Why would I complain to the FEC about a non-event, Obama vote fraud?
Why would I complain to the FEC about the Bush fraud when the SC already ruled it doesn't care?
You need to think, even a little, before you post.
By Jon Stewart
How can anyone improve on that description?
All Presidential libraries should be closed, and all records given to the Library of Congress. We don't need multiple shrines, especially to serial underachievers like the Bushes.
Despite the fact that their calculations were wrong, Harvard deficit authors stand by their findings.
Their data used to show a sharp drop in growth at +90% debt/gdp. Now, it shows a smooth line, where there is no special case at any debt level. They don't back off a bit, however. The data shows they have no findings.
They won't change.
Why not? They are being financed by Pete Petersen, multimillionaire psychopath. Petersen believes he'll be much better off if he doesn't have to pay SS and Medicare taxes.
Obviously it's some form of psychosis that a person who has millions upon millions is obsessed with saving $12,000 on SSI and 1.4% on medicare on income.
Have you filed a complaint with the FEC? That would be useful.
They did. Supreme Court said: "If you count all the votes, then Bush will lose, and that violates his due process to be President, as son of a President."
Well, Barbra, I sure do.
I can't wait to see another crushing defeat of the the GOP. If we are lucky, it will be Jeb, with a moderate twist on Republicanism, in truth, just a facade of moderation.
When he loses, the rush will be even further to the right, and a large part of the GOP will break off and float out to sea. A minority for decades if not forever.
Remember, with 16 years of Democratic Presidents, the Supreme Court is probably going to become liberal again!
Their work is the cornerstone of Conservative deficit reduction theory. Completely, utterly false.
Right. And the IRS shouldn't be saying who is and who isn't a church. That's what they currently do. That needs to stop.
Wow! so your guy Bush had quite a strategy! Build bases in Saudi, get buildings blown up in the US. Invade Iraq, lose 4000 US lives, retreat in defeat!
Gee, what a strategy. If you don't mind, this accomplished what?
Wait until insurance companies stop covering them, then you'll see a change.
Only one industry in the USA gets to sell a product and be shielded from product liability laws: guess which industry that is?
Wow! I'm rushing to sell my GE stock! You're dealing them a death blow!
Why not jump in on my side: let's stop subsidizing religion. Let's stop giving religious affiliation a category.
The Government should have zero observance and zero tolerance for any religious belief. Example: You don't want to show your face for your driver's license picture, because its against your religion? Okay, don't drive.
You don't believe in killing? Okay, you can stand their with a rifle and draw fire from those that do.
You want to give 10% of your income to some charlatan child molester, in the hopes you will get everlasting salvation. Fine, but you're paying taxes on the money when you earn it and no deduction when you give it away.
No clergy confidentiality immunity.
You mean the destruction of employing more and more people each month, cutting down the deficit, things like that?
The little told reason OBL attacked the USA was to get rid of US bases in Saudi Arabia. Of course, the cowardly Bush obliged and closed down the bases after the 9/11 attack.
Then again, as the Bush family and the Bin Laden family go way back and have business dealings for years, it could have been a slap at Bush for welching on some deal.
"I'm not going to let that tool go unused."
-----
see ya, Tone!
He's in New York, remember? Not as uptight as the Rust Belt.
Elizabeth Colbert Busch Leads Mark Sanford By 9 Points, Poll Shows
-----
Attention Republicans: ignore these polls, they are never, ever right!
Mark Sanford 'Debates' Cardboard Cutout Of Nancy Pelosi On Sidewalk
-----
Oh, my!
Why not start another thread, as your post, while thoroughly idiotic, is not on point.
Key finding: 75% of New Hampshire voters support gun background checks and 50% of voters in the state say Ayotte's vote against them will make them less likely to support her in a future election, compared to just 23% who consider it to be a positive.
-----
This one stunt may cost the GOP the House in 2014!