Previous 21 - 30 Next
You can qualify by having a soldier's baby. (Maybe 3 or 4....)
"Umm....the editorial page at the WSJ isn't left-wingish....the rest of the paper is." Ahh, it warms my heart to watch the RightWingNuts devour their own. "I'm the purest!!" "No! Me! ME!!!" I understand that 'don't like the facts? character assassinate the source', is the fashionable way to reason these days, but couldn't you take even a little time out for actual refutation?
"Meme"? Speak the King's English. I agree that the ability to ignore those oldfashioned categories like 'true' and 'false' is a prerequisite for citizenship in RightWingNutistan, but if it is so obviously false you should be able to find reputable sources that say so. I really doubt it, but maybe the WSJ/Slate articles are distorted somehow. Please, elucidate!
Sources like these: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/03/27/which-states-take-the-most-from-the-u-s-government/ Now, you can say all kinds of lies with statistics, and usually the lies are aligned with the source's political leanings. But the WSJ is not exactly leftwing-ish.
I guess this article shows that you can never imagine all the possible fantasies of self-gratification that will appeal to somebody, someplace. But isn't it true that generally, the traditionally Blue States pay out more to the Federal Govt than they take in, while the Red States receive far more federal largesse than what they pay out in taxes? It seems to me I've read that from several sources.
I carry several membership cards. (L.A. Fitness, my Library,...)
I bet I could get way more results Googling "Obama is a Muslim" but that doesn't prove anything. I cannot access your 2nd link, I think you have to subscribe to the Washington Post for access. Your first link is a Political piece. It does not provide a list of ALL the groups that applied for 501-c4 status. It just says that conservative applicants were targeted unfairly. For that to be true, you have to show that liberal-leaning 501-c4 groups were *not* targeted. The basic facts like the applicant list (the *complete* list) and some determination of their political leanings are not there. The fact is that the 501-c4 status was meant as a gravy train for political candidates. I suspect that most of the applicants for the status were conservative groups because they were chomping at the bit waiting for it. Further, the status was designed to be unenforceable; how can you tell if 50% or more of the group's activity is political? How would *you* avoid sending out questionnaires like the IRS did? What would you do instead? Show me a bunch of 501-c4 applicants that are obviously leftwing-extremist by their names (ex "The Free Mumia Coalition", etc) and show me how they were all just green-lighted for 501-c4 status. *Then*, you will not be slinging B.S..
Me: " But i never found anybody providing a list of the organizations that applied for 501-c4 status..." I spent some time trying to find such a list on my own, with no luck. It's funny, you'd think that would be about the very first thing that someone trying to claim that the IRS was targeting conservative groups would present.
"... the illegal targeting of conservative groups attempting to achieve 501 c4 status..." Oh yeah, seems like I heard a lot of hot air about that a while back. (Along with this 'Ben Gazi' thing. What was that? Some conservative black physician, I think?) But i never found anybody providing a list of the organizations that applied for 501-c4 status, much less their political leanings. Just complaints from Right- and Leftwing groups outraged that the IRS had sent them a questionnaire trying to figure out if a majority of their activity was political in nature. (Y'lnow, like the definition of 501-c4 says they have to find out?) So I just dismissed it as RightWingNut BS.
"We got something that will REALLY impress you, Bwucie..." Look, it may impress you when you pull it out of your pants to play with it while sitting on the toilet looking at Hustler magazine, but I'd prefer not to hear about it, thanks very much.
Oh yeah, you mean when Al Sharpton said on 11/25/2014: ""We condemn the violence and looting that happened last night, but we also condemn the violence that happened on Aug. 9 … If you're on Michael Brown's side, you walk with dignity. If you're on Michael Brown's side, you stand up with pride. If you do anything to harm others, you're on your own side." http://perezhilton.com/2014-11-25-ferguson-michael-brown-attorney-al-shar Or when NBC reported: "Civil-rights activist and MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton followed Koster's remarks at the church and agreed that Ferguson and the country were facing "a defining moment." Sharpton said he and Michael Brown's family "condemned" the looters. "There's a difference between an activist and a thug," Sharpton said." Question is where were YOU? Busy swallowing FOX BS??
Previous 21 - 30 Next