Just them gotcha investigator folks there in the Department of Law, also.

You betcha SARAH!! is as honest as the day is long.

In Nome.
December 21st,to be specific, too, also.

Why does Palin remind me of a long lingering deadly fart?

There is no end to the Palin posts.

We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin!

The Democrats

Actually, we are amused by Sarah Palin, and yet astounded by the fruitcakes who take her seriously. (See Glenn Beck, etc.)

She is no longer governor, I think she shot her political career when she quit. Why do Democrats insist on beating a dead horse?

"Why do Democrats insist on beating a dead horse?"

Because the horse keeps coming back to life with scandal after controversy after headline-grabbing inexplicable event.

Next question?

She is no longer governor, I think she shot her political career when she quit. Why do Democrats insist on beating a dead horse?

#6 | Posted by member2586 at 2009-08-28 10:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The "dead horse" is probably the lunatic core of the Republican Party's most desired presidential candidate in 2012, and as posts to this blog will attest, she is very popular among the birther/death panel Right. It also doesn't hurt that she issues idiotic statements on her Facebook page on a regular basis.

Barack Obama says a prayer every night that Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Dear God, please, if you are really there, hear both his prayer and mine, let that moron be nominated by the Republicans. Amen.

Why do Democrats insist on beating a dead horse?

Who's beating? She's beating herself. Political masochism.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2009-08-28 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It says something about Democrats' beliefs in Obama's chances of getting re elected in 2012 if they are hoping for Republicans to nominate a bad candidate. If Sarah Palin getting nominated is the only chance Obama has of getting re elected, then they know Obama is a weak candidate.

You just keep whistling that tune as you walk past the grave yard Member.

Your outrage is amusing. She is your candidate.

It says someething about the republican party that this bimbo is your golden girl and great white north hope.
Bwahahahahaha!

Run her. If she aint in jail by then.

Danni, you are one to call her a moron after all the idiotic nonsense you have posted on here. If your IQ breaks 75 I would be shocked.

So she's a moron but she's their moron...

It is 2009. I am sure that by 2012 other candidates will have emerged. In politics 3 years is a lifetime. Who would have thought in 2005 that some guy named Barack Obama would be the Dem candidate in 2008? He was barely known back then.

Danni will stomp a mudhole in your butt Buzz!

"Illegally high" would describe Failin' Palin's (the Quitta from Wasilla) tenure in office.

Thats the next president your talking about, you bunch of left wing whack jobs, you know she is the 2nd coming of Ronnie Reagan and you can't stand it. The more your kind bitches the more normal people are convinced and more popular she gets.

Because the horse keeps coming back to life with scandal after controversy after headline-grabbing inexplicable event.

At this rate she will soon qualify for a position in the Obama administration.

I hear that they tore the "do not remove under penalty of law" tags from the cushions in her office as well. The left is all over it, as usual. After all SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO STOP HER.

Palin has yet to show her hand. No way she will run on the Republican ticket - they hate her too!

And both sides fear her, hence the mindless derision over anything Palin. It's like Bevis and Butthead all over again: "Huh huh huh huh, Palin, huh huh huh".
from the liberal retards.

Mean time, Dem lib Richardson gets a free pass for his illegal pay to play. Dem lib Rangel hides many $ hundreds of thousands of income and "forgets" about other assets and (shock) NOTHING HAPPENS but another closed-door do-nothing "investigation". And that's just this week.

Why is it this woman's name keeps getting slathered all over the news cycle, car wreck after car wreck? What is she...some kind of political Calamity Jane? She might scream gravitas to the peckerwoods, but if I was a real republican with three digits of IQ to rub together, I believe I'd prefer my party nominate a candidate that didn't inevitably remind me of a Barbara Cartland heroine.

I read the original article. You gotta be kidding? A $200 error on a $5000 contribution? Our country is spending itself to oblivion, the government is growing like never before, and our freedoms and protections are being whittled away, yet some needle dick goes after this? What desperation.

"Our country is spending itself to oblivion, the government is growing like never before, and our freedoms and protections are being whittled away"

You described George W Bush and the GOP Congress 2000-2008 PERFECTLY!

And finally, violating FEC rules are not in and of themselves "illegal". When mistakes are made, amendments are filed and inappropriately distributed money is returned.

Just ask the Obama PAC, which has already filed 13 amendments, and I'll bet none of them are for a measly $200. Where are those stories?

You described George W Bush and the GOP Congress 2000-2008 PERFECTLY!

More partisan hackery. This also describes the present even better, but as long as you can try and keep people looking backwards instead of at where they are, right?

He described them PERFECTLY.

What is this "Mistakes Were Made" Hour?

If the national debt had been paid off, deregulation and lack of oversight not been the norm, no war in Iraq, and Medicare Part D been able to negotiate prices, we wouldn't BE in this mess in the first place.

So, excuse me if I place the blame rightly and squarely where it should land - on the GOP's doorstep.

If the national debt had been paid off, deregulation and lack of oversight not been the norm, no war in Iraq, and Medicare Part D been able to negotiate prices, we wouldn't BE in this mess in the first place.

National Debt: Wasn't about to be paid off by anyone.

Deregulation and Lack of Oversight: Regulation isn't the problem. You can over-regulate or regulate the wrong things. That had just as much to do with things if not more. CRA anyone?

Iraq: No argument with me there. However, Obama is continuing the same policies so the Dems have lost their high horse on this one.

