so let me get this straight

[rob]

actually, what the republicans want is more expensive than what the democrats want. The republicans want the democrats to extend the cuts for everyone. Nobody really wants them to expire, the republicans are just pulling this dick move to force the dems to give them what they want.

 

re: borrowing, that's another discussion. Stop trying to change the subject. I don't care how fucked up the democrats are on other issues, this is about the republicans and their dick in my ass unless they get their way.

[Nitrox]

Do you have a link? What are you referencing Rob? Are you talking about the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 expiring? Or not expiring as the President is suggesting?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015870-503544.html

Haven;t you been paying attention? The bush tax cuts are expiring, and the democrats are prepared to extend them for everyone making below $250,000 (basically 96-98% of Americans, depending on who you ask). The republicans are blocking this, and will allow all tax cuts to expire, including the middle class (who DO pay taxes, Nitrox, you should wipe the shit out of your ears) unless the top 4% of all american's also get tax cuts.

 

In other words, if the extreme rich don't get tax cuts, NOBODY does.

 

And of course the republicans are crying about how these poor fuckers, the top 4% of ALL WAGE EARNERS, are being sooooo mistreated. Give me a break, they'll get a 3-6% tax hike. it's not even really a hike, IT'S WHAT THEY WERE PAYING BEFORE BUSH. And they're gonna fuck us all unless their fat-cat eunuch brothers get some of the pie.

 

Fuck the republicans. Shittiest thing they've done in a while. Stupid as fucking party politics, they just HAVE to oppose whatever the democrats do, right or wrong. The dems are no better, but this thread isn't about them, it's about the pube-flossing inbred shitheads that are holding america hostage because their friend's trough isn't big enough. Fuck shit crap.

 

 

 

Suck it up, Barry's in office and he triple-downed on the stupid of Bush. The Dems shouldn't have been pompous assfuckers over healthcare, makes it hard to suddenly act like they're victims in all of this. Boofuckinghoo, whiner.

 

 

 

 

[rob]

pssh, healthcare? We're not talking about fucking healthcare

 

turn-about is fairplay, is that what you're saying? So, you're admitting the republican party is at least just as bad as the democratic party? Progress!

Edited September 18, 2010 by rob

[Nitrox]

pssh, healthcare? We're not talking about fucking healthcare

 

turn-about is fairplay, is that what you're saying? So, you're admitting the republican party is at least just as bad as the democratic party? Progress!

 

Of course you don't want to bring anything else up, it deflates your bag of wind.

 

As bad? They're peas in a pod. Both sides do the same shit and rubes like you act as though one is right while the other is wrong.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And of course the republicans are crying about how these poor fuckers, the top 4% of ALL WAGE EARNERS, are being sooooo mistreated. Give me a break, they'll get a 3-6% tax hike. it's not even really a hike, IT'S WHAT THEY WERE PAYING BEFORE BUSH.

 

ditto for ALL the tax cuts - not just the top 4%. So, roll them all back - IT'S WHAT WE WERE ALL PAYING BEFORE BUSH

[Mal_Con]

In the dems bill the rich still get a break on the first $250,000 they just do not get a break on the amount above which will be taxed at38% instead of 36% BFD.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In the dems bill the rich still get a break on the first $250,000 they just do not get a break on the amount above which will be taxed at38% instead of 36% BFD.

 

true enough

 

fuck 38%, put it back to bubba-level (39.6%?)

[Fairweather]

In the dems bill the rich still get a break on the first $250,000 they just do not get a break on the amount above which will be taxed at38% instead of 36% BFD.

 

What do/will the bottom 50% of wage-earners pay?

[Hugh Conway]

In the dems bill the rich still get a break on the first $250,000 they just do not get a break on the amount above which will be taxed at38% instead of 36% BFD.

 

What do/will the bottom 50% of wage-earners pay?

 

Go look at your 1040.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In the dems bill the rich still get a break on the first $250,000 they just do not get a break on the amount above which will be taxed at38% instead of 36% BFD.

 

What do/will the bottom 50% of wage-earners pay?

 

Go look at your 1040.

