More Republican Party hilarity...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

I think they come here for the free healthcare, free education, free police protection, ability to sue, and to take advantage of our generosity.

You don't have to deport the illegals, just cut off the free ride and enforce our laws. They'll deport themselves.

Simply right wing noise machine false propaganda. Illegal aliens actually put more into the public systems than they take out because they pay income and social security taxes they will never benefit from.

Most of the illegal aliens are too busy working to try and collect on "free stuff" that would get them deported if they applied for.

[easttexasbadboy32]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Simply right wing noise machine false propaganda. Illegal aliens actually put more into the public systems than they take out because they pay income and social security taxes they will never benefit from.

Most of the illegal aliens are too busy working to try and collect on "free stuff" that would get them deported if they applied for.

It's not right wing noise machine propaganda. That's the basic response to logic from the leftwing fantasyland believers.

Arizona started enforcing a few basic laws and there has been an exodus of the illegals. ...seems proof it works to me.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You may have noticed its Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. And you probably noticed that because the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are very busy trying to re-write Reagan's actual presidency and try to turn him into some great conservative hero.

Well bullshit I suffered through eight years of Ronald Reagan and watched him wreck the country with the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation and am not willing to let those myths go unchallenged.

So here's five myths about Ronald Reagan:

1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

3. Reagan was a hawk.

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

5.Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Tomorrow is the great ones 100th, not today. You can't even get that right.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

It's not right wing noise machine propaganda. That's the basic response to logic from the leftwing fantasyland believers.

Arizona started enforcing a few basic laws and there has been an exodus of the illegals. ...seems proof it works to me.

Bullshit on two counts.

One, Arizona courting a cheap illegal workforce and then rejecting and discriminating against them when the economy gets tight is a historical state tradition.

Second:

http://www.crnlive.com/CRNBlog/?p=914

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Tomorrow is the great ones 100th, not today. You can't even get that right.

Well at least I got the lie of conservatives and conservatism right.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Well at least I got the lie of conservatives and conservatism right.

Only in your mind, must be cluttered in there, all that old liberal spin doctors voodoo, crowding what little intellect there was, into the dark corners.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3777373]

You may have noticed its Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. And you probably noticed that because the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are very busy trying to re-write Reagan's actual presidency and try to turn him into some great conservative hero.

We are NOT re-writing his history, we are fixing the lies that the left has tried to establish as 'facts' about Reagan.

Well bullshit I suffered through eight years of Ronald Reagan and watched him wreck the country with the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation and am not willing to let those myths go unchallenged.

There's lies your problem, they were not myths, they are the FACTS.

So here's five myths about Ronald Reagan:

1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.



2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

3. Reagan was a hawk.

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

5.Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

All of your MYTHS can be traced back to the liberal mediaand there interpretations of history. The left absolutely disagrees with anything that the conservative republicans hold and endorse.

Obama is now 'learning' and speaking about Reagan, not that Obama legitimately shares Reagan's views, Obama now knows that this nation is ''CENTER RIGHT''

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Well at least I got the lie of conservatives and conservatism right.

You are not even close to the truth.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

We are NOT re-writing his history, we are fixing the lies that the left has tried to establish as 'facts' about Reagan.

There's lies your problem, they were not myths, they are the FACTS.



All of your MYTHS can be traced back to the liberal mediaand there interpretations of history. The left absolutely disagrees with anything that the conservative republicans hold and endorse.

Obama is now 'learning' and speaking about Reagan, not that Obama legitimately shares Reagan's views, Obama now knows that this nation is ''CENTER RIGHT''

This is just the perfect example of right wing noise machine brainwashing Ace. You cannot dispute the facts. So you babble on about some non-existent "liberal media" spreading lies.

Well you see Ace that is a lie that YOU'RE TELLING. Let's see if you can disprove a single fact presented.

1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.



During his presidency, Reagan's popularity had high peaks - after the attempt on his life in 1981, for example - and huge valleys. In 1982, as the national unemployment rate spiked above 10 percent, Reagan's approval rating fell to 35 percent. At the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, nearly one-third of Americans wanted him to resign.



In the early 1990s, shortly after Reagan left office, several polls found even the much-maligned Jimmy Carter to be more popular. Only since Reagan's 1994 disclosure that he had Alzheimer's disease - along with lobbying efforts by conservatives, such as Grover Norquist's Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, which pushed to rename Washington's National Airport for the president - has his popularity steadily climbed.