Medicare Part D: Shell game. The prices are already heavily negotiated... just not by the government. Instead the private drug plans.

I am sure that by 2012 other candidates will have emerged.

'Emerged' now that's a quaint concept. The last time any 'half assed' candidate emerged for the RNC it WAS Palin. What they billed her as was American apple pie with whipped cream and a cherry on top. What they got was the cherry and the whipped cream but the pie turned out to be bitter melon.

At any rate, if Rush don't shut his trap and Glenn Beck doesn't slip on a banana peel it's possible they could get a gay black midget to run and have a crack at it, but he or she would have to have more appeal than a month old potato chip like Palin that they found under a couch cushion.

Postscript...I was going to use Jackie Collins, but I wasn't looking for a cheap joke--plus the Cartland reference seemed more apt in regards to the style of artwork usually found on Ms. Cartland's literary masterpieces.

Yes, some of your suspicions are correct...there will be a moose silhouetted at dusk against majestic peaks in the background. You know...the handsome hunter with his muscular arms around her, their hands intertwined on the hard rifle, the anticipation of the kill heavy in the air.

the dr left is full of dipshits, who are scared of sara palin. Did you read the article, there's nothing there. Just hyped bullshit over pennies!!!!

Why not talk about the NEW REPORT OF charlie rangels failing to report millions?

I read the original article. You gotta be kidding? A $200 error on a $5000 contribution? Our country is spending itself to oblivion, the government is growing like never before, and our freedoms and protections are being whittled away, yet some needle dick goes after this? What desperation.

#22 | Posted by Dinsey

EXACTLY dinsey, it's the left infatuation with sara Check on the charlie rangel story. The head person in charge of writing tax code had to admit lying about MILLIONS on filings all the way back to 2001. NOT A WORD FROM RCADE

Get it? The dr is filled with trash talking two faced hypocrites....who repeat the same garbage over and over and over again!

Dave:

Stop crying foul when there have been just as many threads put up here with little to no substance criticizing democrats.

Perhaps if you weren't so partisan, you would have acknowledge that.

Hypocritical indeed!

And you have been firing off at Rcade, insulting this site...need one remind you this IS a left sided site? At least Rcade offers much more tolerance to opposing views than any right side site I've seen.

If it bothers you that badly to come here because you believe it's so "hypocritical" and unfair , why not go somewhere else??

I'll bet she got no donations from America's enemies like the big eared bastard in the WH did!

obama should call a 'cyber-emergency,' and shut down DR and palin.

Yes that's very interesting but where's the Drudge Retort story on Rangel?

Who would have thought in 2005 that some guy named Barack Obama would be the Dem candidate in 2008?

Obama jumped onto the radar after his incredible convention speech in 2004.

The head person in charge of writing tax code had to admit lying about MILLIONS on filings all the way back to 2001. NOT A WORD FROM RCADE.

If you think a story isn't being properly covered on the Retort, you have the ability to post it on the back page. The Rangel story broke late last night. We've run stories about his tax problems before, so it's not like we'd protect him here.

Oohrah: Until he won Iowa, I didn't think Obama could win in 2008. I thought Clinton would steamroll him.

She is no longer governor, I think she shot her political career when she quit. Why do Democrats insist on beating a dead horse?

#6 | POSTED BY MEMBER2586 AT 2009-08-28 10:44 PM

Uh, WHY do you think she quit "member" Don't be a "dick" and figure it out.....

Illegalities in several areas under investigation.....it's a repug thingy...

Next time, pick a better candydate for yourself or don't complain.

...it's a repug thingy...

It's a bi-partisan thingy.

FTFY.

Take the blinders off if you dare

Yep, you are right there goat tee....Ok, I'll take them off.....You do that too, okay?

Senators
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois)

Representatives
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York)
Rep. John Doolittle (R-California) - Retiring
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-California)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-California)
Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) - Indicted
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California)
Rep. Gary Miller (R-California)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Arizona) - Indicted and Retiring
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

Former members of Congress
Former Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-Colorado)
Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-California) - Convicted
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) - Indicted
Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida)
Former Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada)
Former Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Florida)
Former Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois)
Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) - Convicted
Former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pennsylvania)

Former investigations regarding members of Congress
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) - Retiring

Why do Democrats insist on beating a dead horse?

#6 | Posted by member2586

They are afraid of her and don't think she is dead yet. She is a threat to the socalistic way.

Yeah 5K is such a huge amount in campaign dollars. It could not have been a mistake.. no way whatsoever..

Did we get the credit card donor list from Obama yet?

Hey Tonton--don't we visitors have the ability to post articles and start threads? So post the damned Charlie Rangel story. I'd be interested--something about the guy has bugged me for a while now.

And Member: "It is 2009. I am sure that by 2012 other candidates will have emerged. In politics 3 years is a lifetime. Who would have thought in 2005 that some guy named Barack Obama would be the Dem candidate in 2008? He was barely known back then."

I find myself agreeing with you. Interesting. But you know, if the last election cycle is any indication, the candidate better emerge fairly early in 2010. That cycle last time felt like four years, but realistically was over two, I think. Granted, I'd prefer that we shorten the campaigns. How's this for an idea (not original to me): Shorten the damned campaigns. Don't worry about spending caps, but shorten the length of time during which they can advertise. I don't know. There's more to it than that. But a thought...

And that is FEDERAL only bro

Obama jumped onto the radar after his incredible convention speech in 2004.

