Why the tea party movement is so frightening...

[Bfgrn]

Welcome back troll... You crying again? LOL...

I seriously doubt you are old enough to have raised 2 children to adulthood, but hey anything is possible... I met other parents of grown kids who act like teenage crybabies, so I suppose you are not so rare...

So anything of substance to add or are you just trolling again??

That doesn't surprise me. You already KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions are. So your accusation just reinforces your consistent ignorance.

Yea, let's get back to the original Boston Tea Party, and how all the articles you posted and I posted have basically the same narrative.

Here's your question for the day...when the British Parliament reduced or increased duties to the colonies, WHO did the Parliament hold responsible to collect and pay those funds to Britain?

Would you like me to send you a teenage crybaby to help you?

No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save face...

I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....

I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...

The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com

Ibis Communications Home

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...

 

[gslack]

That doesn't surprise me. You already KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions are. So your accusation just reinforces your consistent ignorance.

Yea, let's get back to the original Boston Tea Party, and how all the articles you posted and I posted have basically the same narrative.

Here's your question for the day...when the British Parliament reduced or increased duties to the colonies, WHO did the Parliament hold responsible to collect and pay those funds to Britain?

Would you like me to send you a teenage crybaby to help you?

No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save face...

I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....

I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...

The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com

Ibis Communications Home

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...

http://www.ibiscommunications.com/about_1.html

Diverse, Inclusive and Green

The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. That’s the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.

Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.

We are specialists, linguists, if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. We’ve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And there’s nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.

 

[Bfgrn]

No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save face...

I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....

I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...

The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com

Ibis Communications Home

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

YES all the posts are here for all to see...the TRUTH stands no matter what bluster you employ. You are wrong, but maybe what you need to do to make your bluster seem authoritative is the YELL some more...

 

[Foxfyre]

These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.

People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.

Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list. There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, The Road to Serfdom. His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books]Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.[/ame]

Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...

The Road To Economic Serfdom

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom.

Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism. Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe. All industrialized countries are at risk...

The Road To Economic Serfdom The Baseline Scenario

Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Boone and Johnson, neo-socialists, of course would try to discredit Hayek who did not advocate unregulated anything. Hayek is the quentissential classical liberal (i.e. modern American conservative) advocating as much freedom as can be allowed. He, however, as all classical liberals are, was a rule of law guy and certainly supported whatever regulation was necessary to keep us from doing violence to each other including intrusion on the unalienable, Constitution, civil, and legal rights of others. But, like all classical liberals, Hayek then wanted government out of it and let the private sector do it.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, like all modern liberals, see government as the solution for all human ills.

In the intro to The Road to Serfdom , published in England 1944, was Hayek's effort to teach English socialists that they were on the same path that brought the National Socialists (the "Nazis") to power in Germany and the Communists to power in Russia. It did not express all of Hayek's philosophy re government and economics.

from Wiki but right on the money:

Hayek disapproved strongly of the notion of 'social justice'. He compared the market to a game in which 'there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust'[45] and argued that 'social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content';[46] likewise 'the results of the individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning.'[47] He regarded any attempt by government to redistribute income or capital as an unacceptable intrusion upon individual freedom: 'the principle of distributive justice, once introduced, would not be fulfilled until the whole of society was organized in accordance with it. This would produce a kind of society which in all essential respects would be the opposite of a free society.[48]

However, Hayek was prepared to tolerate 'some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy.

And within my understanding of consequences that we know of world history, Hayek's point of view holds up a whole lot better than does Johnson and Boones'.

The thing that boggles my mind is how liberals keep convincing themselves that the only reason their way hasn't worked thus far is that nobody has done it right. So they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over ignoring the fact that such attempts are taking us straight into economic and social hell.

Repeat: Classical liberal = modern American conservative.

 

[Big Fitz]

These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.

People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.

Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list. There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, The Road to Serfdom. His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books]Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.[/ame]

Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...