Where are the lies in this statement, Ace. Point them out to me will you? Are Reagan's approval ratings a lie? Did they just make up the numbers? Where's the lies Ace?

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

How about here Ace? Are you saying Reagan did not raise taxes 6 out of the 8 years he was in office? Are they lying when they say Reagan approved the largest corporate tax increase in American History?


Show me those facts, Ace. If these are liberal lies where's the truth?

3. Reagan was a hawk.

Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.



With the exception of the 1986 bombing of Libya, Reagan also disappointed hawkish aides with his unwillingness to retaliate militarily for terrorism in the Middle East. According to biographer Lou Cannon, the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations "terrorism itself."
In 1987, Reagan aide Paul Bremer, later George W. Bush's point man in Baghdad, even argued that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts. "A major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are - criminals - and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law, against them," Bremer said. In 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which stated that torture could be used under "no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever."

What lies are being told here, Ace? Are you saying President Reagan went after terrorists other than the Libyan fly by bombing that accidentally killed Muammar Qadhafi's daughter? Show me those Ace.


Also are they lying when they say Regan administration was recommending the same way of dealing with terrorists back in 1988 that President Obama wants to use now? If those are lies Ace you should have now problem proving them to be just that.


4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.



Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.



The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan, in large part because of his buildup at the Pentagon. (It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.) Reagan also abandoned a campaign pledge to get rid of two Cabinet agencies - Energy and Education - and added a new one, Veterans Affairs.

Now Ace those look like pretty straight forward facts, which incidentally I actually recall happening. But if you can disprove those facts lets see them.


Remember you said these were liberal lies. So where are the lies and where is the proof?

5.Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.

Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.



In 1981, Reagan unintentionally did more than any other president to prevent the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling from being overturned when he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. O'Connor mostly upheld abortion rights during her 25 years as a justice.



No wonder that home-schooling advocate Michael Ferris was one of many right-wing activists complaining about Reagan by the end of his presidency, writing that his White House "offered us a bunch of political trinkets."

So you're saying Reagan did try to get legislation passed to end abortion? Where's that Ace? And Reagan didn't appoint Sandra Day O'Connor to the supreme court? Is that what you're saying Ace? Because I think that would be a pretty obvious lie.


But here you go Ace. Here are what you're calling liberal lies. Show us the proof Ace or admit you're the one lying here.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3780378]

This is just the perfect example of right wing noise machine brainwashing Ace. You cannot dispute the facts. So you babble on about some non-existent "liberal media" spreading lies.

I wont dispute facts, I will interpret them in the eyes of a conservative republican. Only history and the facts will prove the ''liberal based myths'' are out of context and distortion of the facts. Did Reagan do everything correct, in the eyes of the right,, NOPE, he also had to work with the ''in control'' liberal democrat Tip O'NEIL for compromises to push along Reagan's agenda. I suspect if it weren't for the liberal democrat in power Reagan could of had a much better presidency.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

I wont dispute facts, I will interpret them in the eyes of a conservative republican. Only history and the facts will prove the ''liberal based myths'' are out of context and distortion of the facts. Did Reagan do everything correct, in the eyes of the right,, NOPE, he also had to work with the ''in control'' liberal democrat Tip O'NEIL for compromises to push along Reagan's agenda. I suspect if it weren't for the liberal democrat in power Reagan could of had a much better presidency.

Bullshit on two counts Ace. One, being that the Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 of Regan's 8 years. And second, that meant Reagan could have vetoed any piece of legislation he wanted to and the senate could not over ride his veto.

Its you guys buying the bullshit and spreading the lies Ace trying to re-write the history of conservative failures.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Bullshit on two counts Ace. One, being that the Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 of Regan's 8 years. And second, that meant Reagan could have vetoed any piece of legislation he wanted to and the senate could not over ride his veto.

Its you guys buying the bullshit and spreading the lies Ace trying to re-write the history of conservative failures.

WHO CONTROLLED THE HOUSE YOU FUCK HEAD. Dont tell me that shit, I already told you that he did not do everything correct. I agree with his philosophies, far more than the policies that he passed.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

WHO CONTROLLED THE HOUSE YOU FUCK HEAD. Dont tell me that shit, I already told you that he did not do everything correct. I agree with his philosophies, far more than the policies that he passed.

What does it matter who controlled the house? The senate has more power and Reagan's veto could not be overridden in the senate. No, Ronald Reagan was the one who lied to the nation.