#36 | Posted by rcade

That is right. But outside of Dem party insiders, the general population was not aware of this guy. I don't think it was until late 2006 or maybe early 2007 that we started getting coverage of Obama.

Yep, you are right there goat tee....Ok, I'll take them off.....You do that too, okay?

???

Mine are off. That's why I said "bipartisan" where you said "repug" -- indicating only one party.

They call it a 'CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'

There certainly is. And it exists in both parties as your list indicates.

She is a threat to the socalistic way.

#43 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2009-08-29 10:33 AM

Is she?

"There are socialist principles to that, yes. Taking more from a small business or small business owners or from a hard-working families and then redistributing that money according to a politician's priorities -- there are hints of socialism in there and that's why I don't fault or discredit Joe the Plumber for bringing that up, asking if that is socialism."

If this is Palin's definition of socialism -- taking more from business and redistributing "according to a politician's priorities" -- then isn't she herself guilty of running a socialist government in Alaska? After all, she is the same Governor Palin who in 2007 pushed a gigantic increase in the state's oil profits tax through a Republican-dominated legislature, a move that brought in $6 billion in new revenue.

And what was done with that money? Well, as the Seattle Times put it (before Palin emerged as a national figure), "While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus."

In other words, the extra money that Palin took from businesses was spent according to the priorities of Palin and other Alaska politicians. Isn't this exactly what she's accusing Obama of wanting to do? Here's a clip a Palin bragging about her windfall profits tax, again, from before she landed on the national ticket.

The Republican definition of socialist is "any federal program I don't agree with." If they benefit from it, it isn't socialist.

The Republican definition of socialist is "any federal program I don't agree with." If they benefit from it, it isn't socialist.

That may be true for Republican but not for conservative.

Palin is a threat to only to herself and anyone who might want to see the Republican Party transformed into anything but a bunch of loons dancing around a campfire, baying at the moon.

Sarah Palin makes poor choices in the people she surrounds herself with. This PAC issue is minor. But if Joe Biden had called an offer to reimburse living will consultation a "Death Panel," the media would call it a "gaffe." Like it or not, the media still treats Sarah like a princess.

and yet the asshole lieing piece of shit charley rangel now shows that his worth is DOUBLE what he first reported and there is almost nothing said anywhere about it except on fox and RIGHT here..

fuck off on shit about anyone until that fucker is investigated........and by someone other than other goddamn democrat liars.

We hate Sarah Palin! We hate Sarah Palin!

The Democrats

#4 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-08-28 10:35 PM

Hate? Quite the contrary. The more this clown stays "relevant" the more "irrelevant" the GOP or birthers or whatever you clowns call yourselves nowadays become.

"Hate" Palin?

Are you completely nuts? (Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.) But, surely, you jest. Palin has tremendous potential for functioning as a reverse magnet, driving voters to the Democrats. Palin? I say, the more the merrier!

Palin? I say, the more the merrier!

I don't know whether she's beneficial or detrimental to the GOP.

If she drops her projection of dim-wittedness (she's no genius, but she's no idiot either) and is more careful with her ruminations, she could prove to be a strong messenger for the GOP.

#55 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2009-08-29 11:04 AM

We'll get right on that as soon as we are done with these investigations...LOL

"If she drops her projection of dim-wittedness (she's no genius, but she's no idiot either) and is more careful with her ruminations, she could prove to be a strong messenger for the GOP."

Palin pretending to be a savant? That's even better!

not sure what you linked WOKE but it set off the controls here at the ole bibliothech...

but Im also certain that it was more democrat hypocricy since thats their normal M.O.

I though pelosi was going to clear all that up in 2006

Not sure what I linked?

Uh, move your cursor onto the link and CLICK....

Or does your computer have a repug filter that keeps all their indoctrinaires "safe" ??

LOL

Im at the public library and the parental controls took over

dont worry I have a vivid imagination and I know democrats like the back of my hand...

and bringing up palin is also a good diversion for democrat since it looks like there is a real battle going on inside the democrat party

in this corner we have leon panetta who was hired to keep us safe

and in this corner we have eric holder who has been TOLD BY obama to GET CHENEY no matter what the security cost or how much of the CIA WE HAVE TO GUT...........

AH BUT no instead we hear about palin AGAIN...

"dont worry I have a vivid imagination and I know democrats like the back of my hand..."

Translation: Knows crazies like the palm of his hand.

Barack Obama says a prayer every night that Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee in 2012.

In a two-party system like the US, it's actually vital that both parties be in reasonable shape. A single-party on it's own is usually unable to reform itself - without the threat of losing an election, corruption and nepotism thrive. (Already a huge problem in both parties.) Every party needs to lose power occasionally, so that it's internal structure can be refreshed by younger politicians.

So I hope the Republicans can become a credible political force again, and manages to rid itself of the stupidity and corruption which the neocons have brought to it. So that one day it can control government again - without it becoming an unmitigated disaster like the Bush years.

Certainly Palin resigning as governor is a positive development. Let's hope the Alaska Republicans find a better candidate to run. If only to keep the Democrats on their toes.

However if worst comes to worst and she does eventually run for president... Then I think she should pick Dan Quayle as her running mate.

"and in this corner we have eric holder who has been TOLD BY obama to GET CHENEY no matter what the security cost or how much of the CIA WE HAVE TO GUT..........."

You got a link for that, Afk? My assumption is no. I expect that Obama may have allowed Holder to move toward prosecution because that way he (Obama) can have his hands washed. After all, this is why presidents delegate authority. And Obama has said all along that we need to look forward not back. (Not saying whether I agree.)

