Lucky...

Better example than I came up with. Loving V Virginia, filed 1959, decided 1968 by those activists. I read that the last state to repeal antimiscegenation laws from their books was Georgia and they polled the citizens and discovered that 40% of them still wanted the laws on the books. Altho that was a minority, it was 32 years later and not much of a minority.

Yea, they aint got them there dirty faggots there, huh?

That shows that the author of said cliche is totally clueless but upset about the decision.

Yea like, "well regulated" meaning, "well oiled" and not, "well controlled" or, "well governed." Also, how is a militia like private gun owner rights? That's pulling majic from one's ass. I like it, but it is a massive stretch.

I know, next thing you know the justices will strike down slavery and give women voting rights. You should check yourself before majing inane sttaements. But I see the justices were right on with Heller aned McDonald, you konow, those activists.

Mike, I will respnd to your post tomorrow, but can you stay on topic and tell me, show me where major federal tax cuts leads to overal eco0nomic prosperity? I see your state tax argument and I agree that the rich move away to states that benefit them, but that doesn't matter as individually/collectively their federal tax contribution doesn't change. Again, make a federal argument as I proposed; I don't care about shifts within the country, it just doesn't affect the federal model.

Fixed that for you. There's Mike, to add his usual absolutley nothing. And still dropping names and avoiding the data or skewing it. Never have. You tried the microcosm of saying how the cap gains cut from 20% to 28% embodied the Clinton success when cap gains is a minor part of receipts vs income tax, not to mention the deficit fell every year of Clinton's presidency and that took place in 1997, > 4 years after he took office. Also, there was a slight dip in receipts as that cut took place. I'm talking major cuts and major effect, not tiny adjustments made as a compromise. Yea, well conceived tax cuts worked so well and those who suffer and whine and just whiners as per McCain's advisors, right Mikeepoo? Yea, those stimulus plans just suck. It's amazing to watch the Republitards advise us about depsression/recession recovery WHEN THE FUCKING LOSERS HAVE NEVER RECOVERED FROM ONE, but they are real good at getting us into them, in fact, aren't they responsibel for all major depressions/recessions in teh 20th-21st century? Isn't that like the R's teaching us compassion for poor people? Even if the data is true, people tend to move out of the city esp when tehy have made money. The Green Acres compex is nothing new. You would have to establish that these people left due to tax avoidance rather than other reasons. As a poor people I have no desire to move to a big city, lived around LA for a while, but big cities are no fun in many ways. But corporations have moved out of LA, esp aircraft corps like Douglas/Boeing. Long Beach has lost many big corps moved to Mesa, Nazizona, as our tax and labor laws are generally for corps. So yea, people with money look for venues with advantageous laws; big news Mike, thx for clearing that up - we would be lost w/o you. Now, we've already covered red states generally having much lower wages and much higher workplace mortalities, so where greedy rich people / corps move from and to is irrelevant ither than discussing paths of leats resistance. So if these states would just allow fucking their employees more then they would stay; what a wonderful world it would be under Mikeism. Make sure and define this as corporate prosperity, you havn't established personal prosperity for teh little guy, but I know you don't give a shit about that. Yes, providing svs rather than pandering to corporations is more expensive. Shall we post data on social svs by state or is that not of interest to you? Right and states that allow businesses to exploit workers do better, whereas the individual peopel do worse; real good work there, Mike, glad you dug this out, it's a real good find. Employers must hire enough skilled labor to get the job done or go out of business. On a federal level low taxes have ALWAYS led to a mess; you cannot prove otherwise. OK, so an unfounded opinion and once again, A STATE REFERENCE WHEN I ILLUSTRATED A FEDERAL TAXATION HISTORY. I can drop as many names and opposing opinions too, Mike, can you show me unbastardized data or just a list of people you agree with? So what? You're talking sttae tax, I'm talking federal. I'LL TAKE THIS AN AN AGREEMENT THAT LOW TAXES FUCK EVERYTHING UP AS YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING ABOUT FEDERAL TAXES IN THIS LONG CUT-N-PASTE. Yes, federal taxes were higher, you say the rich were jumping around looking for low income tax states, completely irrelevant to this discussion. So you agree the market soared under higher taxes? Hmm, high taxes demand reinvestment; good point. So what, I was making a federal argument; maybe you can't understand the difference. I will concede the argument that rich people look for low income tax states. However, Oregon has no sales tax but massive property tax, so it's made up somewhere. Again, Mike, you look foolish driving this, "states with high taxes loe millionaires" argument when I was asking for major fed tax trends and I posted data for such." Hell, the new BK laws in 2005 included provisions for people who move to Florida to or other more advantageous states for filers that they must live there for 2 years before filing or be subject to teh laws of teh state from which they just moved. Millionaires like Burt Reynolds had been going to Florida for decades, roll everything into their houses and then file BK to shield their money. I bet OJ moved there for that reason. OK, so rich peopel move to states that allow them shelters, so what, not out subject in this debate. We get it, you agree.