And how can you agree with Reagan's philosophy Ace when it was all one great big lies? What you really mean is you agree with the lies Reagan told. Which were the same lies both Bush's told.

But are you going to be man enough to at least admit what I've posted is not a bunch of liberal lies? I think we've at least proven that beyond reasonable doubt.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3781270]

What does it matter who controlled the house? The senate has more power and Reagan's veto could not be overridden in the senate. No, Ronald Reagan was the one who lied to the nation.

If he did not compromise with the house, give the house what the house wanted at times, he would of killed himself, just like Obama did. ''More flies with honey than vinegar''

And how can you agree with Reagan's philosophy Ace when it was all one great big lies? What you really mean is you agree with the lies Reagan told. Which were the same lies both Bush's told.

They were not lies, ''government is the problem, not the solution''. Now Obama is using his philosophies.

But are you going to be man enough to at least admit what I've posted is not a bunch of liberal lies? I think we've at least proven that beyond reasonable doubt.

You have proven the liberal lies and misrepresentations, of Reagan and his beliefs. Reagan is getting stronger and stronger, and the left is determined to stop that march.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

If he did not compromise with the house, give the house what the house wanted at times, he would of killed himself, just like Obama did. ''More flies with honey than vinegar''

I don't think President Obama has killed himself at all. In fact he's been successful at pushing the agenda he campaigned on through congress.

Just like Reagan was successful in pushing his agenda through. The only difference was Reagan lied all through his campaign.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

They were not lies, ''government is the problem, not the solution''. Now Obama is using his philosophies.

So President Reagan expanded "the problem" and sent it spiraling off to record debt? That makes sense to you Ace?

Not to me it doesn't. That's a fucking lie and I won't be fool enough to pretend otherwise.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You have proven the liberal lies and misrepresentations, of Reagan and his beliefs. Reagan is getting stronger and stronger, and the left is determined to stop that march.

No that's just another lie. The reason Reagan is becoming more popular is because of a very expensive and well coordinated effort to re-write history and make believe.

Ronald Reagan is just more of the false propaganda coming from the right wing noise machine. And public relations and propaganda won't erase the facts Ace.

Ronald Reagan was a complete fraud and failure as a president./

And by the way Ace even if we take the revised history, Reagan is still ranked below JFK and Bill Clinton as far as presidents go and that's with the cheated numbers.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I don't think President Obama has killed himself at all. In fact he's been successful at pushing the agenda he campaigned on through congress.

Just like Reagan was successful in pushing his agenda through. The only difference was Reagan lied all through his campaign.



So President Reagan expanded "the problem" and sent it spiraling off to record debt? That makes sense to you Ace?

Not to me it doesn't. That's a fucking lie and I won't be fool enough to pretend otherwise.



No that's just another lie. The reason Reagan is becoming more popular is because of a very expensive and well coordinated effort to re-write history and make believe.

Ronald Reagan is just more of the false propaganda coming from the right wing noise machine. And public relations and propaganda won't erase the facts Ace.

Ronald Reagan was a complete fraud and failure as a president./

And by the way Ace even if we take the revised history, Reagan is still ranked below JFK and Bill Clinton as far as presidents go and that's with the cheated numbers.

You keep spouting the term ''lies'', but that's all you have, you dont have any facts, that they were lies.

[stumbler]

Looks like the new speaker of the house John Boehner is already being exposed as a glaring hypocrite.

It's estimated the GOP sponsored budget cuts would cost about 1 million jobs. And Boehner says that's alright. Everywhere else except his home district.

And why not? After all, a faltering economy going in to 2012 is a bonus for Republicans. And as I pointed out yesterday, apparently we're not entirely broke since Boehner is protecting 7,000 jobs in his own district with the $3 billion worth of pork going towards an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. A project that the Pentagon says it doesn't want and doesn't need.



But Ohio needs jobs, and in 2012, John Boehner will need votes, so ... so be it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...e-million-jobs

[ThisFNG]

Seriously, you and your blogs.

I suppose that the trades were a Bush conspiracy too elegantly planned and executed by the guy y'all say was an idiot.

Gov't jobs don't do shit for the economy. They have a less than 1:1 transfer rate into the rest of the economy.

Bad economy? Drop taxes, common sense regulation and kill off transfer payments. Heavy industry produces 8-12:1 job created. That's a 10x greater effect than Gov't waste fraud and abuse.