I love the power of deflection possessed by partisans on both sides on DR. ; )

And I love how Afk (among others) just assumes motivations and behaviors with little evidence.

Republicans are evil, filthy thieves. Nothing has changed. Palin should be investigated and divested of all assets.

Republicans are evil, filthy thieves.

Pretty much all politicians are, redlight

The gift that keeps on giving.

OCU

"but she's no idiot either.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ"

Maybe compared to you.

"Republicans are evil, filthy thieves."

Pretty much all politicians are, redlight
#68 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-29 08:11 PM

100% of Republicans are "on the take" compared to 80% of Democrats doing the same.

There are NO good Republicans whatsoever.

100% of Republicans are "on the take" compared to 80% of Democrats doing the same.

There are NO good Republicans whatsoever.

Neither statement is true. I know many, many good republicans and many, many who are not on the take.

It must really suck to have your mind controlled by partisan politics. I feel sorry for your inability to see the world as it really is.

100% of Republicans are "on the take" compared to 80% of Democrats doing the same.

There are NO good Republicans whatsoever.

#71 | Posted by redlightrobot

Agreed.

Agreed.

That's two of you that are wrong.

"I know many, many good republicans and many, many who are not on the take."

I don't know of any.

I don't know of any.

That doesn't mean they don't exist unless you've met every one of them. And I doubt that you have.

Almost every one of the folks on my rig are republican and all but 4 or 5 are very decent people.

#71

Talk about painting with a broad brush.

To claim such a thing is ridiclous.

Not really that ridiculous if you look at the fact that the republican party stands for greed and corruption. People who are republicans obviously agree with this philosophy.

"Not really that ridiculous if you look at the fact that the republican party stands for greed and corruption."

I guess you think Rangel, Jefferson, Dodd, Gore and many, many other little democrat friends of yours are philanthropists...right? No greed and corruption in THAT party, no sireeee. Makes ya' kinda wonder where most of the greed REALLY lies...

"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

I love it when people quote free republic in an effort to show they are not partisan....LOL

As far as charity goes......perhaps repugs give a little more out of their wealth? That's nice, but let's also consider the source of that, okay?

And then, there is this:

Mar 12:42
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

Mar 12:43
And he called [unto him] his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

Mar 12:44
For all [they] did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, [even] all her living.

The FACT is that CHARITY is NOT paying for over 45 MILLION American's healthcare. These folks and their children deserve to have healthcare in the RICHEST country in the world, which is the ONLY industrialized country that does not provide healthcare for those citizens that cannot afford it.

AND considering that we all live with those people, interact daily, our kids go to school with their kids.....it would be wise if only seen from a public health standpoint to provide it.....let alone what is right for them.....

Again, I find it incredible that the same people railing against healthcare for all, had NO PROBLEM with spending 2 TRILLION and counting to invade/occupy/destroy/maim/
kill others, but NOW are all concerned about our national debt....

Hypocrisy at it's worst imho.

"I love it when people quote free republic in an effort to show they are not partisan....LOL"

Gee, I'm sorry you don't like the messenger...perhaps you'll like this one more:

"Dr Brooks's small but powerful volume presents evidence that religious believers who hold politically conservative views are more generous by any measurecharitable donations, volunteerism, blood donations, etc.than politically liberal unbelievers. He criticises Democratic leaders who downplay or even disdain the value of charitable works and says his purpose is not to celebrate the religious right, but to issue a call to action to liberals and leftists."

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
. . .
"There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people," Mr. Brooks says. "The fact is, if it weren't for religious people in your community, the PTA would shut down."

Not really that ridiculous if you look at the fact that the republican party stands for greed and corruption. People who are republicans obviously agree with this philosophy.

Well fortunately for the lefties here, I don't judge all democrats by you, ratsa

I think it's absurd for anyone to suggest that all people of any stripe are x. Ridiculous. Even if the original poster meant that 100% of Republican politicians are on the take, that's just silly.

All priests are pedophiles.

All gays are whores.

All doctors are power-hungry Messiah complex ridden fools.

All teachers are lazy; they just want summers off.

All democrats are secret homosexuals.

All capitalists are greedy fucks.

Blah blah blah.

Grow up, people.

Humans are humans. All are weak and subject to their own temptations and failures. Some are able to rise above those things. Some are whiny little fucks. Life goes on.

Northguy
Dxlingr
Betel
MaryTyler
Danni
OldWhiskey
Badcat
BigLeague
Ringmaster
Woke

* * * *

Partial list of people who rushed to comment on Sarah Palin's attorney overpaying PAC money, and who have no comment on Charles Rangel understating millions in income and assets. Palin is out of office, and is guilty--maybe--of technical campaign violations. Rangel is guilty--maybe--of felonies, but that shouldn't stop him from writing tax laws for the rest of us. He's a Democrat, you know.

Tools. Don't ever change, guys. Your party needs you! Achtung!

"Tools. Don't ever change, guys. Your party needs you! Achtung!"

It cracks me up...these "useful fools" are pushing the national health care issue so hard because they believe it will always be a democrat administration in control. I wonder how much they would love it if republicans were running it....and that WILL happen one day. To place all that faith in ANY government is foolhardy.

Yeah, jest......

You want me to refute "facts" from a link called "MAGICSTATISTICS" or heritage foundation, since i don't like the bias of freepers?

