Slashdot Mirror

Here are two rebuttals from 2009!

Seriously, this plan is akin to "Let's set off Yellowstone, that will cool the earth - Patent Pending Intellectual Ventures".

Why not?

Why so?

What are you afraid of?

What are you afraid of?

Do you think their words will somehow trigger your latent, inner-Klansman?

Do you think their words somehow merit public resources devoted to them?

Let them speak, it gives us all some comic-relief and a chance to laugh them back into irrelevance.

Ah, but you won't let us mock them either.

There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people.

According to who? The FBI wasn't allowed to produce a report on them.

They have no power.

That explains the people they've killed over the years.

They're silly little goose-stepping idiots.

Silly little goose-stepping idiots killed millions once upon a time.

They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.

Tell that to their victims. Or more precisely, go to the graves and memorials.

You actually empower them with media attention they'd never get anyways. Makes me wonder if maybe you're actually a recruiter.

You believe the stupidest things, BlueStrat, you claim they're empowered by media attention after claiming they should be exposed for their buffoonery. Makes me wonder if you have suffered severe brain damage.

This IS regular police work.

Yes, the police regularly seek overbroad and general warrants, in order to conduct fishing expeditions and draw a large net.

This is not news.

This is NOT a politically motivated investigation at all, but a criminal inquiry into actual crimes.

Yet we don't believe that. I wonder why.

We already have people charged in these cases and the DOJ is doing it's job like it should.

Are they now? We've already documented that the DOJ doesn't always do its job like it should. Has there been an investigation to certify that the DOJ is not misbehaving? Have the numerous complaints made about the handling of the protests been examined?

Your implication that this is a politically motivated investigation is not really valid given the evidence we have. This is not an issue of free speech, but an investigation into obvious crimes.

The crimes aren't obvious, but instead exaggerated hysteria meant to incite panic and outrage while ignoring reality. I've seen worse damage after a sports team loses.

Of course you might think that destruction of property, inciting riots, assault and conspiracy to commit these things should be allowed under the 1st Amendment, but you'd be totally wrong.

Perhaps not. The 1st amendment is rather limited in scope. They are, however, allowed, even required, under the principles of this country. Said rights, of course, being expressed in a variety of forms, and explicitly so in several state constitutions. And given that the US Constitution contains the 10th Amendment, it can hardly be said to be exhaustive in listing the rights of the people.

Given that this sentiment is long-standing, one can hardly expect it to be excluded. But I suspect that you, would instead mindlessly prefer to declare an allegiance to the law, over the rightful. That is sad.

I understand your confusion though, given the last administration's failure to deal with these kinds of crimes for obvious political reasons.

Yes, they were impeded from stopping the Bundy Ranch rioters, and the Malfeur occupiers, because it would have looked bad politically. On the other hand, they were also smart enough to recognize that.

Trump's a dumbass though, and will likely pull a Chicago Seven prosecution.

Apparently he's never cracked a history book to learn the value of conciliation.

He had a chance, he's had numerous chances. He keeps blowing them. Trumpcare. Muslim Ban. The recent events in Virginia.

Are his advisers incompetent, or does he just not listen? Perhaps both.

Yes, it's not like Obama ever used the legal system and other Federal agencies, departments, etc in even more blatantly unconstitutional and illegal ways to attack his & the Progressive's perceived political/ideological enemies...oh, wait...

If he did, why didn't the Republican Congress ever manage to impeach him over it? Why didn't they even investigate any of these alleged (though unidentified) actions? All we got was phony complaints about a report on right-wing extremism, a failed investigation into the IRS that found nothing and the rampant Birtherism. Oh, and a pointless lawsuit over the exchanges.

I suppose you could complain about being naive, but that's small potatoes compared to real problems in the prior administration.

You dumbasses were cheering Obama & the Feds on while he and they abused government & presidential powers to attack conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who criticized the administration or DNC and never gave a thought to how a Republican POTUS and administration might use those same expanded powers, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly there's a problem.