Originally Posted by stumbler

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...e-million-jobs

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ThisFNG

Bad economy? Drop taxes, common sense regulation and kill off transfer payments. Heavy industry produces 8-12:1 job created. That's a 10x greater effect than Gov't waste fraud and abuse.

Bush cut the top tax rate from 39.1 percent to 35.0 percent.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

When George W. Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal article I got this data from that was, "the worst track record on record."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/...ord-on-record/

This is what the economy looked like at the end of 2006. Keep in mind that was after six years of a Republican White House, and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

"Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.[2]"
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ThisFNG

Seriously, you and your blogs.

I suppose that the trades were a Bush conspiracy too elegantly planned and executed by the guy y'all say was an idiot.

Gov't jobs don't do shit for the economy. They have a less than 1:1 transfer rate into the rest of the economy.

Bad economy? Drop taxes, common sense regulation and kill off transfer payments. Heavy industry produces 8-12:1 job created. That's a 10x greater effect than Gov't waste fraud and abuse.

And you and your ignorant fallacies. You attack the source because you can't dispute the facts.

Also only a fool would believe that cutting taxes would work when that's the first thing George Bush did and instead of creating jobs or contributing to the economy we had zero job growth and about $13 TRILLION to bail out the financial industry. President Obama and the Republicans just extended the tax cuts. Where's the jobs?

PS Simple solutions are for simple minds.

[stumbler]

If you listen to the conservative/Republican/Tea Party folks you'll hear them claim that they were elected because President Obama and the Democrats did not listen to the desires of the majority of Americans and cut the spending and budget deficit.

Now, polls showed they were lying when they said it because the overwhelming concern of Americans are jobs not deficit reduction. But a new poll shows just how far off they really are. 77% of Americans want cuts and compromise on deficit. Americans by a two to one margin prefer defense cuts rather than cuts to social security or medicare. And more than 60% of Americans believe states should not have the power to break pension plan agreements.

Bloomberg poll: Public wants compromise, not shutdown (and cut the military, not Medicare)

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And you and your ignorant fallacies. You attack the source because you can't dispute the facts.

Also only a fool would believe that cutting taxes would work when that's the first thing George Bush did and instead of creating jobs or contributing to the economy we had zero job growth and about $13 TRILLION to bail out the financial industry. President Obama and the Republicans just extended the tax cuts. Where's the jobs?

PS Simple solutions are for simple minds.

Twice I have asked you to document the $13 trillion figure, if you can not do that, then you are the liar. Which we already know that you are.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Twice I have asked you to document the $13 trillion figure, if you can not do that, then you are the liar. Which we already know that you are.

Well once again we know who the liar is, don't we tenguy?

Originally Posted by stumbler

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=armOzfkwtCA4

http://realitylenses.blogspot.com/20...-trillion.html



http://motherjones.com/bailout/2009/...bank-bamboozle

http://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p...&postcount=188

What's your next move you old personal pisser you?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Well once again we know who the liar is, don't we tenguy?



http://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p...&postcount=188

What's your next move you old personal pisser you?

That is not a bail out, that is a the Fed loaning money to the banks like they have since the inception of the Fed. What is different is that it is three times what they normally loan to banks. But they are loans, not TARP funds, not rescue funds, not stabilizing funds.

All of the money is secured, it is intended to infuse cash into the hands of the lenders, so they can open up credit once again.

This is the most convoluted claim of a bailout I have ever seen. Shame on you, Mother Jones and the blogger. Bloomberg called it right, they did not call it a bailout.

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by ThisFNG

Seriously, you and your blogs.

I suppose that the trades were a Bush conspiracy too elegantly planned and executed by the guy y'all say was an idiot.

Gov't jobs don't do shit for the economy. They have a less than 1:1 transfer rate into the rest of the economy.

Bad economy? Drop taxes, common sense regulation and kill off transfer payments. Heavy industry produces 8-12:1 job created. That's a 10x greater effect than Gov't waste fraud and abuse.

Much of the industry in the US today is military industry, which is funded by the government, whose jobs (according to you) do nothing for the economy.

Something doesn't add up here, aside from the numbers you pulled out of your ass.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

That is not a bail out, that is a the Fed loaning money to the banks like they have since the inception of the Fed. What is different is that it is three times what they normally loan to banks. But they are loans, not TARP funds, not rescue funds, not stabilizing funds.

All of the money is secured, it is intended to infuse cash into the hands of the lenders, so they can open up credit once again.