The Road To Economic Serfdom

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom.

Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism. Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe. All industrialized countries are at risk...

The Road To Economic Serfdom The Baseline Scenario

Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

You haven't a fucking clue, do you?

 

[LANMaster]

Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for the laugh .... but it was the Democrat Congress that pilliaged SS. Along with the help of Republican incumbents who need to be voted out.

Social Security does steal from others, everyone pays into it, and everyone becomes eligible to collect benefits. Paying into Social Security does not prohibit or prevent an individual from saving for their own retirement.

On this point, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with Social Security. I have a problem with Congress raping SS to fund other projects.
This is the essense of the TEA party. You would probably agree more with the TEA Party movement if you understood that it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but everything to do with fiscal responsibility.

Want to extend unemployment? Fine ... cut somewhere else in the budget to pay for it. Don't just add it to the debt.
Want Gubmint funded healthcare? Find a way to pay for it other than borrowing from China.
Want to cut military spending? PUT IT ON THE BALLOT! I suggest to you, that the American people do not want to under-fund our military efforts.
There's no reason to assume that everything can be solved with another tax increase. Liberals ... sorry .... "progressives" cant get it through their heads that private industry and Capitalism are the engines of prosperity in the USA. Kill private enterprise, and you kill the prosperity. The Jobs go away, and tax revenues D R O P .

[/QUOTE]The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.[/QUOTE]

Your rhetoric shows just how poisonous your ilk has become.
We see compassion differently than you.
You view compassion by how many people receive help by the government
We view compassion by how many people no longer need the government help.

We both have compassion for the impoverished. Unfortunately there is so much waste and fraud that the inefficiency of all those entitlement dollars ends up doing far more harm to the impoverished than good.
THE WELL IS DRYING UP - PROGRESSIVES THINK POURING SAND IN THE WELL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

If that were the only quote from Ted, I would assume he was an idiot.

Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals ... that is a proven fact.
I will link to the multiple studies if you would like. I'm new here, but I suspect that someone has already posted that fact.
I say that, not to brag or boast, but to show how utterly incorrect you are about your opposition, and how willing your Commerades are to outright lie about your oppositions motives and practices.

 

[Bfgrn]

Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for the laugh .... but it was the Democrat Congress that pilliaged SS. Along with the help of Republican incumbents who need to be voted out.

Social Security does steal from others, everyone pays into it, and everyone becomes eligible to collect benefits. Paying into Social Security does not prohibit or prevent an individual from saving for their own retirement.

On this point, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with Social Security. I have a problem with Congress raping SS to fund other projects.
This is the essense of the TEA party. You would probably agree more with the TEA Party movement if you understood that it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but everything to do with fiscal responsibility.

Want to extend unemployment? Fine ... cut somewhere else in the budget to pay for it. Don't just add it to the debt.
Want Gubmint funded healthcare? Find a way to pay for it other than borrowing from China.
Want to cut military spending? PUT IT ON THE BALLOT! I suggest to you, that the American people do not want to under-fund our military efforts.
There's no reason to assume that everything can be solved with another tax increase. Liberals ... sorry .... "progressives" cant get it through their heads that private industry and Capitalism are the engines of prosperity in the USA. Kill private enterprise, and you kill the prosperity. The Jobs go away, and tax revenues D R O P .

The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.[/QUOTE]

Your rhetoric shows just how poisonous your ilk has become.
We see compassion differently than you.
You view compassion by how many people receive help by the government
We view compassion by how many people no longer need the government help.

We both have compassion for the impoverished. Unfortunately there is so much waste and fraud that the inefficiency of all those entitlement dollars ends up doing far more harm to the impoverished than good.
THE WELL IS DRYING UP - PROGRESSIVES THINK POURING SAND IN THE WELL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

If that were the only quote from Ted, I would assume he was an idiot.

Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals ... that is a proven fact.
I will link to the multiple studies if you would like. I'm new here, but I suspect that someone has already posted that fact.
I say that, not to brag or boast, but to show how utterly incorrect you are about your opposition, and how willing your Commerades are to outright lie about your oppositions motives and practices.[/QUOTE]

Here is what you don't understand...the jobs HAVE gone away. Trickle down FAILED miserably. We are now in the same wealth to poor ratio as the 1920's during the reign of the robber barons. During the despot Bush administration the FEWEST jobs were created since job creation statistics have been kept.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Ronald Reagan stole SS money to pay down the deficit created by the lose of revenue from his tax cuts. THEN Reagan raised taxes

In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

Reagan: The Great American Socialist

 

[gslack]

I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...

The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com

Ibis Communications Home

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

YES all the posts are here for all to see...the TRUTH stands no matter what bluster you employ. You are wrong, but maybe what you need to do to make your bluster seem authoritative is the YELL some more...

No one yelled but you douchebag... Funny you disappeared until there was a comfortable bit of room from your getting busted lying..... ok dickhead, you asked for it..

 

[gslack]

And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....

And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....

Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....

The Boston Tea Party, 1773



Want another reference?

Boston Tea Party Historical Society

Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum

This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...

The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...



Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...

Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?

'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'... from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.

'This ignorant liberal talking point' and 'a revisionist version of what happened'... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???

Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.

A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...

BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"

Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..

First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....

Ibis Communications is a publisher of award-winning educational websites and CD-ROMs.

EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.

Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.

So moving on...

My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...

About this Website
The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.

We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.

Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..

My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....

It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of American’s forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.

So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....

There is a big fat chunk of reality liar boy... Notice my quotes are all there and intact?????? Yeah funny how you claimed it cut out one of them and begged people to quote it and show it again.... Huh, but there it is working just fine, a full quote..... So any more excuses liar??

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing that drives me crazy are charts like this that Bfgrn posted:

It doesn't take into account world economic conditions which invariably affect our own.

It doesn't specify the length of time in office which is really a major factor in analyzing something like that wouldn't you think? And do you suppose it was an untentional oversight to leave out the Nixon administration who by a wide margin outperformed everybody else on that list so far as job creation goes? And it doesn't take into account that it is the laws, regulation, and policies established by Congress that creates any effect that government might have on the process.

Yes the Bush 43 record looks abysmal, but there is no attempt to be fair and show the devastating effects on the economy generated by 9/11, something no other president has ever had to contend with, and no attempt to explain that much of the job loss happened in the severe recession in the wake of the 2008 housing bubble burst for which the blame must be shared by every President and Congress since the Carter administration.

If you look at the jobs created during the prosperous Bush 43 years, the record ain't that bad.

But for all of them, there are many more factors involved than who occupied the White House at the time.

 

[gslack]

The thing that drives me crazy are charts like this that Bfgrn posted:

It doesn't take into account world economic conditions which invariably affect our own.

It doesn't specify the length of time in office which is really a major factor in analyzing something like that wouldn't you think? And do you suppose it was an untentional oversight to leave out the Nixon administration who by a wide margin outperformed everybody else on that list so far as job creation goes? And it doesn't take into account that it is the laws, regulation, and policies established by Congress that creates any effect that government might have on the process.

Yes the Bush 43 record looks abysmal, but there is no attempt to be fair and show the devastating effects on the economy generated by 9/11, something no other president has ever had to contend with, and no attempt to explain that much of the job loss happened in the severe recession in the wake of the 2008 housing bubble burst for which the blame must be shared by every President and Congress since the Carter administration.

If you look at the jobs created during the prosperous Bush 43 years, the record ain't that bad.

But for all of them, there are many more factors involved than who occupied the White House at the time.

What else do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

 

[LANMaster]

You left leaners simply do not understand that proper tax cuts actually INCREASE Federal tax receipts.
More growth, more employment, more taxpayers = more revenus
Tax hikes generally reduce Federal tax receipts.
Growth stifled, investing drops. jobless rates go up, fewer taxpayers = lower revenues

 

[AllieBaba]

Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for the laugh .... but it was the Democrat Congress that pilliaged SS. Along with the help of Republican incumbents who need to be voted out.