Actually, it's you who is the dumbass, who cheered on fraudulent accusations about Obama abusing the government and attacking conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else you could identify, and spent 8 years screaming over the Affordable Care Act, denouncing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (that Bush started under false pretenses), and never gave a thought to what would actually constitute governance if the shoe ever got on the other food.

Now it's you, Strat, who has the problem, because you're still stuck on railing over Obama, and can't change your tune, for some reason, perhaps a blind partisan bias, even as Trumpcare is tried to force through without public discourse, even as Trump's reckless Muslim Ban strands people in airports, even as Trump's jackbooted goons kickdown doors of anybody who opposes him, even as Trump buddies up with his pal Putin, even as Trump fails to even give a token nod to opposing bigotry and racism by the White Nationalist Supremacists who he is conspicuously told voted him into office.

What will you do...Oh wait, you'll double down and repeat your errors. Here's a clue, Blue, you need to deal with the man in the Oval Office, every pointless recrimination you make about Obama might as well be met with your own response to critiques about Bush when Obama was in office.

"Devin Nunes and Trump are still working together in attempt to manufacture ‘unmasking’ scandal" ref

Here you go. ALEC is a pretty big deal. The fact they'd even talk about it openly shows how far we've come.

You would think it would be fake with what Scaramucci has said about Trump in the past. Someone must not have shown Trump videos of what he's said about him. Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.

Scaramucci has called Trump a "big mouth", "anti-American", and a "hack." "You’re an inherited money dude from Queens County." That Trump should be "president of" "the Queens County Bullies Association." He said Trump should "cut it out now and stop all this crazy rhetoric spinning everybody’s heads around.”

https://thinkprogress.org/anth...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The 21st century recessions were due mostly to federal government pressure to loan to insolvent home buyers. That pressure was a result of Democratic party policy then in place, that Republicans were unable to end.

This has been thoroughly debunked.

The result was inevitable and had nothing to do with your jealousy of rich people.

It was all about the jealousy of rich people, for other rich people. We can call it greed.

The people who gained insurance coverage under Obamacare were mostly people who didn't want insurance, and with the end of Obamacare will be free to once again do as they please. You, however, think it's OK to point government guns at their heads and proclaim "Your money or your life."

From 2012; The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien. Law professors Jordan Barry and Bryan Camp have a nice piece in Tax Notes explaining it all. That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice. Only low-income households who receive refundable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, always get refunds. But the ACA specifically exempts most of them from the tax because their income is so low. Bottom line: Notwithstanding the nutty Internet rumors that the IRS is hiring 20,000 revenue agents to collect the tax, most people who really want to game the system will probably get away with it.

Numerous states have lost in court over their abusive voter actions: Florida, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina. What do these states have in common? Is it also that they've been subjected to Republican misrule, often due to gerrymandering? It would seem, therefore, if Republicans were really interested in fair and honest elections, they would remedy the faults in their actions that lead to unlawful purges, and discriminatory ID claims, so their actions would be fair and above reproach. Yet the opposite happens...Why is that?

Oh, and it turns out that Virginia had problems with its attempted purge. And that report you cherish is questionable.

Sorry, LynnwoodRooster, but your command of statistics remains faulty, same as when you're being a racist bigot about homicides.

Numerous states have lost in court over their abusive voter actions: Florida, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina. What do these states have in common? Is it also that they've been subjected to Republican misrule, often due to gerrymandering? It would seem, therefore, if Republicans were really interested in fair and honest elections, they would remedy the faults in their actions that lead to unlawful purges, and discriminatory ID claims, so their actions would be fair and above reproach. Yet the opposite happens...Why is that?

Oh, and it turns out that Virginia had problems with its attempted purge. And that report you cherish is questionable.