This is the most convoluted claim of a bailout I have ever seen. Shame on you, Mother Jones and the blogger. Bloomberg called it right, they did not call it a bailout.

Lying again tenguy you phony fuck. I said it took more than $13 Trillion to bail out wall street the bankers and the insurance companies and it did you lying old personal pissing phony non-fuck.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Lying again tenguy you phony fuck. I said it took more than $13 Trillion to bail out wall street the bankers and the insurance companies and it did you lying old personal pissing phony non-fuck.

The only thing you have right in this whole bullshit claim is that the Fed was involved in opening the credit tap. It has almost nothing to do with Wall Street bankers, even Bloomberg pointed that out. But you and the bloggers are having a heyday spreading bullshit.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

Much of the industry in the US today is military industry, which is funded by the government, whose jobs (according to you) do nothing for the economy.

Something doesn't add up here, aside from the numbers you pulled out of your ass.

Workers in factories producing military goods are not on the government payroll, they a employed by private industry.

Military goods account for less than 6% of our manufacturing output, but they do account for about 10% of our exported manufactured goods.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Workers in factories producing military goods are not on the government payroll, they a employed by private industry.

They are paid with money that comes from the government.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

They are paid with money that comes from the government.

What they are paid to do, is to produce goods for a customer at a private industry. Their customers are buyers for many countries and for many other defense related industries.

To make them appear to be on the public payroll is false.

You could make the same claim for refinery workers who produce fuel for government vehicles or food for the military commissaries.

[stumbler]

WASHINGTON — A Republican-controlled Congressional panel has voted to repeal new Federal Communications Commission rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from interfering with Internet traffic on their broadband networks.


The House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology voted 15-to-8 along party lines Wednesday to overturn the FCC's new "network neutrality" regulations. The FCC's three Democrats voted to adopt the regulations in December over the opposition of the agency's two Republicans.


The rules are intended to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over broadband connections to dictate where their subscribers go and what they do online. They prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling services like Skype and Web video services like Netflix that could compete with their core phone and cable operations.


Wednesday's vote marks the second attempt by House Republicans to reverse the FCC's actions. Last month, they attached an amendment to a sweeping spending bill that would prohibit the agency from using government money to implement its new regulations.


Republicans argue that the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from investing in costly network upgrades by barring them from offering premium services over their lines or prioritizing traffic from business partners in order to earn a return on those investments. They also maintain that the FCC overstepped its authority in adopting the rules.


Verizon Communications Inc. and Metro PCS Communications Inc. are also challenging the rules in federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.


Last year, that same court ruled that the FCC had exceeded its legal authority in rebuking cable giant Comcast Corp. for blocking its subscribers from accessing an Internet file-sharing service used to trade online video and other big files. Comcast maintained that traffic from the service was clogging its network.


The agency said Comcast had violated broad net neutrality principles first established by the commission in 2005. Those principles served as a foundation for the formal rules adopted by the FCC late last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_833892.html


This is not Republican hilarity. This SHOULD be public outrage at once again selling the American people out to giant corporations and trying to gain control of the internet by restricting access.


Just how much access do you think we'll have to XNXX if the bible thumping conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers ever get their way?

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

They are paid with money that comes from the government.

The logical leaps that tenguy goes through to avoid this fact are pretty amazing. If the government wasn't giving them money, the businesses wouldn't exist

I knew he and the rest would try the same old worn out tactic, but it's just fun to watch them flail around.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3883216]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_833892.html

This is not Republican hilarity. This SHOULD be public outrage at once again selling the American people out to giant corporations and trying to gain control of the internet by restricting access.

Look at all those jobs that could of been lost if they would not have repealed this. It was more government control when this bill was initially passed

Just how much access do you think we'll have to XNXX if the bible thumping conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers ever get their way?

There may be more underage restrictions in certain instances, but that's all.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Resident of Maryland;3883938]

The logical leaps that tenguy goes through to avoid this fact are pretty amazing. If the government wasn't giving them money, the businesses wouldn't exist

State Capitalism is not very good for this country,we need more private capitalism.

I knew he and the rest would try the same old worn out tactic, but it's just fun to watch them flail around.

We are not flailing about, you folks can't, wont and never understand, it's not in your genes, or your wiring.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

The logical leaps that tenguy goes through to avoid this fact are pretty amazing. If the government wasn't giving them money, the businesses wouldn't exist

I knew he and the rest would try the same old worn out tactic, but it's just fun to watch them flail around.

