Gravitymaster

So your defense is BDIF?

Bullshit, she was hired directly by Wasserman-Schultz as a campaign consultant. Your defense of her is pathetic.

Pretty funny listening to Sharpton talk about eating the pie.

No doubt the same would be said by some in the UK, I'm not a racist but I am a realist. Whats the point of stopping and searching old age pensioners for street crime when the victim states that they were robbed by a young black male? Chances are pretty high that the victim of the street crime is also black. That isn't racism thats simply the hard fact of the matter. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just saying that here in the U.S. the lefties would accuse you of supporting racial profiling. There are many left-wingers right here on this website that would attack me as a racist if I said exactly what you just said. look at the comments on the Trayvon Martin thread where they accuse GZ, a hispanic male who has been involved in assisting blacks, as being a racist. They even had to invent a new word for him once it was discovered his mother was hispanic and his father was white.

Something about being "Fair and balanced"doesn't sound familiar? See above post.

She's eithe affiliated closly to the DNC or she isn't. Axelrod claims she isn't on the DNC payroll and tries to portray her as just some woman on TV when in fact she's on the DNC payroll. I'm sure you have no problem with a paid DNC spin meister being paid by CNN and the DNC to spout propoganda on a "News Show", and then the DNC lying about it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-dem-congressman-kennedy-alleges-quid-pro-quo-access-white-house_637051.html Say it isn't so. I guess this is what Obama means when he says the wealthy need to "pay their fair share".

Fox never hides the fact they are biased. CNN etc. try to claim they aren't. Isn't it the hypocracy you like to complain about? Don't piss into the wind.

Think about that for a second. Now explain to me how the Press is not biased.

If you said this in the U.S. you would be branded as a Racist by the lefties.

You do realize the Z was "off duty" and was instead, on a personal errand, don't you? Therefore he was not a Watchman at the time of the shooting. I really laughing at you trying to twist the word vigilante to make it mean what you want it to mean. We all know what a vigilante is and Z doesn't even come close to your definition. Please feel free to continue to entertain.

From here on out it should be called The Bluff-it Plan.

If he really wanted to help the middle class, he and Crazy Joe would resign.

That's perhaps one context of the word. In this case the better definition is "someone who avenges a crime".

This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes. Ultimately, I'd like to see the federal budget divided by the number of citizens and everyone pay the same amount as a base. Then user fees could be charged for specific activities like those who fly and use airports etc. Why should I subsidize Polce protection, military protection etc. for someone just because they make less money? Are they not recieving equal benefit? If the argument is going to be that someone making less can't afford it, then perhaps we shouldn't spend more than the poorest citizen can afford. If I seek greater protection, then I should have to pay for it. Why should I have to pay for stuff I disapprove of? Like a military that costs more than the next 10 nations combined? We could cut the military by 50% and still outspend France, Russia, China and Germany combined. The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined. Not a question of paying for things you disapprove of. That's why we have elected officials empowerered to make those decisions. Don't like what they vote for, then help elect someone who will not vote for them. My point is that when elected officials approve more Police, Military, roads bridges etc. why should I have to pay a higher dollar amount of taxes when I'm not getting any more or less benefit than someone who pays less taxes? Isn't this the same argument used to justify forcing everyone to buy into Obamacare? That deadbeats without insurance are being subsidized by those who have it? Maybe people in lower income brackets would side with you if they had to pay more to support wars etc. since they would be more affected by polticians who support unbridled spending.

This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes. Ultimately, I'd like to see the federal budget divided by the number of citizens and everyone pay the same amount as a base. Then user fees could be charged for specific activities like those who fly and use airports etc. Why should I subsidize Polce protection, military protection etc. for someone just because they make less money? Are they not recieving equal benefit? If the argument is going to be that someone making less can't afford it, then perhaps we shouldn't spend more than the poorest citizen can afford. If I seek greater protection, then I should have to pay for it.

Missed the did you? Nope, just forgot to put one on my post.

I'm sure Romney didn't account for more volume of Federal expenses Obama did either. So why should he pay more?

looks like that site has paired with Alternet. I guess that puts you in some good company.

The IRS accepts voluntary contributions. I wonder how many supporters the Buffet/Obama Rule are going to voluntarily write a check to the IRS?

What does Bush have to do with this discussion? Are you actually defending Obama by claiming that because Bush did something that it's OK for Obama to do it too? I thought you claimed Bush was a lousy President? Bush started a war, does that make it OK for Obama to start wars, too? More BDS? I'm expecting a nationwide epidemic in the next few months, ending in the early part of November. I think maybe he was questioning where all this indignation was ergarding time off during Bush's term. This would be a better example of hypocrisy than Obama's tax return. No, not really - Bush had a complete briefing theater with communications links at Crawford, if I recall correctly. It's cool, Obama just leaves Biden in charge.

Yes, we wouldn't want anybody to be boethered by facts in making up their minds. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Apparently, Obama pays a lower tax rate than his Secretary.

Actually, that was a favoured Bush Era slogan. just because you don't have the same views doesn't mean we can't get along. what I see happening is that when the majority of the people don't like what the left is doing, the left starts things like race and discrimination rants to the degree of a 2 year old get what they want. I'v seen 2 year olds do the same thing. to bad the leberal parents didn't teach their kids better about public tantrums when they were younger. You know, that's actually a pretty good point. Liberal friends of mine are more likely to let their kids get away with screaming and carrying on when out in public than the Conservatives I know.