I'm encouraging you to present a less simplistic argument every 3 days here. Right, so when I make a viable general argumant all the righties can do is to ask for a 100-page argument dissertation or, in Mike's case, avoid the data and drop a few names. I can come back with other names as I provided a few days ago with a more impressive resume, but then we aren't talking the issues but talking people. I say we talk general trends and look for a major federal tax cut that has helped the general economy. I see there isn't one.

Certainly, but when being general, it's a great standard. Also, since the rich pay most of taxes, it's a great reference by which to measure what they pay. Some of the sites I posted listed the thresholds. The top Marginal Brkt is a good reference for discussing general tax trends and their results. OK, so make an argument discussing how tax cuts, the Alt Min Tax are good for the economy, or whatever your argument is.

The most active economy and most / longest growth is selling out the US? You must love GWB and Reagan if you think CLinton sold out the US. Terrorism isn't beatable, selling us out to the tune of 800B and mounting and leaving the mess for your successor is selling us out. Not getting involved in every protracted proxy war isn't selling us out.

Fixed that for you. There's Mike, to add his usual absolutley nothing. Hey Mike, if you feel like it, show us how in history tax cuts have been good for us and I'm not saying in an anarchist way.

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence is deafening.

Dude. I don't know whether to laugh at that or tell you to give it a fucking rest. I gues I'll just laugh. Later. Skies. Ah, just go for #3: Go back to beating up little girls and hammering Libertarian BS, then vote Republican and tout family values. You know, all that conservative hypocritical stuff as usual.

There's a lot more than 7 doing that, buddy. Those are just the ones that bother with any sense of due process. 7 known. None the less, we were as depraved as the Republican of Congo, I wouldn't be waving the flag too high and hard, a short time ago we were depraved. BTW, are you actually equating convicted murderers with soccer players who accidentally score own goals? Put that together for me.

Politicians are ALL fair game, not their kids. It seems that your family values party thinks the kids are fair game, in contrast with your very platforms. No abortion, no children's HC, and make the kids feel small; what a great party. Good that you retracted, not that I care, but for your sake. Cheers back.

Nothing. I just think she's unattractive and her wedding wasn't news-worthy. It has about as much to do with anything as defending Bill Clinton's crimes with that of others. Not to you, it was news-worthy to much of the free world and certainly the US. You've shown us your character by going after a non-political figure, the daughter of a president you hate. Hey, Obama's kids are < 18, they s/b easy targets, how about some good racial jokes about them. If you had class you would retract your statements, not that I care one way or the other.

There's a lot more than 7 doing that, buddy. Those are just the ones that bother with any sense of due process. 7 known. None the less, we were as depraved as the Republican of Congo, I wouldn't be waving the flag too high and hard, a short time ago we were depraved.

Or the rest of the Euro nations and their soccer team (quite a few Euro players make more than the entire US team does). Or the Argentines and their team. Or the Brazilians and their team. Can't think of the last time an American player got killed after making a mistake in a game. Royalty is also held pretty damn high in many countries. You don't want to be heard disrespecting the king of Thailand (3-15 years in jail), for example. Of course we execute more than most and executed people for crimes committed as juveniles just what, 6-8 years ago. And there were 7 countries at the time doing so, so let's not act as tho we are lenient.