Those on the right like military spending and dislike domestic spending. They argue that the Great Depression was not ended by the New Deal, but by the Second World War. The Great Depression was ended by government spending. It did not have to be military spending. It had to be government spending, because the private sector was not generating enough jobs by itself.

Before the Great Depression classical economists, which is to say those in the tradition of Adam Smith, argued that "panics," as they were called, would end naturally without the government doing anything. Manufacturers with unsold inventories would lower the prices of their goods. Unemployed workers would accept lower wages.

John Maynard Keynes pointed out that these tendencies counteracted each other. When manufacturers lowered their prices workers still could not buy the items because they were earning less, or they were still unemployed. He said that anything the government did to put money in the pockets of lower income people would reduce unemployment, because they would spend that money, causing manufacturers to sell their inventories, and hire more people.

Keynes believed that it was better for people to work for the money than be on the dole. When he visited President Roosevelt he said that even if the government paid one group of men to dig holes in the ground, and paid another group to fill the holes up again, that was better for the economy than letting those men remain unemployed.

In effect, military spending is like paying people to dig holes and fill them up. People cannot buy military hardware. Nevertheless, people who make it earn pay checks, that they use to buy consumer goods.

The rich lost ground during the Great Depression. They took a bath during the stock market crash of 1929. Nevertheless, by hiking their taxes the government had money to hire people and reduce unemployment.

Currently the rich, the corporations, and the banks have plenty of money. The benefits of taxing them heavily and spreading the wealth around would be even greater than they were during the 1930s.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Look at all those jobs that could of been lost if they would not have repealed this. It was more government control when this bill was initially passed

Bullshit Ace. Damn now that's just dumb. The fight's been going on ever since I've been on this forum and the whole issue is keeping the internet neutral as far as access goes.

But how in the hell can the mega phone companies and corporations increase their profits and sell more of their products if just anyone can have access to the internet without paying them for it.

Its all about who's going to make the money off the internet and who gets to decide which sites you get pushed to by controlling the access.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

There may be more underage restrictions in certain instances, but that's all.

Oh bull fucking shit Ace. Leading Tea Baggers like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have already attacked pornography. And the fundamentalist Christians on the right have never given up trying to outlaw pornography and never will.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3884056]

Bullshit Ace. Damn now that's just dumb. The fight's been going on ever since I've been on this forum and the whole issue is keeping the internet neutral as far as access goes.

But how in the hell can the mega phone companies and corporations increase their profits and sell more of their products if just anyone can have access to the internet without paying them for it.

Its all about who's going to make the money off the internet and who gets to decide which sites you get pushed to by controlling the access.

You obviously have no idea how the ''FREE MARKET'' works.

Oh bull fucking shit Ace. Leading Tea Baggers like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have already attacked pornography. And the fundamentalist Christians on the right have never given up trying to outlaw pornography and never will.

Any other time they have something to say,, you and the left claim they are idiots,,now you are holding on every syllable that they are uttering,, now which is it,,are they idiots, or do they have some credence to their speeches.?

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You obviously have no idea how the ''FREE MARKET'' works.

Right now the free market is reducing the standard of living for most Americans while the rich get richer.

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Those on the right like military spending and dislike domestic spending. They argue that the Great Depression was not ended by the New Deal, but by the Second World War. The Great Depression was ended by government spending. It did not have to be military spending. It had to be government spending, because the private sector was not generating enough jobs by itself.

Yes, I've also been amused at people who argue that WWII pulled us out of the depression, then argue that government spending didn't do anything.

Even worse, the people who think this won't even be able to connect the dots.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Right now the free market is reducing the standard of living for most Americans while the rich get richer.

The free market is not doing that at all. The truth is that the obscene taxes are doing it. Companies and the population are fleeing the highest taxed states, and moving to where profits and lower tax rates are.

In closing, you have no idea how the free market works either.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

The free market is not doing that at all. The truth is that the obscene taxes are doing it. Companies and the population are fleeing the highest taxed states, and moving to where profits and lower tax rates are.

In closing, you have no idea how the free market works either.

When has raising taxes on the rich raised the unemployment rate?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

When has raising taxes on the rich raised the unemployment rate?

Let's re-read what I stated,shall we?

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's
The free market is not doing that at all. The truth is that the obscene taxes are doing it. Companies and the population are fleeing the highest taxed states, and moving to where profits and lower tax rates are.

