Fairweather

Is that last part a dodge? I don't believe she has ever suggested 1st amendment violations exist in the slanted media portrayals of she and her family. On topic, let's suppose you lived in a hard-majority Republican city or town. How would you feel if FoxNews ran a story about all of the pro-Democrat signs in your yard and posted your home address for all to see? Would that constitute intimidation? I believe it would.

Fox is biased? I'm appalled.

The topic is biased journalism, yes? The Stranger is clearly trying to intimidate private Seattle citizens who don't toe the line.

AKA, "mob rule".

The resident's address is blurred here, but was not in the recent publication. Is this what you have in mind when you discuss a free press, Matt? The incitement of violence toward "non-believers"? What are you saying here: That pictures of yard signs endorsing republicans are inciting balance? Say what? Read the article, Matt. (Scroll down) Why would they post a private citizen's address?

The resident's address is blurred here, but was not in the recent publication. Is this what you have in mind when you discuss a free press, Matt? The incitement of violence toward "non-believers"?

Do I hear $90,000? $50,000 anyone? Do I hear $38,000! Going once...

Can you back up this assertion? Who are these evil barons holding "most" of this paper? All I see in your statement is froth. BTW: How are mom and dad?

Kind of scary how Obama has used the power of government to try to shut down a private citizen with an opinion. And he's not even in office yet.

"[update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]"

Wow, that's a whole lotta taxes! And all that profit for those evil shareholders? Take a look at your 401k--it's probably one of the only bright spots. Don't know what 2008 looks like for the taxes v profits picture, but feel free to research. Obama wants to impose a 'windfall profits' tax? All he'll be doing is stealing from investors like you and me and forcing still more companies to move offshore.

What you and your homo polish boy do down in Bend is your own business, but I'm not into farm animals or men (although the two of you barely qualify), so you and Gastrickiss will just have to share amongst yourselves--and maybe flip a coin or do rock/paper/scissors to decide who gets to go first and who has to hold the camera. I would recommend you two use protection, but I hear you don't even know how to place it.

In order: It does. It does not address payroll taxes for lower income Americans. Yes. As usual. The Messiah would be most unhappy that you sprayed on the internets during his tri-network call to prayer.

IMO; he ties with Woodrow Wilson, but he takes the cake for worst ex-presidents.

Social Security and Medicare for their own future benefit. Those so-called taxes are not income tax. Maybe the "rebate" these folks receive should be deducted from their payout upon retirement. You can't be serious with that argument, Matt.

umm...sounds like a no-brainer for all the po'folk like me - now why can't all the other rednecks dig on this? Since the bottom 38% of American income earners pay no federal income tax, I would like to know why the bottom 20% are entitled to anything. Isn't that called welfare?

A lecture on the virtues of socialism from a man who claims he is so wealthy he no longer has to work? Now that's irony. I think you are confusing human altruism and charity with government imposition of the same. When you give to your fellow man both you and he are rewarded in the transaction, but when government comes in and inserts itself forcibly as the sole agent of that transaction--and takes a cut--the receiver is left with a feeling of entitlement and the giver is left feeling he just got screwed. Don't get me wrong, I have always supported a progressive tax system--the mountain should get steeper as you approach the top--but making the goal of wealth too unattainable destroys ingenuity and risk-taking. There is a balance that should be watched on the right side of the equation too, and I've never said otherwise, but ultimately I prefer to see wealth "spread around" through employment and public participation in the system. (And a safety net that is nothing more than advertised.)

I don't get it. Are you saying that I support slavery? I doubt you understand the history behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as I do. I'm saying you're a bigot. You saying it doesn't make it so. Using the 'racist' label to shut down discussion is an old and tired tactic used by weak-minded lefty punks such as yourself and a select few of your fellow zombies here. Dislike of Obama's policies--perceived or real--is not racist. Got it? Now if you want to go off on a tangent about the semantics of racist versus bigot go right ahead, but I think it was pretty clear what you were/are trying to say with your veiled historical references. Now go off somewhere and fuck yourself little man.

Sounds like emotion to me. I doubt you can even articulate what that means without DNC talking points from which to recite.

Your thread title sounds a lot like Brave New World to me.

I don't get it. Are you saying that I support slavery? I doubt you understand the history behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as I do.

I would imagine he has some problems with the XIVth. Which section are you referring to?

Since I've never met anyone who did not already know this, or disagrees that a certain degree of eminent domain is necessary, I was assuming he was referring to the case that made big news a couple years ago. BTW; how are your efforts to close the road to Cloudcap going? We're implementing a socialists only policy, so I guess you're shit out of luck. Sounds like a confession to me.

Fuck off you clueless tool.