How is it so far off topic? It's a thread started about how ugly a poster thinks Chelsea is, drifted to how sleezy Bill Clinton is, then went to how the same people excuse their own for the same while crucifying the Dems. It started as a political thread and stayed there, I don't see a huge drift. BTW, the marriage of one of the most controversial presidents in all time IS a political thread; just don't see the drift.

They aren't similar, with Clinton's trial the evidentiary rules were FAR looser, the standard of proof far lower. That's true, Clinton's trial had mostly Republicans as jurors. And you say the average Joe Schmuck is higher as a juror than a Senator. Ever watch a trial, been on a jury? They're idiots that don't understand teh legal process most of the time. The term, "Jury Nullification" makes referene to that. So explain the several R's who voted not guilty. Maybe it was a joke and to establish these political witchhunts in Washington seems like not such a good idea, so some R's voted the witchhunt out vs voting Clinton not guilty. Sure, diff juries, but tighter rules for the criminal process. Look, all I'm saying is that if you are just out of your mind pissed about the Clinton acquittal and shrug off the Libby commutation then you are nothing but a partisan drone. Outting a fed agent is 1,000,000 times more agregious than fucking around and lying about it. And does it make it ok for Mr Contract with America, family values Newt to SIMULTANEOUSLY promote and preside over the Clinton impeachment while fucking around with a young girl himself? Let's not condemn out of 1 side of our mouth while we condone out of the other.

Some (so-called) men pick on other men, some pick on the kids, daughtersin this case, of these men. He was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. Nor would you or I have the privs of Scooter Libby or many of the others, yetyou don't have a beef with that. Again, for you to ignore, Clinton lied about sexually-based events, Libby lied to protect Rove, maybe Cheney and others for outting a fed agent, was CRIMINALLY convicted and then had his 30 months (as I recall) jail term commuted. The mere fact that you think what Clinton did is even anywhere close to what Libby did fully reveals your agenda. OH, I'm sorry, you're a Libertarian; 5 degrees off a Republican; I see. Just as Ron Paul switches his party nametag, so do the Repub/Libertarian electorate; if you want to keep the denial I won't object. Funny how the R's get all these votes, 59M for McSame and yet we cannot find a person who voted for him. Yea, we all get it. You dream Libertarian but know it's a thrown vote so you vote R and clammer L. It shows you want to berate an 18 YO (when McTurd did it) child in teh name of Clinton lying, yet I don't see you berate the kids of the many, many other politicians that do the same or worse. Just partissn BS taken out on kids, like a real man would do. See, I called this before i even read it. Jesus fucking Christ, all you pseudo Libertarians from Paul on down; you must have a reversable party tag. You don't want to stop the pseudo moral movement from teh nutty Christian right, you want to avoid the fiscal movements. This is why I say R's and L's are the same person; same ideology. 1) Freedom of speech is a duty from the gov to a citizen; I'm not the gov 2) I don't object to you painting yourself into a corner nor have I ever objected to you posting anything. 3) Governmental FOS is so overblown, they can't control the what but they can the where/when, so it is useless to be able to say what you want in the privacy of your bathroom. FOS is an idiot's amendment, other than the gov not endorsing any one religion. Hell, religions are tax free, so they kinda endorse them all. Actually I'd like you to excercise your speech/writing and expain how Clinton bugs you for lying about sexual stuff, then how Libby lying and obstructing about outting a fed agent and how the former is just horrible, the latter not worth discussing. You're a typical partisan, quit acting as if you aren't. Silly think is you're confused as if you are a typical partisan R or L.

Aside from that, beating up the kids of people you hate is just, in a generic sense, pretty screwed up, regardless of where the truth falls. Even today the pictures of her make her look attractive. Many kids look awkward and most grow out of it. I was an awkward kid, grew out of it and now I'm an ugly old man now . Kinda went full-circle. Really, leave the kids alone you wornderful family values guys.

