guess You have no real answer, Mr. sarcasm (aka bullshitter).

There is one way to somewhat validate this theory.

Historically speaking, it is the liberal states that support the conservative states.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/...ca5b05d221.jpg

The fact is, the most successful states are either liberal or owe their success to a liberal big city. All of those liberal areas that conservatives dislike are actually the ones that make this country go 'round.

If it were not for this tax welfare system, most conservatives would have a much lower standard of living.

Back to back that was damn funny.

So have fun...

Haha this makes it way too easy. After verbally raping BFT3K in almost every thread, his only response is to make an avatar dedicated to me. Why can't liberals be more objective and..Intelligent? But this disproves any of those retarded study, thanks guys :)

You mean like you or the moronic BFT3K are doing? +1 for irony:)

Not sure what this means, but surely you can see the hypocrisy of praising a post full of name calling and then following that up with the chiding of another for the same offense.

Carry on....

gotta love threadjackers

edit: fuck it,

As a sidenote, I would argue that libertarians also "care about others" - we just have a fundamentally different approach to obtaining that.

However, I'm mostly socially liberal - fiscally, I don't mind a whole lot either way, as long as it's in the interest of the people. For example, I'd be okay with UHC if it was done properly. The current bill(s) are completely in favor of corporations and only seek to fuck over the people.

And I disagree with any "liberal" laws which seek to restrict social freedoms. Banning video games, etc. Same as I disagree with any "conservative" laws to restrict freedoms.

I'd argue that most Dems in the US are only fiscally liberal, yet still socially conservative on a lot of issues(gun control, video games, etc etc).

Answer Matt's post. Tell me why I have to support you inbred conservatives with my tax dollars.

You have a point, thanks to Obama's propensity for outreach and being 'bipartisan'. I think he's starting to realize that you just have to treat conservatives as stubborn children and do the responsible thing whether they like it or not. If there's a public option in the bill that finally gets passed thru reconciliation I'll be much happier about this administration.

Well.. Dennis Kucinich is the only Dem who I think is truly socially liberal and fiscally liberal.. perhaps a couple of others. The rest just preach it.. sometimes.

I'm not sure I'd be okay with that, because it'll drive up private costs and fuck over a lot of people short-term(from my understanding anyway).

I think that if they're going to do it, they should simply do it.. much like Sweden or France.

A big problem with the US and congress is their tendency to half ass things and spend most of their time worrying about pork. :2 cents:

Wait what? ROFL!!!!!

I can't tell what the Dems really believe because they're too stupid to know themselves. They have no real identity, nor do they have any clue what the American public wants. They're definitely out of touch with reality. With the Republican party, I wish they would offer some logical solutions, rather than play the anti government, anti Obama card. I mean it works from a political standpoint, but it doesn't do shit for us.

You don't see the difference, i don't care how one calls the other, it's how You express Yourself.

my problem is a person calls others with names due to they asked something to be freed.

AJC calls a group as pothead due to they ask ganja to be legalized, so what should pornographers be called?

Most of us bitching here how some conservative mofos have a beef with us, so what's the difference?

how it's any different then asking porn must be an untouchable right to ask wead being legalized?

if You think deeper, You will see the real hypocrisy.

Freedom is freedom and we should all stand beside it :2 cents:

hehehehe :1orglaugh

LOL, the liberal states are the ones having problems now, not the conservative states, I like how you found a graph from 05

from Your words i assume that Your views for Liberals are based on US Political understanding.

Otherwise You would never put together social restrictions and Liberals beside each other.

thats why we call Liberal/Progressive as opposite to conservatism :2 cents:

A rising tide lifts all boats, and a strong middle class which buys goods and services contributes to a strong, stable economy. We also believe in a social safety net, to help people who can't help themselves (children, mentally ill etc). We believe quality health care is a basic necessity, like food, which shouldn't be restricted to those who can afford it. We believe drug addiction is an illness, not a crime. We believe that access to guns should be restricted to those who need guns. We believe that military spending should be cut to a reasonable level. We believe in free speech, no matter how unpopular, we believe that religion is a personal matter that should have no influence on public policy. We believe corporations are NOT people, and shouldn't be treated that way, and they shouldn't allowed to raid the public coffers with corporate welfare.

We believe in education.
We believe in the dignity of the individual over the power of the state.
We believe in privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
We prefer rationalism over faith, and genuine solutions over bible pounding and flag waving pandering to morons.

Anything else you want to know?

Get off your high horse.

Ad hominem attacks are what they are... it does not matter what you are asking for.

No. Conservatives are dangerous, anti-american hystericals and the teabaggers are verging on cultists. You people need to be addressed and marginalized, the way we USED to marginalize neo-nazis, racists, luddites and xenophobic extremists before the Republicans decided to consolidate them into a voting bloc and exploit them. Turns out you idiots aren't as controllable as they thought, and now you're running this country straight into the shithole.

check the score card, Liberals are running the show now, right down the crapper

Not exactly, since Repubs filibuster every single piece of legislation. Because governing the country responsibly always takes a back seat to 'winning' for these creeps.

the Dems have had control of the house and the senate for over 3 years now, over a year with a dem president, they just can't get anything done. They were filbuster proof for how long? You can't blame that on the GOP

I don't want to get in the middle of your political squabble with the liberals, but I'm curious what the atheists are discarding?