 

fuck the rich. we should draw and quarter them and put their dismembered corpses along all our interstate freeways as a warning against being too successful

[rob]

this isn't a punishment. Why are you guys so sensitive about that? We save almost a TRILLION dollars over 10years if we exclude them from the tax cuts. Are you saying they can't take one for the team? Jesus christ, they hit the capitalism jackpot, you think we should all suffer unless they get a 4% tax cut? Times are tough, and a tax cut for the middle class is probably more needed than a tax cut for the top 2%.

 

It's not about them "being punished." Jesus christ. It's about trying to at least give SOME people tax relief.

Edited September 18, 2010 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

this isn't a punishment. Why are you guys so sensitive about that? We save almost a TRILLION dollars over 10years if we exclude them from the tax cuts. Are you saying they can't take one for the team? Jesus christ, they hit the capitalism jackpot, you think we should all suffer unless they get a 4% tax cut? Times are tough, and a tax cut for the middle class is probably more needed than a tax cut for the top 2%.

 

It's not about them "being punished." Jesus christ. It's about trying to at least give SOME people tax relief.

 

there's no such thing as a free lunch mother fucker! you don't need relief!

 

tax the rich at 80% and the middle class at 40%. cough up bitches!

 

 

[prole]

there's no such thing as a free lunch mother fucker! you don't need relief!

 

tax the rich at 80% and the middle class at 40%. cough up bitches!

 

 

Now yer talkin'.

[rob]

there's no such thing as a free lunch mother fucker! you don't need relief!

 

tax the rich at 80% and the middle class at 40%. cough up bitches!

 

 

Giddy-up, Let's do it.

[Nitrox]

this isn't a punishment. Why are you guys so sensitive about that? We save almost a TRILLION dollars over 10years if we exclude them from the tax cuts. Are you saying they can't take one for the team? Jesus christ, they hit the capitalism jackpot, you think we should all suffer unless they get a 4% tax cut? Times are tough, and a tax cut for the middle class is probably more needed than a tax cut for the top 2%.

 

It's not about them "being punished." Jesus christ. It's about trying to at least give SOME people tax relief.

 

How about we cut spending and give everyone some tax relief?

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

How about we cut spending and give everyone some tax relief?

 

 

then you fuck over the bottom 50%. screw that- all the "free" shit is expensive. from each according to his ability - to each according to his need!

 

[Hugh Conway]

from each according to his ability - to each according to his need!

 

good thing you've no ability or need

[Mal_Con]

[video:youtube]

[billcoe]

Mal con, that is absolutely hilarious! It moves a tad fast for reading the translation and watching at the same time, but worth seeing 2 times.

 

The kid getting caught choking the chicken is particularly humorous and innovative for a cartoon "news" article.

[prole]

 

FREEDUMB NOW!

 

Montana GOP: Ban Homosexuality

 

The official party platform declares an intent to make being gay illegal

 

By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press

 

At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.

 

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

 

The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members.

 

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

 

Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook.

 

But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the "Crime" section of the GOP platform. It states: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

 

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana.

 

Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said.

 

* Continue reading

 

"There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court," Greenwood said.

 

Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position.

 

"To me, that statement legally is hollow," said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. "The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass."

 

Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent.

 

"It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party," Abbott said. "It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is."

 

Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.

 

"I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it," he said. "Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?" --from here.

[tvashtarkatena]

Policy wording has got to be tricky, what, with the sheep exception and all. Otherwise, the GOP would have zero members.

 

The anti trundling law, though. Very forward thinking.

[tvashtarkatena]

Blowjobs are legal as long as no teeth are involved...an easy one for that state's population.

[Fairweather]

Blowjobs are legal as long as no teeth are involved...an easy one for that state's population.

 

...whose residents have two Democrat Senators in DC, I might add.

[tvashtarkatena]

Sheep are apolitical.

[JoshK]

Blowjobs are legal as long as no teeth are involved...an easy one for that state's population.

 

...whose residents have two Democrat Senators in DC, I might add.

 

Which should serve as a pretty good indication of just how sorry the turds the GOP of Montana dragged up for candidates were, wouldn't you say?