Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The ACLU are thugs who use their deep pockets to bully budget strapped states, and local communities to either fight with money they don't have or give into the court "challenges" of the ACLU. And always it's about censoring any religious expression under words that don't exist in the Constitution, "separation of church and state."
Is that a yes or a no?
When liberals are losing they demand you obey their "rules." You can only answer with their guidelines and limitations and they get confused if you answer with something substitive.
Hence, carbiner demanding I refrain from giving a full answer to his question.
Am I wrong? Am I not justified in being insulted by the imbecility of someone demanding proof that the Boston Tea Party was vandalism?
The fact that you are "insulted" because people question your lack of reason and argument, says more about you than I even want to say.
Liberal idiots take Rush more seriously than conservatives do. He does use humor, sarcasm and satire a lot but liberals obviously cannot understand it.
An example of how stupid liberals are: They claim the Arizona law is based on the color of one's skin, which means racial profiling and it needs to be eliminated.. Well Affirmative Action is based not only on the color of one's skin but also on gender, so AA should be eliminated on the same grounds. They claim that asking for prove of citizenship violates civil rights, but they have no problem with the government forcing you to buy health insurance and then demanding to see proof of it.
If liberals would just be honest and say that they hate America and our Constitution and wish it were more like Europe, they'd have more credibility.
His humor is not some rocket-science propulsion theory. People understand it. It's hilarious though that a lot of conservatives want to give him a free pass...instead of being objective and hearing what he really does say.
Sure, sometimes he jokes, but you can't use that excuse all the damn time.
Am I wrong? Am I not justified in being insulted by the imbecility of someone demanding proof that the Boston Tea Party was vandalism?
The fact that you are "insulted" because people question your lack of reason and argument, says more about you than I even want to say.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of vandalism. That is inarguable. Breaking into someone else's property and destroying property therein is vandalism by definition. That you can't comprehend that is stupidity by definition.
So, when and where were the last 3, let's say, acts of ecoterrorism committed?
Don't you have the character to answer the question?
I'm hearing rightwingers call it tyranny every day and they have since Obama became president.
Are they full of shit or not? Is this tyranny or not?
Carbiner you do realize you have defeated your own argument.
Fighting against the tryanny of King George and fighting against the tyranny of Obama is NOT the same thing.
In the case of King George, we were fighting to establish our own country in which we could FRAME OUR OWN CONSTITUTION.
In the case of Obama, we are fighting to REINSTATE THAT CONSTITUITON.
The reason you can't understand the difference is because you are a liberal and moral equivalence is how you view the world.
Thus you try to equate the two situations. This is how the person that lacks reason sees his world. He views it through the prism of moral equivalence.
But the situations are NOT equivalent.
In the case of King George, we were dealing with an occupier that lived a continent away and gave edicts. THERE WAS NO LAWFUL RECOURSE FOR THE COLONISTS. THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO REBEL.
In the case of Obama, we are dealing with the duly elected president of the United States. There are LAWS. We have a lawful, constitutional, recourse and we are committed in persuing our rights pursuant to that lawful recourse.
Because we harken back to the spirit of the Tea Party does not mean all coinditions pursuant to the Boston Tea Party are the same.
Thus, TAXED
ENOUGH
ALREADY
Makes it clear what this Tea party is all about.
What a crock of garbage. First of all, your taxes have gone DOWN since Obama became president so you and the tea partiers don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Carbiner you do realize you have defeated your own argument.
Fighting against the tryanny of King George and fighting against the tyranny of Obama is NOT the same thing.
In the case of King George, we were fighting to establish our own country in which we could FRAME OUR OWN CONSTITUTION.
In the case of Obama, we are fighting to REINSTATE THAT CONSTITUITON.
The reason you can't understand the difference is because you are a liberal and moral equivalence is how you view the world.
Thus you try to equate the two situations. This is how the person that lacks reason sees his world. He views it through the prism of moral equivalence.
But the situations are NOT equivalent.
In the case of King George, we were dealing with an occupier that lived a continent away and gave edicts. THERE WAS NO LAWFUL RECOURSE FOR THE COLONISTS. THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO REBEL.
In the case of Obama, we are dealing with the duly elected president of the United States. There are LAWS. We have a lawful, constitutional, recourse and we are committed in persuing our rights pursuant to that lawful recourse.
Because we harken back to the spirit of the Tea Party does not mean all coinditions pursuant to the Boston Tea Party are the same.
Thus, TAXED
ENOUGH
ALREADY
Makes it clear what this Tea party is all about.
What a crock of garbage. First of all, your taxes have gone DOWN since Obama became president so you and the tea partiers don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Really? They've gone down? Hmmm.... then explain all these new taxes:
The Journal of Accountancy boils down some of the tax hikes and penalty fees in H.R. 3590 and the Reconciliation Act the highlights include:
- Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee.
- Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans The federal government would impose a 40% tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding certain thresholds. Those levels are projected to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level by the year 2013. This excise was announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions in January and remains in the final bill.
- Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%.
- Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals.
- Fees on Health Plans A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018.