In closing, you have no idea how the free market works either.


My position on obscene taxes are not the reference on tax rates, it is taxes in general.

Higher taxes on companies does not allow for expansion of the company, or employing more employees.

Most responsible people have no problem in paying taxes, (except for the 40% that dont pay income taxes that the left loves to protect),,,, they dont like it, but they do it. Those same people and companies find it necessary at certain times, to search for more accessible wealth for the growth of the business or to provide for their families.....


I know I just wasted my time explaining this to you, you are not wired to understand the free markets, but I will say that you do understand socialism,.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Let's re-read what I stated,shall we?



In closing, you have no idea how the free market works either.


My position on obscene taxes are not the reference on tax rates, it is taxes in general.

Higher taxes on companies does not allow for expansion of the company, or employing more employees.

Most responsible people have no problem in paying taxes, (except for the 40% that dont pay income taxes that the left loves to protect),,,, they dont like it, but they do it. Those same people and companies find it necessary at certain times, to search for more accessible wealth for the growth of the business or to provide for their families.....


I know I just wasted my time explaining this to you, you are not wired to understand the free markets, but I will say that you do understand socialism,.

There does not seem to be much in your head but a lot of silly cliches. During the 1950s the top tax rate never dipped below 91 percent. Back then most married men were able to support several children and wives who did not need to work out of the house.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

There does not seem to be much in your head but a lot of silly cliches. During the 1950s the top tax rate never dipped below 91 percent. Back then most married men were able to support several children and wives who did not need to work out of the house.

This IS NOT the 1950's. Ever hear of inflation, 60 years of inflation, a dollar was worth alot more in 1950 then it is worth today, You got more for a dollar in 1950 then you can today. We are paying alot more in taxes to support a severely bloated government, that goes for federal,state and local.

You have a very hard time comprehending that simple concept.

Today is today, yester-year,,, is fucking gone.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You obviously have no idea how the ''FREE MARKET'' works.

Sure I do Ace, it works like this. Thanks to the efforts and introduction of bills in the Senate by Al Gore our government, in cooperation with governments all over the world created the information super highway we've come to call the internet.

And now because there's hundreds of billions of dollars to be made the major phone companies want our government to give them control of the internet for free so they can charge us more and market their products directly to us.

There's your fucking free market, Ace.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Any other time they have something to say,, you and the left claim they are idiots,,now you are holding on every syllable that they are uttering,, now which is it,,are they idiots, or do they have some credence to their speeches.?

They are idiots. But thanks to fools like you those kinds of idiots can get elected and when they do one of the first things they will try to do is outlaw pornography.

And you've got to be a totally blind brainwashed fool not to see that happening right before your very eyes.

What have your Tea Bagger/Republicans done since getting elected? Help job creation (which they campaigned on)? Cut $100 Billion from the budget like they campaigned on? Not just no, but fuck no. They went right back to their moral agenda of trying to outlaw abortion and homosexuality and pornography will not be far behind.

It happens every fucking time.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

This IS NOT the 1950's. Ever hear of inflation, 60 years of inflation, a dollar was worth alot more in 1950 then it is worth today, You got more for a dollar in 1950 then you can today. We are paying alot more in taxes to support a severely bloated government, that goes for federal,state and local.

You have a very hard time comprehending that simple concept.

Today is today, yester-year,,, is fucking gone.

Bullshit Ace. The amount I pay for taxes has gone up very little over the course of my life and actually went down the past two years especially.

What eats my paycheck up is the increases in natural gas prices, the increase in the cost of electricity. The cost of cable TV and the internet.

And the biggest increased costs of all you hard headed jackass health care costs and health care insurance have increased faster than any other cost and threaten to bankrupt me.

My Wife's appendectomy in 1988 was $1,500 and because of malpractice (we never sued for) she had to spend thee days in the hospital because her appendix burst in the emergency room where we waited for four hours because the doctor went back to his private practice and the hospital never sent him the results of the tests as he requested. He came back four hours later and found my wife still laying there. That was lots of complications.

My appendectomy a little over a year ago was $15,000 and I went into the hospital at 6 pm and was out by 9 am the next morning.

Its corporate American and the wealthiest 1% of this nation eating up your pay check Ace not the fucking government.

[stumbler]

........... this morning. Because some of the cuts the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are proposing would severely hamper Tsunami Relief and Preparedness.