Sorry, LynnwoodRooster, but your command of statistics remains faulty, same as when you're being a racist bigot about homicides.

sure sure...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11...

From the other side we have things like
https://thinkprogress.org/voti...
http://www.detroitnews.com/sto...

So there is proof that voter-fraud was happening in favor of the democrats.. But investigating that is somehow bad?

I don't support Trump or Hillary, but i think Hillary would have caused bigger issues than Trump will do..

How hard can it be to eliminate the majority of voter-fraud forever? Require voter-ID's (just make them free of charge to get for each election.) and have automatic upload of each vote, at the time of voting, to a central system. No manual counting and full tracking of who has voted. Using a chip on the ID for signing the vote would remove some of the required security from the voting-machine and a second machine could be provided where people could verify that their vote was counted and correct.

...this so-called president is an idiot who is in waaaaaaaaaaaay over his head.

And in the meantime, over 500 VA employees were fired, demoted, or disciplined for incompetence.

...but sure, keep telling us about how outrageous his tweets are, how it's shameful that he has no sense of decorum.

Meanwhile, he's quietly getting his agenda passed.

Also of note, Mark Meadows has threatened to shut down the government unless Congress funds the border wall, and if that happens it will be the Democrat's fault!

Also also, Ronna McDaniel wants to delay or cancel the [legislature] August recess unless health care is fixed.

I am *SO* happy that people are outraged over his tweets!

He's so waaaaaaaaay over his head, what with all the winning and such!

Bwaaaah ha ha ha ha!

At least two documented (looking through the the first letters of States) cases where elections were overturned because of fraud.

Not one single case where you have documented any of the fraud was related to your only offered solution, of voter ID, in fact, you have been remarkably imprecise and inexact about the specific details of those elections.

I wonder why you are so evasive.

How many more do we need?

I would start with documenting one, where your only solution, will work.

What is the downside of stronger screening for voting?

The disenfranchisement of citizens through improper screening, whether accidental or intentional, and unfortunately, as you well know, the intentional has been quite well documented.

You know, this, of course, because you've been told it before.

Really, LynnwoodRooster, you don't accomplish anything with your own willful obtuseness. Like your tendency to lie and prevaricate, it harms you by showing a severe lack of credibility.

And why is that different from 2A rights?

I'd start with the basic fact that the state isn't obligated to provide you with a firearm.

Feel free to advocate for that, of course. You won't win a lawsuit, but you can pursue a law requiring the state to provide citizens with firearms.

Given how useful honeybees are to agriculture, there could be significant lobbying efforts to get rid of it. I'd expect California to ban them given their willingness to regulate responsibly, and the facts that almost all the almonds of the world are grown there and bees are required for it. Maryland has already banned them evidently.

can you show us the reports that show battery prices are not falling? Every report i see on batteries, the price is falling as more and more companies provide competition. here is one https://thinkprogress.org/char...

Meanwhile, all the false flag, false report, and literal violent bullshit has been coming out of the left.

Nope!

Nope!

Nope!

I will grant this did though.

But but muh conservatives! But but his tax returns!

And shadowy business dealings. He can't even keep his promises, note how he claimed he wasn't going to take money from foreigners staying at his hotels? oops

It seems like you don't want to listen to any facts. Calling them "fake news" may make you feel better but doesn't change them.
Since you're too lazy to use Google here are some more references:
https://insideclimatenews.org/...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
http://time.com/4709796/trump-...
https://thinkprogress.org/trum...

The left considers violence wrong except in very specific circumstances.

Of course (Vol. I)!
Of course (Vol. II)!
Of course (Vol. III)!
Of course (Vol. IV)!

Oh my, somebody is a quote-miner, and hoping to come up with gems? Sadly, you've got a bunch of duds!

You aren't even being honest about them.

Seriously man, hoping Ailes dies a painful death is not a call for violence. It is unsympathetic, but hey, guess what? It happens on your side. Nor is accurately describing a murder victim as a bigot a call for violence either. That's wanting to be truthful. Warts and all.