- Tax on Indoor Tanning Services The act imposes a 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Like a sales tax, the tax will be collected from the person tanning when payment for the tanning services is made.
Business Insider boils down 15 more tax hikes here highlights include:
- Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage A 2.5% income tax on individuals who do not have health care coverage, limited to a cost less than the average national health care premium.
- Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures A tax of 5% is levied upon the am mount paid for any cosmetic surgery. This does not include the need for such surgeries created by trauma or a disfiguring disease. If the tax is not collected by that professional completing the procedure, their business is still liable for the requirement.
- The Reconciliation Act also legislates for the following surcharges: 1% surcharge on individuals making more than $350,000, 1.5% surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000, 5.4% surcharge on individuals making more than $1 million.
Yet more tax provisions in the bill are highlighted by INvestors Business Daily in their piece titled 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms highlights include:
- Taxes On Employers If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes) (Section 1513).
- Taxes on Pharmaceutical Companies The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry (Section 9008 (b)).
- Taxes on medical device manufacturers The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers (Section 1405).
You ignore the fact that the administration is preparing to implement nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years, not to mention the colossal taxes that are contained within Obamacare.
"As ABC News Jake Tapper (hardly a right-wing tea partier) reported shortly after Obama took office, President Obamas budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.
These include eliminating itemized deductions, hiking capital gains tax, as well as curtailing tax cuts already in place.
In addition, the beast that is Obamacare will help the administration to spread the wealth by taxing the rich, which in reality means the middle class, by hitting higher earners, ie anyone who can actually maintain a decent standard of living, with an array of tax increases which will further economically cripple Americans already laboring under the worst financial crisis since the great depression.
As Bloomberg News reported, analysis by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation revealed that the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019. Bear in mind, this is on top of the near $1 trillion in other new taxes that comprise Obamas budget over the next 10 years."
Obamanoids Crash Tea Party, Claim Dear Leader Has Cut Taxes
Liberal idiots take Rush more seriously than conservatives do. He does use humor, sarcasm and satire a lot but liberals obviously cannot understand it.
An example of how stupid liberals are: They claim the Arizona law is based on the color of one's skin, which means racial profiling and it needs to be eliminated.. Well Affirmative Action is based not only on the color of one's skin but also on gender, so AA should be eliminated on the same grounds. They claim that asking for prove of citizenship violates civil rights, but they have no problem with the government forcing you to buy health insurance and then demanding to see proof of it.
If liberals would just be honest and say that they hate America and our Constitution and wish it were more like Europe, they'd have more credibility.
His humor is not some rocket-science propulsion theory. People understand it. It's hilarious though that a lot of conservatives want to give him a free pass...instead of being objective and hearing what he really does say.
Sure, sometimes he jokes, but you can't use that excuse all the damn time.
You liberals don't understand that us conservatives are objective and we understand when he's being flippant and when he's being serious. Nine times out of ten it's the former not the latter.
Perhaps you can cite some specific things Rush has stated in all seriousness that conservatives have given him a pass on.
The revolutionary war was treason. The Boston Tea Party was vandalism.
Then that would make Obama the bigget traitor since he leads this country that was created by "treason."
You want to stay with that line of reasoning??????
Well here's another question you can avoid.
When Ben Franklin said,
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
...what was he talking about hanging for?
The fact that you are "insulted" because people question your lack of reason and argument, says more about you than I even want to say.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of vandalism. That is inarguable. Breaking into someone else's property and destroying property therein is vandalism by definition. That you can't comprehend that is stupidity by definition.
she might be able to understand it if it had been her tea.
What a crock of garbage. First of all, your taxes have gone DOWN since Obama became president so you and the tea partiers don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Really? They've gone down? Hmmm.... then explain all these new taxes:
The Journal of Accountancy boils down some of the tax hikes and penalty fees in H.R. 3590 and the Reconciliation Act the highlights include:
- Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee.
- Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans The federal government would impose a 40% tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding certain thresholds. Those levels are projected to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level by the year 2013. This excise was announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions in January and remains in the final bill.
- Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%.
- Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals.
- Fees on Health Plans A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018.
- Tax on Indoor Tanning Services The act imposes a 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Like a sales tax, the tax will be collected from the person tanning when payment for the tanning services is made.
Business Insider boils down 15 more tax hikes here highlights include:
- Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage A 2.5% income tax on individuals who do not have health care coverage, limited to a cost less than the average national health care premium.
- Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures A tax of 5% is levied upon the am mount paid for any cosmetic surgery. This does not include the need for such surgeries created by trauma or a disfiguring disease. If the tax is not collected by that professional completing the procedure, their business is still liable for the requirement.
- The Reconciliation Act also legislates for the following surcharges: 1% surcharge on individuals making more than $350,000, 1.5% surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000, 5.4% surcharge on individuals making more than $1 million.
Yet more tax provisions in the bill are highlighted by INvestors Business Daily in their piece titled 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms highlights include:
- Taxes On Employers If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes) (Section 1513).
- Taxes on Pharmaceutical Companies The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry (Section 9008 (b)).
- Taxes on medical device manufacturers The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers (Section 1405).