LOL

I've ALREADY refuted your bs....here are some FACTS for ya...

1. If repugs give more cause they have more, good for them

2. And as I pointed out from the words attributed to Jesus, it's not how much you give, but how much you give from what you have.

3. However, CHARITY is not providing healthcare for over 45MILLION Americans.

I find that last one instructive since what we are talking about here is taking a little bit more from the richest 1% (141,000 people making an avg of 7.4 MILLION a year) so that those children, old folks and poor with no health insurance can have some.....yet, people like yourself have a huge problem with returning to the tax codes under your hero reagan.....

HELLO?

Right is Right

Uh, this IS a thread about Palin's shortcomings.

Interesting that you have a problem with Rangel and NOT Palin, eh?

Pot, meet kettle

LOL

"You want me to refute "facts" from a link called "MAGICSTATISTICS" or heritage foundation,..."

Oh, I see...you DO just want to attack authors and publications instead of refuting facts. Here, use this to attack the IRS as a republican tool. Make sure not to present any FACTS to refute the actual data.

"Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.

Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.

The next rung of House leadership shows the same pattern. Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer's district is home to the booming suburban communities between Washington, DC, and Annapolis. It boasts almost 19,000 wealthy households and a median income topping $62,000. Mr Hoyer's counterpart, minority whip Roy Blunt, hails from a rural Missouri district that has only 5,200 wealthy households and whose median income is only $33,000."

Now, back up this statement you made with some data...if you can find any:

"If repugs give more cause they have more, good for them"

Right is Right

Uh, this IS a thread about Palin's shortcomings.

Interesting that you have a problem with Rangel and NOT Palin, eh?

Pot, meet kettle

LOL

#88 | Posted by woke
* * * *

Woke, there's a Rangel thread up. Feel free to head over there, where you're done praying as the Pharisees do, so as to be seen by men.

Make sure not to present any FACTS to refute the actual data.
#89 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2009-08-30 10:43 AM

As I said, I've refuted your ridiculous attempt to pretend repugs are more charitable, as if that strawman has anything to do with the millions of Americans without healthcare....

3. However, CHARITY is not providing healthcare for over 45MILLION Americans.
I find that last one instructive since what we are talking about here is taking a little bit more from the richest 1% (141,000 people making an avg of 7.4 MILLION a year) so that those children, old folks and poor with no health insurance can have some.....yet, people like yourself have a huge problem with returning to the tax codes under your hero reagan.....
HELLO?

#87 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-08-30 10:23 AM |

Now, back up this statement you made with some data...if you can find any:
"If repugs give more cause they have more, good for them"

#89 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2009-08-30 10:43 AM |

OK, here ya go.....and try to also remember that of those giant corps, many pay zero taxes thanks to 3-4 decades of pro business repug neocon policies, okay....need me to do your homework on that one, too??

Early Edition

Gallup Poll: Republicans Richer, Whiter than Democrats

where you're done praying as the Pharisees do, so as to be seen by men.

#90 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-08-30 11:08 AM |

Another repug misinformer, eh?

I don't pray in public, nor do I support it in schools, etc....that would most likely be your position, eh?

I merely posted the actual words attributed to Jesus, whom Christianity is supposedly named after.....and look at the backlash to that from those charitable, repug "christians"

LOL

Mat 6:1

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Mat 6:2

Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mat 6:3

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

Mat 6:4

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Mat 6:5

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mat 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Now, tell me again, WHO was it BRAGGING about repugs being more charitable on this thread???

"Sorry, I just don't have the time or inclination to keep educating you....."

LOL....THIS from the guy who thinks taxes are charitable donations.

"Now, tell me again, WHO was it BRAGGING about repugs being more charitable on this thread???"

Everybody...

"ABC reports on charitable donations: "It turns out that this idea that liberals give moreis a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election... Turns out conservatives give about 30 percent more, [despite] making less money."

THIS from the guy who thinks taxes are charitable donations.
Jest

Uh, I don't think they are charitable donations....WHY would you need to misstate my position if yours is so solid? Not to mention WHY would you need to insult and namecall if your facts add up?

I believe our govt of the people, for the people and by the people can opt to provide some healthcare for it's people that cannot afford it...

Who is it trying to say this ISN"T a Christian pov?

Who is it trying to deflect the topic to charity, which obviously doesn't take care of the problem?

Who is trying to claim some erroneous idea that repugs give more, therefore are more righteous?

Who is it ignoring the mandates found in the preamble to our constitution for purely partisan reasons?

Who is it that has no problem with our govt spending TRILLIONS to destroy, kill and maim those in other countries, thus enriching the oil/war corporations, but doesn't want any tax money spent to actually HELP other Americans?

WHO?

"jest" is a good moniker for ya...eh?

What? Nothing about my FACTS correcting your misinformation?

Now, back up this statement you made with some data...if you can find any:
"If repugs give more cause they have more, good for them"
#89 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2009-08-30 10:43 AM |

Gallup Poll: Republicans Richer, Whiter than Democrats
Aired July 31, 2000 - 8:39 a.m. ET
transcripts.cnn.com

Ya got schooled. So you just start spewing more misinformation.
You should admit it or realize you are so indoctrinated that even when presented with facts, you are unable to change your mind about what your uber rich neocon masters have told you to believe...eh?

Again, charity is a red herring argument the repugs like to use...but charity does not provide healthcare for 45 million Americans who don't have it.

And that is a FACT.