And Madonna's words were clearly describing a state of mind which she rejected as an action.

You shouldn't lie. Especially with the number of people on the right claiming their words were twisted and misrepresented. These were mentioned in comments about those quotes already, so you should know to look at them with more scrutiny yourself.

And of course, there are already lists pointing out the right's calls for violence, and their own vicious statements. Well, actually, they're a decade old by now.

You think people forget? Well, I can't say you are entirely wrong.

How many of these do you remember?

As they say, the log in your eye is quite conspicuous. Go compile a list of your own sins, then repudiate them.

The left considers violence wrong except in very specific circumstances.

Of course (Vol. I)!
Of course (Vol. II)!
Of course (Vol. III)!
Of course (Vol. IV)!

Oh my, somebody is a quote-miner, and hoping to come up with gems? Sadly, you've got a bunch of duds!

You aren't even being honest about them.

Seriously man, hoping Ailes dies a painful death is not a call for violence. It is unsympathetic, but hey, guess what? It happens on your side. Nor is accurately describing a murder victim as a bigot a call for violence either. That's wanting to be truthful. Warts and all.

And Madonna's words were clearly describing a state of mind which she rejected as an action.

You shouldn't lie. Especially with the number of people on the right claiming their words were twisted and misrepresented. These were mentioned in comments about those quotes already, so you should know to look at them with more scrutiny yourself.

And of course, there are already lists pointing out the right's calls for violence, and their own vicious statements. Well, actually, they're a decade old by now.

You think people forget? Well, I can't say you are entirely wrong.

How many of these do you remember?

As they say, the log in your eye is quite conspicuous. Go compile a list of your own sins, then repudiate them.

You know what the difference between today and the 1980's were? That the attack in San Bernardino and Pulse Nightclub both could have been stopped. What happened?

Omar got reported, and yet the authorities ended up doing nothing.

But then, the same goes for others.

I suppose we could live in the Draconian Police State you want, but I suspect you'd hate that.

And how about more in the UK, with those girls raped and being sold as sex slaves(just a fyi it's happening in the US too).

Yes, yes, West Texas is full of it.

And the muslims trying to take over schools to turn them into extremist breeding grounds(see trojan horse scandal).

No, that's Christians.

Well what do you know? In those dozens of cases it was all the same thing too.

I think we've got a problem. You know what it is? People are too politically correct and afraid of being labeled racist/islamophobe/etc.

Nope, it's the other way around. People are obsessively racist, islamophobic, and otherwise unable to see the problems are all over.

So afraid that they'll turn a blind eye to people preparing to carry out a terrorist attack. Until that changes this isn't going to change either. We could, avoid the whole "implement internet agenda thing." The answer is in this paragraph. And you know as well as I do that the left has a very long history the last decade of going after people for daring to say "that muslim looks like they're going to blow people up."

Yeah, that's because you say it so much, then you attack some Sikhs.

After all, that's what happened in Rotterdam and why 1000+ girls were raped and used as sex toys after all....for over a decade.

Clean your own closet first.

You don't really care though, that's why you won't even bat an eye at the stuff in your own backyard.

You'll do nothing but scream and pout in a tantrum.

Apparently you are, not only that you're an idiot to boot. The "line that I'm pushing" is people are afraid of doing something and being labeled racist for doing it.

To make it very simple for you: They're willing to look the other way because of fear, and they're willing to look so hard in the other direction that people are dying because of it.

Yes, the FBI is unable to investigate right-wing terrorism because of that attitude.

Some of

And this is different from CO2...how, exactly?

Oh, that's right, it's not.

Actually, quite a lot, and sometimes significantly.

Carbon dioxide might not be as bad as Carbon Monoxide , but it is quite different in its biological effect than Nitrogen.

In fact any gas you inhale other than oxygen displaces oxygen by definition.