You ignore the fact that the administration is preparing to implement nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years, not to mention the colossal taxes that are contained within Obamacare.
"As ABC News Jake Tapper (hardly a right-wing tea partier) reported shortly after Obama took office, President Obamas budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.
These include eliminating itemized deductions, hiking capital gains tax, as well as curtailing tax cuts already in place.
In addition, the beast that is Obamacare will help the administration to spread the wealth by taxing the rich, which in reality means the middle class, by hitting higher earners, ie anyone who can actually maintain a decent standard of living, with an array of tax increases which will further economically cripple Americans already laboring under the worst financial crisis since the great depression.
As Bloomberg News reported, analysis by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation revealed that the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019. Bear in mind, this is on top of the near $1 trillion in other new taxes that comprise Obamas budget over the next 10 years."
Obamanoids Crash Tea Party, Claim Dear Leader Has Cut Taxes
Some nonsense about what might happen in the future? lol, you might grow a brain in the future, but that doesn't allow you to claim one now.
His humor is not some rocket-science propulsion theory. People understand it. It's hilarious though that a lot of conservatives want to give him a free pass...instead of being objective and hearing what he really does say.
Sure, sometimes he jokes, but you can't use that excuse all the damn time.
You liberals don't understand that us conservatives are objective and we understand when he's being flippant and when he's being serious. Nine times out of ten it's the former not the latter.
Perhaps you can cite some specific things Rush has stated in all seriousness that conservatives have given him a pass on.
I already did - the Haiti thing. And for the record, I never see you criticize King Rush. I dare you to be "objective" and state some things that you disagree with him about...or better yet, things you think he's gotten terribly wrong / lied about.
You liberals don't understand that us conservatives are objective and we understand when he's being flippant and when he's being serious. Nine times out of ten it's the former not the latter.
Perhaps you can cite some specific things Rush has stated in all seriousness that conservatives have given him a pass on.
I already did - the Haiti thing. And for the record, I never see you criticize King Rush. I dare you to be "objective" and state some things that you disagree with him about...or better yet, things you think he's gotten terribly wrong / lied about.
I must have missed the "Haiti thing", if you would be so kind as to link it or repeat it, it would be much appreciated.
I don't criticize Rush in the same manner that I don't criticize Bill Maher. They're entertainers paid to entertain. If you take what they say as gospel then you're an idiot. If he has lied or got something terribly wrong, you'll have to provide the evidence of that, because I'm not aware of it (unlike Maher, I'm fully aware of some of his blatant lies).
In full disclosure I rarely listen to Rush, I do hear clips from his show from time to time and I have friends that are fans of his and they relay some of his messaging to me, but I'm not a faithful follower of Rush's.
Then that would make Obama the bigget traitor since he leads this country that was created by "treason."
You want to stay with that line of reasoning??????
Well here's another question you can avoid.
When Ben Franklin said,
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
...what was he talking about hanging for?
That statement was made at the signing of the Declaration of Independence (August 2, 1976) and meant if they did not stand together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged separately
she might be able to understand it if it had been her tea.
As you well know he was dead serious and is still seriously LYING about it today.Oh my gosh. He doesn't get it.
He really thinks Rush is serious.
I am not going to bother. Just keep on smoking that liberal crack pipe.
I'm going to keep laughing.
RUSH: No, no, no. (laughing) In the first place, he has not listened to this program nor read the transcripts. I didn't assign any sabotage on this until the regime sent SWAT teams in there -- and I never accused the administration of blowing up the rig. I said it appears the regime may be open to some sort of attack. Had I said ecoterrorism there wouldn't have been any question here but I don't think in those terms.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Audio sound bites, here is the hapless Contessa Brewer. Now, we just heard Chris Matthews and Anderson Cooper expressing outrage that I was saying environmentalist wackos did this. How could I dare do that?
When I heard that statement when Rush originally made it my impression was that he was suggesting that Obamas sending SWAT Teams was an indication that Obama was concerned and wanted to determine if there had been any or might be incipient ECO terrorism, for whatever benefit that would be to the administration.
We know, or at least can reasonably assume, that there is no limit to what they (ECO Terrorists) might do to show potential for destruction of the environment by recent changes in our recent energy policy, vis-à-vis Obama, who had announced what had "seemingly" been an expansion of our oil production in the Gulf. This might have sent them into destructive action.
Certainly, a spill in the Gulf would do the most harm to the perpetrators (the oil industry) and the author (the administration having momentarily fallen into disfavor with them) of the policy.
There was nothing serious in Rushs statement, it was all foolishness. He was doing what he does a little too much of (in my opinion) - "pointing out absurdity by being absurd." Anyone calling in to point out any flaw in his jibe wouldve been told that they just dont get it.
As the MSM Whips Up Fears of Tea Parties, Media Ignores the Real Terrorists Among Us the Eco-Nuts - Big Journalism
Too good to pull any quotes. Read it all.
But why do Tea Partiers supposedly have to walk on eggs lest we cause "violence?" The left can use any incendiary language they please, but the tea party is constantly lectured lest they cause "violence" of one sort or another.
Free speech for me, but not for thee seems to be the slogan of the left.
