Liberal Tricks!

[JoshK]

LOLOLOLOL...

 

Conservapedia: liberal tricks

 

 

 

 

[Off_White]

Hey, no fair, I don't have a liberal playbook, where do I get mine?

[prole]

LOLOLOLOL...

 

 

Grandpa?

[wayne]

I dont think they ever stopped beating their wives.

[pink]

that's pretty outrageous, just like liberalpedia. both sides are loonie toons.

[olyclimber]

seems pretty reasonable to me. when did you stop beating your wife, anyway?

[pink]

well, i stopped while i was making that post. i submitted the post and then started beating her again with the king james version

[Jim]

This is to good! Don't leave out the millionares!!

 

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) seemed to give Democrats an opening on Sunday when he acknowledged that he could vote for President Obama's plan for extending Bush tax cuts if presented only with that choice. But as soon as the Ohio Republican's remarks could be labeled a capitulation, they were followed by a show of defiance from his counterpoint in the Senate.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) announced on Monday that he has the commitments from everyone in his caucus to oppose a package of tax cut extensions that fail to continue the current rates for the wealthy as well. Truth be told, the Kentucky Republican didn't even need all those commitments. Earlier in the day, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) joined other moderate Senate Democrats in announcing his opposition to any form of tax increases, giving Republicans more than enough votes to sustain a filibuster

[prole]

Joe Lieberman = Maverick

[rob]

I'M A MAVERICK!

 

[JayB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267

[Jim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267

 

And this has to do with millionare tax breaks how?

[billcoe]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2125218720080221

 

Show me the money Jerry!

 

Anyone else ever once made the mistake of wearing a Fidel for President shirt in front of your neighbors Cuban Exile parents?

[prole]

 

Be sure to let us know when the Americans get it figured out!

 

Grim Expectations for Report on Poverty in United States

 

The number of people in the United States who are living in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

 

Census figures for 2009 - the recession-ravaged first year of Obama's presidency - are to be released this week, and demographers expect grim findings.

 

The expected poverty-rate increase - from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent - would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power. Midterm congressional elections are only weeks away.

 

Interviews with six demographers who track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures will probably show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

 

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than one in seven, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980, when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.

 

Among the working population ages 18 to 64, demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

 

Demographers also are confident the report will show:

 

l Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.

 

l Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.

 

l Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles; and Las Vegas.

 

Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint - social constraints prevent the poor from working - will gain steam over the conservative position that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.

 

To Douglas Besharov, a University of Maryland public-policy professor, the big question is whether there's anything more to do to help impoverished families.

 

Last year's forecasts are largely based on historical data and the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.1 percent in October to post a record one-year gain.

 

The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent.

 

A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the past decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent. That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson's war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the range of 12 to 14 percent.

 

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show an even higher number of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account the rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both senior citizens and working-age people in poverty.

[prole]

Meanwhile, the most liberalized border states of our NAFTA partner, Mexico approach a condition of near complete lawless barbarity. Communist Cuba is a paradise in comparison.

[Nitrox]

Meanwhile, the most liberalized border states of our NAFTA partner, Mexico approach a condition of near complete lawless barbarity. Communist Cuba is a paradise in comparison.

 

Now the Mexicans know what its like to live in Detroit.

 

 

[JayB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267

 

And this has to do with millionare tax breaks how?

 

"All this time we *believed* in Fidel....[sniff]"

 

Must be lots of tears adding a bitter tinge to the organic fair-trade coffee in Che themed mugs this morning.

 

Can't help but wonder if the evil homonym has had to add Fidel to the list of regressives scrawled in crayon on his basement drywall...

[olyclimber]

Let it be known that President Obama brought down the walls of communism in Cuba. Next up: Free Tibet!

[j_b]

And this has to do with millionare tax breaks how?

 

more manicheism from JayB, like if there were no alternatives to state capitalism or Laissez Faire. Like all good libertarians he has his head firmly stuck up Hayek's ass.

 

"All this time we *believed* in Fidel....[sniff]"

 

Must be lots of tears adding a bitter tinge to the organic fair-trade coffee in Che themed mugs this morning.

 

as if many on the left supported Castroism. At any rate, it certainly isn't the first casualty of this global economic crisis, which compounded other problems in the case of Cuba.

 

Can't help but wonder if the evil homonym has had to add Fidel to the list of regressives scrawled in crayon on his basement drywall...

 

Not only, I have never been a supporter of Castro but rest assured that if there is an evil one among the 2 of us, it is certainly the one whose politics aren't differentiable from that of the Koch brothers.

[JayB]

Nary a tear in the Che-mug from you. Good to hear.

 

As long as we're on the topic of the Koch brothers, what distinguishes their activities from those of say, George Soros, other than the nature of the causes that they support.

 

Are you opposed to all rich people spending money to promote ideas and causes that they believe in, or only those who promote ideas and causes that you happen to dislike?

[Jim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267

 

And this has to do with millionare tax breaks how?

 

"All this time we *believed* in Fidel....[sniff]"

 

Must be lots of tears adding a bitter tinge to the organic fair-trade coffee in Che themed mugs this morning.

 

Can't help but wonder if the evil homonym has had to add Fidel to the list of regressives scrawled in crayon on his basement drywall...

 

Well that's one way to avoid the subject at hand. I'm glad that you and the GOP are not steering the Titanic in another direction, even after than minor ice cube run-in, and are continuing with the tried and true Trickle Up theory of wealth and protecting those millionaires from an onslaught tax burdens. That will help us beat back the growing economic powerhouse now looming 90 miles from Miami.

[Fairweather]

...says Jim, who marched arm-in-arm with communists on the streets of Seattle only a few short years ago.

[mattp]

Fairweather:

 

Didn't you argue that I was being irresponsible, taking a young nephew to protest the Iraq war on the eve of our invasion? Four or five years later you acknowledged that the invasion was probably based on false pretenses after you saw it on TV, and now are you are complaining about somebody marching with "commies?"

 

Seriously.

[tvashtarkatena]

Nary a tear in the Che-mug from you. Good to hear.

 

As long as we're on the topic of the Koch brothers, what distinguishes their activities from those of say, George Soros, other than the nature of the causes that they support.

 

Are you opposed to all rich people spending money to promote ideas and causes that they believe in, or only those who promote ideas and causes that you happen to dislike?

 

Soros gives money to promote what he believes is in the public good. The Kochs give money exclusively to directly serve their corporate interests, often (as in the case of their anti environmental regulation efforts) at the public's expense. For some, there's a clear and obvious distinction. For others, not so much.

[rob]

are you guys up to your usual tricks again?