While CO2 suffocation is a real problem, and can lead to deaths in itself, you might want to look at the health effects some more.

Why? That wasn't news, we already heard about it under Bush.

You're like the parent who confronts his kid's drug use, and then they say they learned it from you.

Who never had to teach grandpa to spy on Americans, let alone suck eggs.

Look, you want to convince me you give a rat's ass about privacy, and aren't just grinding a partisan axe? Show some concern beyond the previous administration, the one that's out of office. Take a gander overseas, or in the boardrooms. Then maybe I'll think it is something other than an irate pretense that you'll drop as soon as somebody else is in office.

Yeah, less hangups, so much less, a Mississippilegislator didn't call for a lynching when some Confederate monuments were removed. Oh wait, he did.

Not to mention the racially motivated gerrymandering.

It's never racism in Alabama. Never.

Tell us another one. A funny one this time.

They've outed the leaker in chief. "This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."

Israel’s moves to restrict intelligence could be the shape of things to come in other corners of the globe. On the issue of intelligence-sharing, the Trump administration has proven erratic and unreliable—something that is increasingly alarming for U.S. allies.

Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?

This is about drones, the law, and the leader who's administration brought forth that law. The exact same headline would have happened if Obama had pushed this.

None of the editors ever pointed a finger at Obama ripping the country apart

I remember in 2008 my relatives promised me civil war, utter stock market annihilation, the literal death of the country if the black guy won. Then when it didn't happen, and everyone predicted the same thing again in 2012! And yet the opposite happened both times, the country boringly kept steadily improving the entire time he was in office. Is there ever going to be an apology? Nope, just more gasping hyperbole without demonstrable evidence or citations I guess. You want to compare them? Before Obama, people always said the market was above all the most important stat, let's start with that one.

Misinformed or minimizing the reality, yes.

From the article:

"Mueller’s authority under Rosenstein’s appointment is broad. Mueller is empowered to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” He may also prosecute federal crimes uncovered in this investigation."

https://thinkprogress.org/two-...

Until Congress changed the law a year after Clinton left the State Department, there was no reason the Secretary of State couldn't use an outside email service for official business.

zombie Sandy Berger is fascinated by your alternative facts and would love to subscribe to your newsletter:

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report....Berger was fined $50,000,[23] sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years.

Hillary had the same amount of authority to set up her own email server as Berger had to take out classified information in his pants, as much Petraeus had to show classified information to his mistress. Hillary is also a hypocrite of Newt/Bob/Denny proportions as she had blasted the Bush Administration for using a private email service two years before setting up her own private email server.

"Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said. "It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."

It's also fascinating to watch Dems continue to defend Hillary's email server as a great idea, at the same time they are seeing Russians hiding under every bed trying to hack into computing systems and engage in shenanigans. But her unsecured server was still a great idea!

It turns out that the viewers of these comedy news shows are better informed than their "journalist" watching counterparts.

They also appear to have fewer issues revolving around sexual harassment and racial discrimination.

https://thinkprogress.org/weal...

The top ten percent of earners in the United States took home more than 50 percent of all income in 2012, the highest amount ever recorded since data was first collected in 1917, according to an updated report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

While the wealthiest took a big hit during the financial crisis, theyâ(TM)ve almost fully recovered. Last year, income for the top 1 percent of earners âoeincreased sharply,â the report notes, growing by nearly 20 percent, while the bottom 99 percent only saw money rise by 1 percent. âoeIn sum,â the authors write, âoetop 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.â

This follows a trend since the recovery officially began. From 2009 to 2012, income for the 1 percent grew by 31.4 percent, while everyone else only saw it grow by 0.4 percent. That means the 1 percent âoecaptured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery,â they write.

http://equitablegrowth.org/res...