On this point, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with Social Security. I have a problem with Congress raping SS to fund other projects.
This is the essense of the TEA party. You would probably agree more with the TEA Party movement if you understood that it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but everything to do with fiscal responsibility.

Want to extend unemployment? Fine ... cut somewhere else in the budget to pay for it. Don't just add it to the debt.
Want Gubmint funded healthcare? Find a way to pay for it other than borrowing from China.
Want to cut military spending? PUT IT ON THE BALLOT! I suggest to you, that the American people do not want to under-fund our military efforts.
There's no reason to assume that everything can be solved with another tax increase. Liberals ... sorry .... "progressives" cant get it through their heads that private industry and Capitalism are the engines of prosperity in the USA. Kill private enterprise, and you kill the prosperity. The Jobs go away, and tax revenues D R O P .

The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.

Your rhetoric shows just how poisonous your ilk has become.
We see compassion differently than you.
You view compassion by how many people receive help by the government
We view compassion by how many people no longer need the government help.

We both have compassion for the impoverished. Unfortunately there is so much waste and fraud that the inefficiency of all those entitlement dollars ends up doing far more harm to the impoverished than good.
THE WELL IS DRYING UP - PROGRESSIVES THINK POURING SAND IN THE WELL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

If that were the only quote from Ted, I would assume he was an idiot.

Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals ... that is a proven fact.
I will link to the multiple studies if you would like. I'm new here, but I suspect that someone has already posted that fact.
I say that, not to brag or boast, but to show how utterly incorrect you are about your opposition, and how willing your Commerades are to outright lie about your oppositions motives and practices.[/QUOTE]

Here is what you don't understand...the jobs HAVE gone away. Trickle down FAILED miserably. We are now in the same wealth to poor ratio as the 1920's during the reign of the robber barons. During the despot Bush administration the FEWEST jobs were created since job creation statistics have been kept.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Ronald Reagan stole SS money to pay down the deficit created by the lose of revenue from his tax cuts. THEN Reagan raised taxes

In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

Reagan: The Great American Socialist[/QUOTE]

You are such an idiot.

All anyone needs to know about you they can learn from your moronic assertion that it's "poisonous" to point out when people are behaving in a way that dehumanizes others.

 

[Bfgrn]

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

YES all the posts are here for all to see...the TRUTH stands no matter what bluster you employ. You are wrong, but maybe what you need to do to make your bluster seem authoritative is the YELL some more...

No one yelled but you douchebag... Funny you disappeared until there was a comfortable bit of room from your getting busted lying..... ok dickhead, you asked for it..

You are the most obnoxious and ignorant moron I have encountered here. Were you raised by wolves? You blindly continue to act like you KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions. Now you KNOW why I was absent??? I had an appointment at 2:30, but that is none of your business.

You are an ill-mannered cretin. Do your knuckles touch the ground when you walk?

Like you said, all the posts are here for all to see...Yelling: http://www.usmessageboard.com/2388450-post278.html

 

[Bfgrn]

You left leaners simply do not understand that proper tax cuts actually INCREASE Federal tax receipts.
More growth, more employment, more taxpayers = more revenus
Tax hikes generally reduce Federal tax receipts.
Growth stifled, investing drops. jobless rates go up, fewer taxpayers = lower revenues

I understand the 'theory', but it just hasn't worked.

September 19, 2004 —

The large tax cuts passed by Congress in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were signature items in President Bush's fiscal policy. All provisions of those tax cuts, however, expire by the end of 2010 and some expire earlier. A prominent feature of the president's campaign is to make almost all the tax cuts permanent.

