

LWW

Qtec
12-08-2010, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Budget <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”</span>
Summary
Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent
spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has
been deficit reduction, but in some years <span style='font-size: 17pt'>reconciliation</span> has involved revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation
is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (19
reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).
During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation
contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing
budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included
such things as provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or
reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending
or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal
sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these
practices. The Byrd rule has been extended and modified several times over the
years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with
instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule,
a Senator may raise a point of order against such matter. In general, a point of order
authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike extraneous matter
already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments
or motions. A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).
The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for
purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally
described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>reconciliation</span>
instructions. </div></div>


If you insist in making yourself look like a twat, fine.

budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf (http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf)


Q

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Budget <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”</span>
Summary
Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent
spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has
been deficit reduction, but in some years <span style='font-size: 17pt'>reconciliation</span> has involved revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation
is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (19
reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).
During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation
contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing
budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included
such things as provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or
reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending
or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal
sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these
practices. The Byrd rule has been extended and modified several times over the
years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with
instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule,
a Senator may raise a point of order against such matter. In general, a point of order
authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike extraneous matter
already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments
or motions. A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).
The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for
purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally
described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>reconciliation</span>
instructions. </div></div>


If you insist in making yourself look like a twat, fine.

budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf (http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf)


Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">LOL, I see no response in return. Typical. Then fifty posts follow to bury the gross ignorance which you have exposed.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
12-11-2010, 12:27 PM
So gayle what did you think about the name calling? Was it appropriate this time since it was q doing it?

eg8r

Stretch
12-11-2010, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So gayle what did you think about the name calling? Was it appropriate this time since it was q doing it?

eg8r </div></div>

I will admit that was a little unusuall for Q. Still not on the same scale as say Sev. who upon the mere sight of Gayle goes into sudden onset tourette syndrome. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

eg8r
12-11-2010, 11:59 PM
I agree but just wondering how far some people are allowed to go before anything is said.

Not sure if you watch UFC but your fellow Canadian is still the champ.

eg8r

Qtec
12-12-2010, 01:46 AM
I'm human. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Had a few beers, couldn't take his moronic crap any more and vented. I could have said the same thing without the moron comment, I'm guilty..... but I was still right.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Qtec
12-12-2010, 02:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree but just wondering how far some people are allowed to go before anything is said.

Not sure if you watch UFC but your fellow Canadian is still the champ.

eg8r </div></div>

Well I think if someone refuses to face obvious facts after been shown conclusively that they are facts, then they should be called out...because they are lying.




This is why Libby was arrested. He was arrested because he lied. He tried to impede the investigation.
I have asked you a million times why would he lie if he hadn't done anything wrong or why would he lie to cover up things that others did when there was nothing illegal happening?

The Bush Admin released CLASSIFIED info to a NY reporter called Judith Miller. Miler released her story and Cheney, the main leaker, went on Sunday TV and acted surprised.


Arrogance.
puke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idPFHEdp-Qo)

Q

Qtec
12-12-2010, 02:13 AM
For the record, Libby claims Cheney and Bush authorised him to leak info.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlU8sknzJDA&feature=related)

George Bush.

"Leaks of classified information are .....<span style='font-size: 14pt'>a bad thing.</span>"

Q

Qtec
12-12-2010, 02:23 AM
stay the course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&feature=related)

...but I'm sure his book is all factual.

Q

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So gayle what did you think about the name calling? Was it appropriate this time since it was q doing it?

eg8r </div></div>

Not really, Q should have called him a twit! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So gayle what did you think about the name calling? Was it appropriate this time since it was q doing it?

eg8r </div></div>

I will admit that was a little unusuall for Q. Still not on the same scale as say Sev. who upon the mere sight of Gayle goes into sudden onset tourette syndrome. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St. </div></div>

If we had any kind of fair or balanced moderating of this forum, Sev would have been banned for his filth, along with Punter, both of which wrote posts, far worse than anything that Wolfdancer ever posted on this forum.

The deck is stacked. It's obvious.

LWW
12-12-2010, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the record, Libby claims Cheney and Bush authorised him to leak info.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlU8sknzJDA&feature=related)

George Bush.

"Leaks of classified information are .....<span style='font-size: 14pt'>a bad thing.</span>"

Q </div></div>

Thanks for posting "EVIDENCE" that had nothing to do with Plame.

What y'all need to wrap your collectivist mind around is:

- Armitage was the source that leaked Plame's name.

- The investigator AND congress found that Plame was NOT a covert agent.

- The congress found that Plame and Wilson DID lie.

- The investigator found that NO underlying crime was committed.

- Had the investigator followed what he was authorized to do ... find the leak, which was Armitage ... Libby would never have testified at all.

- The left, driven by hate, destroyed an innocent man.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> stay the course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&feature=related)

...but I'm sure his book is all factual.

Q </div></div>

My Friend, we can post all of the proof in the world, and the RW nutjobs will still deny all of it.

The Director of the CIA, wrote a letter, which was read at the very start, to the investigating committee, stating on no uncertain terms, that Valarie Plame was a Secret, Covert, CIA, NOC Undercover, Agent, at the time they outed her, specializing in WMD's!

Karl Rove admits confirming the outing of a secret CIA NOC Agent, Valarie Plame....He said, to Novak, "I've heard that too"
pure and simply, Rove was a confirming source, for the artical, written by Novak, outing Plames status.

I can't believe the right even attempts to continue with their lies on this subject. bush po9liticized the entire Department of Justice, and they all, fro9m Gono, to cheney, to Rove Rice Bush, all proven liars, all committed treason. All shouold be hanging fro the W.H.Portico!!!

I WOULD NEVER, EVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN! THEIR PO9LICIES DESTROY DEMOCRACY!

Irrational people, the right.

G.

eg8r
12-12-2010, 07:31 PM
So name calling is OK?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 07:08 AM
<span style="color: #990000">No Ed, name calling is not acceptable, AND Q., does less of it than anyone here.

</span>

eg8r
12-13-2010, 09:13 AM
Why did I have to ask the question twice before you gave a truthful answer?

eg8r