"U.S. top one percent of income earners hit new high in 2015 amid strong economic growth"
"The top 1 percent income earners in the United States hit a new high last year, according to the latest data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The bottom 99 percent of income earners registered the best real income growth (after factoring in inflation) in 17 years, but the top one percent did even better. The latest IRS data show that incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 3.9 percent over 2014 levels, the best annual growth rate since 1998, but incomes for those families in the top 1 percent of earners grew even faster, by 7.7 percent, over the same period. (See Figure 1.)"

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/...

https://thinkprogress.org/the-...
Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains.

Saezâ(TM)s new data show that income for the 1 percent did actually decrease somewhat in 2013 as compared to 2012: its share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 20.1 percent.

Note: The top 1% alone earned 20% of the entire nation's income. It's easy to hit 50% when you go to the top 10%.

here's updated 2015 data...
https://taxfoundation.org/summ...
Top 10% 45.87% of the total income.

The ENTIRE bottom 50% earned only 11.49% of the entire nation's income.

If you allow any kind of deductions at all, their taxes are going to be much lower because even tiny deductions are a huge portion of their income. But worst case, let them starve- the most they could pay would be 11.49%.

But given the crippling size of state and local taxes combined with social security taxes, many would starve and go homeless.

Here's a state by state breakdown of how much people pay in state, local, and excise taxes .

http://www.itep.org/whopays/fu...

Excise taxes are things like $2 on your cell phone bill and $70 a year for your car. Likewise, the poorest get no share of pr

https://thinkprogress.org/weal...

The top ten percent of earners in the United States took home more than 50 percent of all income in 2012, the highest amount ever recorded since data was first collected in 1917, according to an updated report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

While the wealthiest took a big hit during the financial crisis, theyâ(TM)ve almost fully recovered. Last year, income for the top 1 percent of earners âoeincreased sharply,â the report notes, growing by nearly 20 percent, while the bottom 99 percent only saw money rise by 1 percent. âoeIn sum,â the authors write, âoetop 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.â

This follows a trend since the recovery officially began. From 2009 to 2012, income for the 1 percent grew by 31.4 percent, while everyone else only saw it grow by 0.4 percent. That means the 1 percent âoecaptured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery,â they write.

http://equitablegrowth.org/res...

"U.S. top one percent of income earners hit new high in 2015 amid strong economic growth"
"The top 1 percent income earners in the United States hit a new high last year, according to the latest data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The bottom 99 percent of income earners registered the best real income growth (after factoring in inflation) in 17 years, but the top one percent did even better. The latest IRS data show that incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 3.9 percent over 2014 levels, the best annual growth rate since 1998, but incomes for those families in the top 1 percent of earners grew even faster, by 7.7 percent, over the same period. (See Figure 1.)"

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/...

https://thinkprogress.org/the-...
Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains.

Saezâ(TM)s new data show that income for the 1 percent did actually decrease somewhat in 2013 as compared to 2012: its share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 20.1 percent.

Note: The top 1% alone earned 20% of the entire nation's income. It's easy to hit 50% when you go to the top 10%.

here's updated 2015 data...
https://taxfoundation.org/summ...
Top 10% 45.87% of the total income.

The ENTIRE bottom 50% earned only 11.49% of the entire nation's income.

If you allow any kind of deductions at all, their taxes are going to be much lower because even tiny deductions are a huge portion of their income. But worst case, let them starve- the most they could pay would be 11.49%.

But given the crippling size of state and local taxes combined with social security taxes, many would starve and go homeless.

Here's a state by state breakdown of how much people pay in state, local, and excise taxes .

http://www.itep.org/whopays/fu...

Excise taxes are things like $2 on your cell phone bill and $70 a year for your car. Likewise, the poorest get no share of pr

We don't really care that much when people insult the president, and we can think badly of such people or goodly of them. That part doesn't matter.

Some of us remember differently.

People aren't going after him for the rest of his monologue, which was also very insulting, and they don't complain about John Oliver or Bill Maher when they face the camera and rattle off insults with no wit or insight.