Some things are obvious. That you are typical conservative and think it's ok to pick on (then) innocent 18YO girls who are celebrities by choice, aren't political figures. You aren't sickened by the good garbage McCain picling on an 18YO daughter of his opponent. And face it, you voted for the garbage. BTW, the, "..." infers you cut into a sentence; you don't post that for an entire sentence. You brought in the 3 stooges when you did this: I do care that Bill went unpunished for perjury before a grand jury and using the power of his office to obstruct justice because the Senate at the time, didn't have the stones to continue. Then you apologized, "Sorry for the tread drift... " And now you want to forget you brought us here. If you're offended that Clinton was acquitted in his political trial for PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION for LYING to CONGRESS, then it would be hypocritical for you to not also be offended when Scooter Libby, apparently an obscure figure, for PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION for LYING to CONGRESS. So continue acting confused; we like you that way. No, he lied but the origin of what he was being questioned for was such a joke, a man fucking around on his wife, that I think even some hateful R's thought it too much of a joke to further it. Now, for our 3rd assclown you can act as tho you don't understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich Newt was Spweaker of the House when Clinton was pres, Speaker from Jan 95 to Jan 99. He was teh assclown pushing for Clinton's impeachment and was able to get 2 articles of 4 as speaker. - 84 charges of ethics violations for tax evasion, he was fined $300k for teh first time a speaker was disciplined. 83 dropped by his bro's and ho's in the House. - Gingrich began an affair with Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior, in the mid nineties, which continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal. So the guy who was pursuing Clinton for lying about an affair was at the same time have an affair with a girl 23 years his junior; is it starting to sink in yet? No,but when you are abhorred by Clinton for the same things that your guys do wholesale, it becomes so blatantly hypocritical that it diminishes your argument from, Clinton lied to I hate Democrats. We get it; keep the ruse going - we won't notice it. EDITED TO ADD: Newt's predecessor, Republican Dennis Hastert and his successor, Republican Tom Foley were wrapped up in so many scandals, but I guess you aren't interested in that, are you? You're interested in burying Clinton under the guise of hating liars and cheats, yet ignore those in your same party. This reduces your rant to nothng but partisan BS, man up and admit it. BTW, you're welcome for the education on Scooter Libby, not that it's all that obscure knowledge. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Hastert

Oh I'm sorry, some people here actually have a political understanding, current events, etc. I assumed you did; my bad. Scooter Libby was Chief of Staff for Cheney and his good friend. Long story but Libby lied under oath as to his knowledge of the outting of federal agent Valerie Plame, as her hubby was writing shit about your 1/2 retarded hero, GWB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby He was convicted of 4 counts including perjury and obstruction, same as Clinton was acquitted for in his POLITICAL TRIAL. But as a good neo-con you want to cover your guys and demonize the others. Esp ironic considering the charges were teh same, standard of proof far higher for your guy, yet you have no issue with GWB commuting him and Cheney pissed as hell GWB didn't pardon him. This is mainstream stuff, you should get a basic understanding of political evenst before taking on a political debate. But when it's direct and the guy was covering your ass, the massive conflict elemenst stand out taht much more. Sure, you guys hammering about family values yet your pres nominee < 2 years ago made teh joke I referenced about Chelsea being ugly and I see you follow suit, then will follow that by demonizing gays and others who don't love falimies. Hopefully you won't take a wide stance on all issues. Ooops, there's another political reference that will buzz right over head. And then you deviated, you said so yourself. Sure, because they've cost you and your familiy values party a lot of sweat.

The House and Senate were Republican-held. 2 of the 4 charges garnered a Bill of Impeachment, s obviously failed. The Senate got 45 votes on 1 and 50 on the other, so this wasn't a party-line deal, some R's voted to acquit. They didn't even have a simple majority. So you're mad at Republican Senators I see, since they weren't even solid. Maybe that should tell you something. Tell me how you feel about Libby's commutation after a FEW CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, not political acquittals. I see, you don't wanna talk about that even tho they were a much higher standard being criminal and they were convictions. Tell me how you feel about sleeezy Reagan pardoning sleezy Steinbrenner for his FELONY TAX EVASION CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, or won't we be addressing that? Your hate is simplistic partisan drivel. Right after we talk about your party's pseudo family values.