And our preamble states clearly that the welfare of Americans is ONE of the things our govt can do for those who cannot do for themselves...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What could be more appropriate to "promote the general WELFARE" than to help those who don't have healthcare, which also helps insure public safety and health also?

Forming a more perfect UNION, allows us to collective bargain with huge global healthcare/pharma corporations to bring prices down for everyone, the insured also....AND reform that insures these corps play fair with their insured.

Isn't it about time you woke too?

"Gallup Poll: Republicans Richer, Whiter than Democrats
Aired July 31, 2000 - 8:39 a.m. ET
transcripts.cnn.com

YAAaawn...you are SOOoo fuckin' stupid...

"Richer Americans are Democrats
An article in The Washington Times alerted me to research from 6th November by Michael Franc at The Heritage Foundation. Mr Franc shows that the wealthiest Americans are increasingly likely to vote Democrat:

"Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats. This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence."

"Why Are Democrats Richer than Republicans? by Tom Kando:
...And here is another thing: On average, Republicans are poorer than Democrats! Just go figure. When it comes to economics, it should be pretty simple. There are two basic political attitudes, and you would expect them to correlate with how rich a person is: you would expect both the rich and the poor to vote their pocketbook. The rich would vote for lower taxes and for the government to butt out, i.e. Republican, conservative. The poor would vote for more re-distribution of wealth, more government services, i.e. Democratic, liberal. But, lo and behold, it's the opposite! Even though there is a lot of overlap, the statistics are clear: The average income of the 100 million or so Republicans is LOWER than that of the 150 million or so Democrats!"

When I say stupid, I mean incurably, terminally STUPID!

"Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds." Thomas Sowell

#72 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-30 05:10 AM | Reply | Flag: Pot calls Kettle Black

"I don't know of any."

That doesn't mean they don't exist unless you've met every one of them. And I doubt that you have.
Almost every one of the folks on my rig are republican and all but 4 or 5 are very decent people.
#76 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-30 07:45 AM

And I love how Afk (among others) just assumes motivations and behaviors with little evidence.

#66 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-08-

any assumptions are based on FACTS of dems over the years...we know just what they lie about and do..

its not our first rodeo

Republicans are evil, filthy thieves. Nothing has changed. Palin should be investigated and divested of all assets.

#67 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-08-29

and yet the story of axelrod has DISAPPEARED and there is no more mention of it

and RANGEL is STILL chair of the TAXING committe in the house...

I love it when people quote free republic in an effort to show they are not partisan....LOL

#80 | Posted by woke at 2009-08-30 09:04 AM | R

and I love it when goddamn democrats get on here and quote cnn and the three majors and msnbc and everything they say is the gospel because they are the smartest sunsabitches in the universe..

but they arent partisan...

by the way...woke..

you are a pretty good advisary here..........but the dems are still overreaching JUST AS WE PREDICTED because they are arrogant assholes in a profession known for its arrogant assholes
yeah right............

"Republicans are evil, filthy thieves. Nothing has changed. Palin should be investigated and divested of all assets.
#67 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-08-29"

and yet the story of axelrod has DISAPPEARED and there is no more mention of it
and RANGEL is STILL chair of the TAXING committe in the house...
#101 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-08-30 02:13 PM

Make NO mistake - ALL misconduct needs to be addressed, regardless alleged affiliations or purported ones.

Imo, if it's a Democrat then they deserve even more scrutiny having portrayed the part of liberal progressive while actually profiteering through deception and theft.

Partisanship is MORONIC. Justice for ALL.

I'd never have assumed you and I would be at the same tailgate party, but here we be.

Hey, my neighbor's dog just took a shit.

Just thought as long as the Retort is a fan of pointless "news" you might like a heads up on this breaking story.

What office does she hold again? Wait, you mean she doesn't hold a public office? She isn't running for an office?

What the fuck?

"alleged affiliations or purported ones." - woah, oxymoron. You know what I meant, I hope.

Hey, my neighbor's dog just took a shit.
Just thought as long as the Retort is a fan of pointless "news" you might like a heads up on this breaking story.
What office does she hold again? Wait, you mean she doesn't hold a public office? She isn't running for an office?
What the fuck?
#104 | Posted by brentrice1 at 2009-08-30 02:26 PM

Good to know you are aware of how much importance public officials thieving is to this nation.

You are a non-citizen, I presume?

Doesn't hold office dip-shit. If you're looking for some corrupt office holders, take a look at Rangel the tax-cheat and his buddy from LA that liked to store cash in his freezer.

Doesn't hold office dip-shit. If you're looking for some corrupt office holders, take a look at Rangel the tax-cheat and his buddy from LA that liked to store cash in his freezer.
#107 | Posted by brentrice1 at 2009-08-30 02:31 PM

If that's the best you've got dearheart, I'm afraid you're merely an unlit jack-o-lantern left to rot on some trailer stoop.

TRY reading the thread on Rangel, my comments in particular, then get back to meh.

That doesn't mean they don't exist unless you've met every one of them. And I doubt that you have.
Almost every one of the folks on my rig are republican and all but 4 or 5 are very decent people.
#76 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-30 07:45 AM

Use that maplight site to prove me wrong, please.

I don't need a site to prove you wrong. This is first week of first semester logic stuff, robot. Not only that, but I know some decent republicans (as do many other people on this forum) so that proves that can't all be bad.

I don't need no steekin' site.

I'd never have assumed you and I would be at the same tailgate party, but here we be.