We have analyzed that proposal and reached the following conclusions:

Making the tax cuts permanent would generate large, backloaded revenue losses over the next 10 years. Combined with a minimal but necessary fix to the government's Alternative Minimum Tax, making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years — and that's in addition to the $1.7 trillion of revenue losses already locked into law. By 2014, the annual revenue loss would amount to $400 billion, or 2 percent of gross domestic product — almost the size of this year's federal budget deficit.

· Paying for the tax cuts would require monumental reductions in spending or increases in other taxes. To offset the revenue losses in 2014 would require, for example, a 48 percent reduction in Social Security benefits, a 57 percent cut in Medicare benefits, or a 117 percent increase in corporate taxes.

· Over the long run, making the tax cuts permanent would cost as much as repairing the shortfalls in the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust funds. Thus, to the extent that Social Security and Medicare are considered major long-term fiscal problems, making the tax cuts permanent should be seen as creating a fiscal problem of equivalent magnitude.

· Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would confer by far the biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers. After-tax income would increase by more than 6 percent for households in the top 1 percent of the nation's income distribution, 2 percent for households in the middle 60 percent, and only 0.3 percent for households in the bottom 20 percent. The share of the tax cut accruing to high-income taxpayers would exceed their share of federal tax payments today, so their share of the federal tax burden would decline. The tax cuts will ultimately have to be financed with other tax increases or spending cuts. Once plausible methods of financing the tax cuts are taken into account, more than three-quarters of households are likely to end up worse off than they would have been if the tax cuts had never taken effect.

· Making the tax cuts permanent is likely to reduce long-term economic growth, not increase it. Studies by the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as our own research, indicate that making the tax cuts permanent would increase the size of the economy slightly and temporarily but would reduce growth in the long term, in part because higher federal deficits will have a negative effect on long-term saving, investment and capital accumulation.

More...

 

[Bfgrn]

No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save face...

I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....

I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...

The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com

Ibis Communications Home

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...

Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity

Diverse, Inclusive and Green

The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. That’s the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.

Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.

We are specialists, linguists, if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. We’ve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And there’s nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.

WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...

WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?

 

[RevRabbiJCG]

I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....

I've read a portion of what you have written. While I am not a Tea Party member I am however, someone who can identify with what they are doing. Also, I can identify on the level of why they are doing it. They are made up by and large of all political parties and not just Reps only. These people are sick and tired of a government that is run by crooked lobbists and other socialist ilk who wish to transform American in to another socialist nation that's run on a system of government that is a dismal failure. Large government with a pletora of govt run programs are costly and will bancrupt us as a nation.

Our nation was built on the proposition that, "all men are created equal, and endowed by our Creator certain inaliable rights". The far left wacko , nut jobs see the Tea Party as a threat to their ever grown power. Folks like Boxer, Shumer, Reid and Frank are greedy, pious gas bags who want to keep what the public entrusted them with. But instead of doing what is best for the nation as a whole, they used it for corruptble, and damnable things. These people and the ilk they represent desire nothing more then to destroy the US Constitution, and get rid of the Bill of Rights. These folks must be removed by the electoriate (that's us) and reminded that it's "We The People" and not "We the States" These folks hate us and want to make us into slaves [ liberal dems and not the Tea Party]

Tea Party member want a return to the Founders and what they the Founders wanted.

In Summery:
I hope that this answers a few questions.

 

[Bfgrn]

People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.

Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list. There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, The Road to Serfdom. His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.

Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...

The Road To Economic Serfdom

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom.

Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism. Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe. All industrialized countries are at risk...

The Road To Economic Serfdom The Baseline Scenario

Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Boone and Johnson, neo-socialists, of course would try to discredit Hayek who did not advocate unregulated anything. Hayek is the quentissential classical liberal (i.e. modern American conservative) advocating as much freedom as can be allowed. He, however, as all classical liberals are, was a rule of law guy and certainly supported whatever regulation was necessary to keep us from doing violence to each other including intrusion on the unalienable, Constitution, civil, and legal rights of others. But, like all classical liberals, Hayek then wanted government out of it and let the private sector do it.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, like all modern liberals, see government as the solution for all human ills.