Are these serious studies? Peer reviewed? Have any links?

This liberal rant are hilarious. Liberals are incompetent, biased individuals who can't argue logically, so they argue emotionally. They're again becoming the minority in this country and their shit stain ideologies are the butt of most jokes.

Can you say that in english?

You can read, right?

Have a link?

A link to what exactly? The fact that liberals are taking this study seriously, whereas ignoring others like ones I've posted, should prove my point. Not sure what kind of "fishing" expedition you're on.

I just wanted to see what studies you were referring to when you said that atheists were discarding them.

You do know that not all liberals are atheists and that not all atheists are liberals, right?

Wow, not like that was an emotional rant. Welcome to our side.

:1orglaugh

So, no lions?

The problem is this self-imposed rule of 60.

Did they decide that?



Pelosi says she is confident she will be able to get the votes needed to pass sweeping health care legislation in the House, even if it threatens the political careers of some members of her party. So imho , she's telling everyone that she doesn't care if the people don't want it, they are getting it anyways.
I'm sorry, but if you approve of that action? The government is suppose to represent the people as a majority, left or right, I don't care
If Pelosi is the leader of the liberals, and the people that are in this thread praising the liberals, then you have given up on democracy

Yeah, like the majority of the people approving two Bush tax cuts, benefiting ONLY the wealthiest Americans, to the tune of close to a trillion dollars? (sarcasm)

Both forced upon the American people, against their better interests, by the Republican party in power, by RECONCILIATION!

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

Coincidentally the Obama healthcare plan costs less than Bush's tax cuts, over 10 years, but I guess when the money is used to help the lower and middle classes it's scary socialism, and government is too big....

Yes he cut taxes, but i love how people say they cut it for the rich, the poor in this country don't pay taxes.

Oh, I didn't realize we were just making shit up, and saying whatever the hell we wanted, regardless of facts.

In that case - did I ever tell you guys that I invented the automobile last week?

Yeah, and I heat my house with mustard!

This is fun!

It's true that if it were done 100 yrs ago, the study would show the exact opposite. Thats why sometimes I just call them the "preservative" party. I honestly think it is more accurate than "conservative" by a long shot.

:helpme:helpme:helpme

Oh, and I tought that you ALWAYS backed up everything you say/write ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

We're not too far from some homegrown Taliban in this country. Not far at all.

http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/l...oke_rap/42253/

I actually did: ) Way to prove to everybody that you're not only illiterate, but you don't bother to read threads either. Game over.

Especially when he had absolutely zero comprehension of what he read. Back to English class, lol. :1orglaugh

In 2005, a family of four was considered to be at the poverty level if they earned less than $19,350 . If you complete a 2005 1040 considering an income of $19,350 and four family members, you will find that the standard deduction for the couple is $10,000, and an additional $3200 deduction is given for each of the four family members for an additional $12,800. So, in all, the family earning $19,350 has $22,800 in income deductions which means they pay no federal tax. In fact, a family of four will not pay a single dollar in federal tax until the family earns at least $22,800. Since these people pay no taxes whatsoever, a tax cut will obviously not be of any direct benefit to them since they aren't paying taxes to start with. This doesn't make the tax cut a bad idea, but it stands to reason that it won't directly benefit anyone that isn't paying taxes any more than a price reduction in milk won't help anyone that isn't buying milk.


If the "rich" are paying 96.7% of the income taxes and the poor are only paying 3.3%, then it's simply common sense that most of any income tax cut will benefit those that are paying it. You can't reduce taxes on someone who isn't paying any.

More about taxes here http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/t...east/index.htm

owned...

Please define what YOU consider to be "rich" and then calculate all taxes, as opposed to simply reducing the math to Federal Income tax.

I know numerous freelancers who have gotten themselves in a boatload of IRS troubles, earning just between $12k and $24k p/year. In the end, they wind up owing close to 25% of that in taxes. By not paying close to 25% of their income in a quarterly manner, they wound up owing $4k to $8K at the end of those years, plus interest and penalties.

Are these the people who do not pay any taxes that you speak of?

I'm pretty certain every person on this board who gets a paycheck of any sort, will dispute your "only the rich pay taxes" assertion.

Gawd, please read what was written before commenting
It clearly states poverty level as what the government thinks it is

ANd I never stated only the rich pay taxes , I stated the poor don't
I know single moms that have a couple kids that pay no federal taxes during the year
then get a big tax return

And for those that think that the GOP is all about the rich, you might want to ask a poor family about earned income credit

The year was 1975, the president was Gerald Ford, and the Congress was Democratic. Public Law 94-12 (H.R. 2166), better known as the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, was signed into law on March 29, 1975. Its $22.8 billion in tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy. A seemingly innocent provision of this Tax Reduction Act was a refundable end-of-year tax credit for low-income taxpayers that provided them with up to $400. The idea was a Republican one from the beginning, for President Nixon had proposed a similar negative income tax scheme.