#103 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009

well when something is the right thing to do...
'shit happens'......lol

and I agreed with danni once too .
I saw a good therapist soon after....

also, its good to read something like that from the other side...many times its the media that deserves the "afkabl2 skorn"........whatever the hell THAT is

This is much ado about nothing..

From the article--

SarahPAC has redesignated the $5,000 going to each Republican, so that $2,400 is for the 2010 primary and another $2,400 is for the general election. The Murkowski and McCain campaigns already have refunded the remaining $200, Crawford said. Originally, the entire $5,000 was for the primary.

It's not unusual for the FEC to seek additional information or have questions. For instance, the Alaska Democratic Party has had three such requests from the FEC so far in 2009 and had 13 in 2008, according to the FEC Web site.

---

And this is a big deal?

And thanks to Rcade for his yellow journalism headline.

The contributions were not 'illegal'.

Excessive--yes. And they had to be parsed out differently--one to the primary and one to the general election.

But they were not illegal.

That doesn't mean they don't exist unless you've met every one of them. And I doubt that you have.
Almost every one of the folks on my rig are republican and all but 4 or 5 are very decent people.
#76 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-30 07:45 AM

"Use that maplight site to prove me wrong, please."

I don't need a site to prove you wrong. This is first week of first semester logic stuff, robot. Not only that, but I know some decent republicans (as do many other people on this forum) so that proves that can't all be bad.
I don't need no steekin' site.
#109 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-30 02:51 PM

Actually, you DO.

I'm referring to paid Representatives in particular.

Check out what Republicans have been raking in versus Democrats, THEN bitch about my "partisan hacktasms" and such.

Also, please use some of your favorite Representatives as an example of their honesty for me. I'm really having difficulties locating one who hasn't taken lobbyist monies.

Educate the masses with your keen insight, goat.

Ahhhh, another Palin thread. I find it hilarious how nut fucking crazy she drives liberals. Its always nice to see a liberal pee his pants but watching them do it over and over concerning Sarah Palin just takes the cake.

And thanks to Rcade for his yellow journalism headline.

The contributions were not 'illegal'.

Excessive--yes. And they had to be parsed out differently--one to the primary and one to the general election.

But they were not illegal.

#112 | Posted by MURPHY
* * * *

That's because he didn't read the article, and neither did any of the knee-jerk libbie posters. The word "Palin" is like a little bell in front of a Pavlovian dog.

#97 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2009-08-30 01:35 PM |

Thomas Sowell?

Of the HOOVER INSTITUTION?

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace is a public policy think tank and library founded in 1919 by future U.S. president Herbert Hoover.

HAAHAAAHAAHAHAAAHAAHAHAAHAAHAA
AAAAA!

#116 | Posted by woke

Ignore the message and attack the messanger. Gee, that takes a lot of thought.

Sarah Palin, Socialist
VIEW STORY ON ONE PAGE PRINT THIS STORY SHARE THIS STORY
By Steve Kornacki
October 20, 2008 | 1:12 p.m

If you haven't seen it already, Sarah Palin is openly accusing Barack Obama of advocating socialism based on his off-the-cuff comment to "Joe the Plumber" about his desire to "spread the wealth around."

Granted, no major-party presidential nominee -- particularly one leading in the polls -- should ever be that sloppy with his words, but Obama was merely referring to his tax plan, which would allow the Bush tax cuts for the top level of income-earners to expire, hardly a Marxist concept.

Still, Palin is now hurling the S-word around in her speeches and defended the accusation to reporters this morning by saying: "There are socialist principles to that, yes. Taking more from a small business or small business owners or from a hard-working families and then redistributing that money according to a politician's priorities -- there are hints of socialism in there and that's why I don't fault or discredit Joe the Plumber for bringing that up, asking if that is socialism."

But wait. If this is Palin's definition of socialism -- taking more from business and redistributing "according to a politician's priorities" -- then isn't she herself guilty of running a socialist government in Alaska? After all, she is the same Governor Palin who in 2007 pushed a gigantic increase in the state's oil profits tax through a Republican-dominated legislature, a move that brought in $6 billion in new revenue.

And what was done with that money? Well, as the Seattle Times put it (before Palin emerged as a national figure), "While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus."

In other words, the extra money that Palin took from businesses was spent according to the priorities of Palin and other Alaska politicians. Isn't this exactly what she's accusing Obama of wanting to do? Here's a clip a Palin bragging about her windfall profits tax, again, from before she landed on the national ticket

#118 | Posted by woke

Who in the hell is going to read that novel?

This shit is like Johnson without the vocabulary.

I know Jeff J....it's a bitch isn't it....I mean the difference between people who can READ and COMPREHEND instead of merely allowing right wing corporate SHILLS to tell them what to think.....

I feel sorry for ya bro

I feel sorry for ya bro

#120 | Posted by woke

Your pity is spat upon! ;-)

Look, it is possible to disagree with your worldview without having said dissenting viewpoint being tainted by spoon-fed rightwing propaganda or an inherent hatred toward the less-fortunate.

Internalize this truth and your posts may be taken more seriously.

Anyhow - gotta run. Have a nice evening.

I am having a great day Jeff.

My 7th grandchild's 1st birthday party. Great weather. etc...

You too..

And, uh, the reason I mistook you for a right wing dupe/shill, is you making a derogatory comment that what i posted was too long to read...(a novel you called it)

If you are unable to read a few simple paragraphs, it kinda shows me you prefer being TOLD what to think.