In the intro to The Road to Serfdom , published in England 1944, was Hayek's effort to teach English socialists that they were on the same path that brought the National Socialists (the "Nazis") to power in Germany and the Communists to power in Russia. It did not express all of Hayek's philosophy re government and economics.

from Wiki but right on the money:

Hayek disapproved strongly of the notion of 'social justice'. He compared the market to a game in which 'there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust'[45] and argued that 'social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content';[46] likewise 'the results of the individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning.'[47] He regarded any attempt by government to redistribute income or capital as an unacceptable intrusion upon individual freedom: 'the principle of distributive justice, once introduced, would not be fulfilled until the whole of society was organized in accordance with it. This would produce a kind of society which in all essential respects would be the opposite of a free society.[48]

However, Hayek was prepared to tolerate 'some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy.

And within my understanding of consequences that we know of world history, Hayek's point of view holds up a whole lot better than does Johnson and Boones'.

The thing that boggles my mind is how liberals keep convincing themselves that the only reason their way hasn't worked thus far is that nobody has done it right. So they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over ignoring the fact that such attempts are taking us straight into economic and social hell.

Repeat: Classical liberal = modern American conservative.

WOW, you just licked the ass of rodeo clown Glenn Beck, and now you call Boone and Johnson, neo-socialists?

You are moving WAY beyond the pea brain class into the dire need to see a psychiatrist.

Simon Johnson is former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a member of the CBO’s Panel of Economic Advisers.

Peter Boone is the Chair of Effective Intervention. From 1997-2003 he was a Managing Partner and Research Director for Brunswick-UBS, an investment bank in Moscow. From 1993-1997 he was a lecturer at the London School of Economics and Director of the Emerging Markets Finance Programme at the CEP. He completed a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1990.

What do you think they teach a Harvard, socialism?

Here's a clue for you...we don't HAVE a free market.

Ronald Reagan and what has evolved into a fascist-like GOP has made Regulatory Capture a preferred policy...they CALL it privatization.

Hayek would NEVER agree that Regulatory capture had any place in a free market!

Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies.

We, the people absorb about 4 trillion dollars per year in corporate cost externalization. Properly called corporate WELFARE and corporate SOCIALISM...

In a TRUE free market, you can't get rich by making other people poor.

 

[gslack]

I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...

The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com

Ibis Communications Home

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...

Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity

Diverse, Inclusive and Green

The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. That’s the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.

Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.

We are specialists, linguists, if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. We’ve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And there’s nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.

WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...

WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?

LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they (eyewitnesstohistory.com)are a group who have won awards for their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL From their about us page... You know the one YOU claimed wasn't there....

EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.

Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.American Journey 1896-1945 (CD-ROM)
Explores American history from the Klondike Goldrush to the Atomic bomb. Sold in 5,000 retail outlets across the country.

King Arthur Through the Ages (CD-ROM)
An introduction to one of the most enduring legends in European literature. An interactive, multimedia production. Developed in conjunction with Calvert School and winner of the Parents' Choice Award.

Yeah busted again...... Gettin tired of slappin you know retard...

 

[Bfgrn]

Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...

Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity

WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...

WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?

LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they are a group who have won awards fro their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL

Whatever you say it tastes like Monica...

Our world is changing.

Consult the latest Census data or simply step out on the street to see for yourself. We find ourselves interfacing with people of every race, culture, religion and sexual persuasion. As a result, your business needs a new perspective on marketing communications. It’s called inclusive marketing, and it embraces the entire multicultural fabric of our community. Done well, inclusive marketing means increased market share, stronger brands, more loyalty and greater profits.

We’re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
Ibis Communications Home

gslack...Simply give me the author's name. A fair and reasonable request. Do you comprehend? I'm not speaking Russian...