WASHINGTON -- Thursday night's massive earthquake in Japan and the resulting tsunami warnings that have alarmed U.S. coasts, seem likely to ignite a debate over a previously little-discussed subsection of the spending bills currently being debated in Congress.



Tucked into the House Republican continuing resolution are provisions cutting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including the National Weather Service, as well as humanitarian and foreign aid.



Presented as part of a larger deficit reduction package, each cut could be pitched as tough-choice, belt-tightening on behalf of the GOP. But advocates for protecting those funds pointed to the crisis in Japan as evidence that without the money disaster preparedness and relief would suffer.



"These are very closely related," National Weather Service Employees Organization President Dan Sobien told the Huffington Post, with respect to the budget cuts and the tsunami. "The National Weather Service has the responsibility of warning about tsunami's also. It is true that there is no plan to not fund the tsunami buoys. Everyone knows you just can't do that. Still if those [House] cuts go through there will be furloughs at both of the tsunami warning centers that protect the whole country and, in fact, the whole world."


The House full-year continuing resolution, which has not passed the Senate, would indeed make steep cuts to several programs and functions that would serve in a response to natural disasters (not just tsunamis) home and abroad. According to Sobien, the bill cuts $126 million from the NWS's budget. Since, however, the cuts are being enacted over a six-month period (the length of the continuing resolution) as opposed to a full year, the effect would be roughly double.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_834479.html


Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water this is the perfect metaphor for it.

[stumbler]

Conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are always criticizing President Obama for using a teleprompter.

Watch what happens to Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer when her teleprompter quits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_834139.html

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

........... this morning. Because some of the cuts the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are proposing would severely hamper Tsunami Relief and Preparedness.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_834479.html


Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water this is the perfect metaphor for it.

Originally Posted by stumbler

Conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are always criticizing President Obama for using a teleprompter.

Watch what happens to Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer when her teleprompter quits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_834139.html

Do you use any other sources for news other than Huffington and al Jeezera?

[stumbler]

Kimiko I think you invented the perpetual motion thread because apparently we'll never run out of Republicans creating hilarity since they can't help create jobs.

Here's one of my favorite sources for that special brand of delusional and misinformed hilarity that only the Tea Party can provide.

Here's Rep. Michelle Bachmann's latest glaring ignorance and down right embarrassing fuck up.

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her first swing through the Granite State with an unfortunate gaffe.



"You're the state where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord," she said Saturday morning at an event organized by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. "And you put a marker in the ground and paid with the blood of your ancestors."



Good, patriotic stuff … only the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” was fired about 70 miles to the south in Concord, Massachusetts.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1GPNjXGbc

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Sure I do Ace, it works like this. Thanks to the efforts and introduction of bills in the Senate by Al Gore our government, in cooperation with governments all over the world created the information super highway we've come to call the internet.

And now because there's hundreds of billions of dollars to be made the major phone companies want our government to give them control of the internet for free so they can charge us more and market their products directly to us.

There's your fucking free market, Ace.



They are idiots. But thanks to fools like you those kinds of idiots can get elected and when they do one of the first things they will try to do is outlaw pornography.

And you've got to be a totally blind brainwashed fool not to see that happening right before your very eyes.

What have your Tea Bagger/Republicans done since getting elected? Help job creation (which they campaigned on)? Cut $100 Billion from the budget like they campaigned on? Not just no, but fuck no. They went right back to their moral agenda of trying to outlaw abortion and homosexuality and pornography will not be far behind.

It happens every fucking time.



Bullshit Ace. The amount I pay for taxes has gone up very little over the course of my life and actually went down the past two years especially.

What eats my paycheck up is the increases in natural gas prices, the increase in the cost of electricity. The cost of cable TV and the internet.

And the biggest increased costs of all you hard headed jackass health care costs and health care insurance have increased faster than any other cost and threaten to bankrupt me.

My Wife's appendectomy in 1988 was $1,500 and because of malpractice (we never sued for) she had to spend thee days in the hospital because her appendix burst in the emergency room where we waited for four hours because the doctor went back to his private practice and the hospital never sent him the results of the tests as he requested. He came back four hours later and found my wife still laying there. That was lots of complications.

My appendectomy a little over a year ago was $15,000 and I went into the hospital at 6 pm and was out by 9 am the next morning.

Its corporate American and the wealthiest 1% of this nation eating up your pay check Ace not the fucking government.

I believe that you have finally convinced me that you are a total fullblown liberal brainwashed propaganda spreading fucking idiot, congratulations.