Unfortunately nearly ALL of our audio/visual media is owned/operated by giant corporate conglomerates.....

What does that tell you?

My 7th grandchild's 1st birthday party. Great weather. etc...

Seriously - congrats. That is special any way you slice it.

is you making a derogatory comment that what i posted was too long to read...(a novel you called it)

Actually, I was mostly clowning. You cited a source and provided your own commentary to support it. Nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately nearly ALL of our audio/visual media is owned/operated by giant corporate conglomerates.....

What does that tell you

It solidifies my view regarding the importance of blogs, the internet in general, 24-hour cable news outlets, opinion talk-radio, Sirius/XM, etc.

Regardless of bias, our media mostly sucks ass. This is why I so strongly support a liberal weblog- I get a lot of info from sources biased-right. This place helps keep me in check.

Woke,

My 7th grandchild's 1st birthday party.

Both of my boys' 1st was a redux of 2 toddlers kicking the shit out of a birthday cake!

I am guessing that it was the same for your grand-kid.

Could you identify a particular martial-arts discipline, or was it just fists of fury?

Educate the masses with your keen insight, goat.

Robot, first you said "republicans". There are millions of them. I proved you wrong. So now you move the goalposts to elected repubublicans.

Sorry, I don't chase moving goalposts.

But still, I've no doubt that pretty much all poliicians are equally dishonest regardless what letter you put after their name.

"Tools. Don't ever change, guys. Your party needs you! Achtung!

#85 | Posted by rightisright"

As if you ever criticize the right, RightIs. (See, e.g., your handle.) That's the way it generally works - folks on each side of the political fence criticize the folks on the other side. This should not be a revelation to you.

LOL

Thanks for the humanity in this sea of partisanship/division.

About 30 of us stood around her in the back yard with her in her high chair being given about 1/4 of a sheet cake....eventually, they had to strip her down to her diaper...LOL.

The other highlight was when another mom was given a huge chunk to take home on a paper plate and for some strange reason gave it to her 18month old boy, who promptly "frisbee'd" it into a bush...LOL/

Take care

- folks on each side of the political fence criticize the folks on the other side. This should not be a revelation to you.

#126 | Posted by mOntecOre

What is so pathetic is that much of our media is ridiculously biased.

As if you ever criticize the right,
#126 | Posted by mOntecOre

Because you are so critical of crazy elements of the left.

Fight nice you two!

You're sounding like my kids! : )

The contributions were not 'illegal'.
Excessive--yes.

There's no distinction. If a political contribution is excessive, it is illegal under federal election law.

"Because you are so critical of crazy elements of the left.
#129 | Posted by JeffJ"

Come on, shortbus, try to keep up:

"folks on each side of the political fence criticize the folks on the other side. This should not be a revelation to you."

"Fight nice you two! "

Actually it looks like JeffJ is arguing against himself so it should be fight nice you.

Maybe he's rotating on top of the fencepost. Wouldn't be his first time.

"Educate the masses with your keen insight, goat."

Robot, first you said "republicans". There are millions of them. I proved you wrong. So now you move the goalposts to elected repubublicans.
Sorry, I don't chase moving goalposts.
But still, I've no doubt that pretty much all poliicians are equally dishonest regardless what letter you put after their name.
#125 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-30 07:59 PM

ie - you have NOTHING and know that I was always referring to Republican representatives. Run away like a pissy bitch..

ie - you have NOTHING
and know that I was always referring to Republican representatives.

Actually I didn't know that. How would I? I know you are into all this new age mind reading mumbo jumbo, but I"m not. I can't read your mind.

Run away like a pissy bitch..

I proved you wrong on your original post. You got pissed and moved the goal posts. Now you are whining that I won't chase them.

I'll tell you what I tell everyone when they move the goalposts: I don't play that game.

Call me a pissy bitch or whatever you want. I still won't chase your moving goalposts.

Cheers

"ie - you have NOTHING
and know that I was always referring to Republican representatives."

Actually I didn't know that. How would I? I know you are into all this new age mind reading mumbo jumbo, but I"m not. I can't read your mind.

"Run away like a pissy bitch.."

I proved you wrong on your original post. You got pissed and moved the goal posts. Now you are whining that I won't chase them.
I'll tell you what I tell everyone when they move the goalposts: I don't play that game.
Call me a pissy bitch or whatever you want. I still won't chase your moving goalposts.
Cheers
#136 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-31 05:38 PM

You are a liar.

Here's my post and your reply knowing full well that I was meaning Republicans in relation to the thread topic:

Republicans are evil, filthy thieves. Nothing has changed. Palin should be investigated and divested of all assets.
#67 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-08-29 07:20 PM

"Republicans are evil, filthy thieves."
Pretty much all politicians are, redlight
#68 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-29 08:11 PM

Which then led to:

.. Also, please use some of your favorite Representatives as an example of their honesty for me. I'm really having difficulties locating one who hasn't taken lobbyist monies.
Educate the masses with your keen insight, goat.
#113 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-08-30 04:37 PM

So, hows about you SIMPLY ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION?

So, hows about you SIMPLY ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION?

Looks like I did

"So, hows about you SIMPLY ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION?"

Looks like I did
#138 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-31 07:50 PM

It would appear so.

Btw - would you mind telling me if you voted for Obama or McCain? Not to jump down your throat immediately, but I'm fixing on it.:]

would you mind telling me if you voted for Obama or McCain?

Neither