Yes, they are, and yes they do.

It's the explicit profanity, and Colbert knows better.

You only care because Colbert hurt your precious Turnip's feelings, and yet we know better, because of this one time.

Yeah, that's a tip-off.

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

Yes, both sides have their extremes. You started with: "cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.". The current batch on the left is anarchists, antifa, and riot. Obviously there is a stark difference as one is participating and advocating for violence.

At least be honest, or did you think we forgot? Did you think we did not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting/>remember? Did you think we were ignorant? Did you think we did not listen?

Your false sanctimony is rather egregious. Why do you bother?

That reddit is just The_Donald... What am I supposed to look at? I showed you specifically what I mean when I say "antifa" and "anarchists". Do you think someone is extreme for supporting Trump?

Are you incapable of studying that site on your own? Do you want others?

Ah, but what he's said is that he's determined, determined, he says, to kill regulations, root and branch.

It's part of his mantra, expressed numerous times, if they create one regulation, they have to eliminate two.

I haven't seen such a capricious expression since Herman Cain.

It's the ultimate culmination of 20 years of trying to drown government in the bathtub.

Though in Trump's case, he's eager to return to the days of John Adams and the Sedition Act.

And I think a little whirlwind-reaping won't be far behind.

Amaizng how you moronic democrat retards totally ignore that Obama wanted exactly the same thing too:
https://thinkprogress.org/how-...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...

And that Hillary also called for it this time:
http://www.reuters.com/article...

Sanctuary cities do not exist and nobody on the Progressive left talks about the need for them. Right?

Actually, they don't exist, especially not in the form that the Regressive right insists on falsely portraying them. They're pretty much just a straw-man where the right makes up false claims about lawlessness and crime in order to whip up a frenzy of hysteria.

Instead, what they are, is municipalities deciding that the Federal Government needs to be accountable, and forced to behave in a manner compliant with the law, by a policy of adherence to the strictures of law informing them that the cities won't knuckle under to their capriciousness. Not new, but a lingering problem for a supposed agency enforcing the law.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Janet Reno was demonized for returning Elian Gonzalez to his father. The mishandling of policies on Cuba is bad enough, but apparently we're supposed to decide parental rights on a whim?

So it's hypocrisy too. Even ignoring the other protests against the federal goverment, the silence on the failures of the immigration system is very telling.

Oh, I guess you are just another AC who's full of shit. Brave enough to hide in anonymity while claiming that I am being watched, as if you are a threat.

You're confused again, there's no threat to being judged, you're merely being observed, and recognized, for what your public behavior happens to be. It's called responsibility. You should recognize that as a natural consequence of communication. You spea

Are you referring to the same jokers who have AOL + Yahoo addresses? Because, c'mon now... The US congress has a GREAT track record of comprehension of the internet!

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...
http://www.upworthy.com/the-go...
http://gizmodo.com/this-congre...
https://thinkprogress.org/new-...

So crazy Texas judge says not legal precedent can be set because no legal precedent has be set, hmm, OK, stays well are from crazy as fuck Texas legal system.

Texas judges are known to be a little...eccentric.

https://thinkprogress.org/texa...

That "97 percent of scientists" figure people keep throwing around? It's fake.

You're fake. You wankers have been trying to push your bullshit pro-business political agenda and getting shot down since forever.

It's a fact that Donald Trump has said some scary stupid shit about nuclear weapons. It's not just speculation to reason that the President of the US might act in accordance with his stated positions.

Right. On the other hand, his predecessor helping Iran get closer to nuclear capabilities didn't move the clock.

Odd, isn't it?

and no one predicts that human civilization will end

Lies. Coal is the single greatest threat to civilization. He's a scientist, well respected, too.

It's a fact that Donald Trump has said some scary stupid shit about nuclear weapons. It's not just speculation to reason that the President of the US might act in accordance with his stated positions.

She had already assured business leaders that she would continue the program unchanged. And she would have likely also labeled anyone opposing the visas as "racists" for daring to question them.

If Clinton had won, you would be fighting in Trump's revolutionary army and decrying the continued Democratic tyranny. Which ok, would amount to you trolling on the Internet some more, so no, we would be having this discussion, and you'd be doing the same things as you are now.

Funny. Because that sure didn't happen when Obama won, but the left were right there back when Bush Jr., was elected for a second term screaming that they should violently oppose him.

Nope, it's confirmed that there were internet trolls then. Some continue to this day.

2012 also had plenty. Including a special one you may know.

And gee, look again...it's the left doing exactly the same thing.

Yes, yes, pity you, because the Left surely is the one making you the victim, you internet troll you. Poor you. Why do you lie? Do you think everybody else is too dumb to spot your bullshit?

When Trump himself jumped into it with vigor, that's a losing game.

But oh boy, let's look at Obama's decisions shall we? A head of the DoJ that refuses to enforce immigration law, and is now in the running to defend criminal illegals. Very progressive, much law and order!

Even Donald Trump admitted that Obama had deported millions. Strangely he had no problem lying about it otherwise. Just like you.

Couldn't Trump find a non-racist attorney general candidate? Couldn't Trump find a candidate for secretary of state who knew what a war crime was? Couldn't Trump find a way to not create more conflicts of interest?

You mean the joke? Did you actually read/watch what he said. I guess not, that's what happens when you let the media lie to you. Yep, he's so racist he's prosecuted KKK members.

Oh goodness, he's not so stupid he can claim that the KKK is a perfectly normal civil organization. But he's stupid enough to crack jokes about them. Well, that's not a point in his favor, nor is his position on marijuana, which remains opposed to legalization. Nor the failure to list his failed judicial nomination. Or the other things he mysteriously left out.

But I guess it's too bad there's plenty of other things to know about Jeff Sessions.

Really, couldn't Trump find ANYBODY else?

Now, let's move on to that "war crime" bit. Smart move. You know why?

Because you aren't thinking, and believe being stupid enough not to condemn actual war crimes because of some carefully inculcated desire to be legally scot-free equivocator is a good thing?

It's dumb. Dumb-ass stupid shit that would get you worked up into a frenzy if it were the other side saying it, but when it's yours, well, you just think it's the greatest thing ever.

Because if he didn't answer the way he did, he would have let every nut with an axe to grind go after the government.

They already do. What's your point? That we should keep doing the things that are fucking dumb?

Starting right at the top with the previous Obama ad

Sorry, forgot to add the link to the article
https://thinkprogress.org/indi...

Nobody is "being sold" for sex these days except in exceptionally rare circumstances. It does not work economically.

False. Want to tell us anything else trivially proven untrue? This is fun!

"... the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable..."

The U.S. government has many secret and semi-secret agencies. No one, literally no one, knows all of them, or which are badly managed. As we've seen, the secret and semi-secret U.S. government agencies often hire outside consulting companies that often have areas of sloppy management.

The U.S. government is, by some measures, such as money spent, the most violent in the world.

The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war.

War is extremely profitable for some corporations. See the book, House of Bush, House of Saud, by Craig Unger. Bush and Cheney started a war that was profitable for them.

The U.S. has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison, of any country, in any century. The prison system is hugely profitable for prison corporations. Two of the many articles:

ACLU: With only 5% of the world's population, the U.S. has 25% of the world's prison population.

ThinkProgress: The United States Has The Largest Prison Population In The World -- And It's Growing.

Yes, it's correct. It might surprise you, but there really isn't a grand oil funded conspiracy. The grant money you get if you toe the party line is by orders of magnitude bigger than if you dare being a contrarian.

I don't know, you can make a pretty good living being a climate change denier. And those leaked documents from the Heartland Institute show that they can be quite generous:

funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.