Little z, you didn't post anything about the tax they paid other than the silly statement you made up. You also didn't tell us your adjusted gross income and rate. Also you didn't post anything about Obamas secretaries income or rates (which one, he has a whole cabinet of them, not all women) . You make so little sense it doesn't matter though, no one would believe anything you say anyway.
I don't think that is what it was about. She was carrying papers about something in central America.
He already has admitted it himself here. If your statement was true then a lot of whistle blowers would not be collecting today and Harry Reid would have been prosecuted (unless he was right of course).
You confuse perception with reality. From Eric Alterman
"Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc., no sensible person can dispute the existence of a "conservative media." The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the notion of a "liberal media." It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared with its conservative counterpart, but it does exist. As a columnist for The Nation and an independent weblogger for MSNBC.com, I work in the middle of it, and so do many of my friends. And guess what? It's filled with right-wingers.
Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor. Take a tour from a native: New York magazine, in the heart of liberal country, chose as its sole national correspondent the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson. During the 1990s, The New Yorker--the bible of sophisticated urban liberalism--chose as its Washington correspondents the belligerent right-winger Michael Kelly and the soft, DLC neoconservative Joe Klein. At least half of the "liberal New Republic" is actually a rabidly neoconservative magazine and has been edited in recent years by the very same Michael Kelly, as well as by the conservative liberal-hater Andrew Sullivan. The Nation has often opened its pages to liberal-haters, even among its columnists. The Atlantic Monthly--a mainstay of Boston liberalism--even chose the apoplectic Kelly as its editor, who then proceeded to add a bunch of Weekly Standard writers to its antiliberal stable. What is "liberal" Vanity Fair doing publishing a special hagiographic Annie Leibovitz portfolio of Bush Administration officials that appears, at first glance, to be designed (with the help of a R
No we have a system where one is innocent until proven guilty. No one can be forced to testify if it might incriminate them so unless one is given immunity there is no need to speak. Once given immunity then they must or be held in contempt. Rand Paul isn't very smart and certainly not consistent in defending the constitution or the law. If you take administrative action against someone who has done nothing wrong except to exercise their constitutional rights you are open to a suit.
the champions of women rights around the world are not from the republican party. What makes you think such behavior is condoned by liberals?
What kind of cave man are you. It means nothing of the sort. that is why our founders wrote in to the constitution that no one could be compelled to bear witness against themselves. "Anything you say, can and will be used against you." If you don't know enough to keep your mouth shut when being investigated for any reason you are an idiot. If you want Lerners testimony give her full immunity. That isn't what Issa wants. He wants to imply a conspiracy where none exists.
Airplane was not at 45,000 feet. There is no way to know that without the Mode C on the transponder reporting altitude. No such report was ever made. Speculation of rapid descents and climbs is only that. No evidence. Transponder and communications turned off. Possibly the crew reprogrammed auto pilot to fly to Langkawi but doubtful. Easier to turn to the heading and put on autopilot rather than program a route. Then if no one is flying the plane it would continue on set course until fuel runs out. When engines stop it continues to maintain the same airspeed in a dive until it hits the water. Would the masks drop down if the aircraft never pressurized on climb out? Rapid decent to lower altitude below 10,000 feet would have been the first concern before programing any GPS navigation or selecting a course on the auto pilot after putting on oxygen masks which would have been readily available to the pilots. No reason to think two pilots overcome in a rapid decompression or in any decompression situation would have done all of those maneuvers without oxygen and then died. Time of useful conciseness without oxygen in the situation would have been very short. Aircraft is said to have followed a flight route not just going in a straight line to nearest suitable airport as would have been done in an emergency. There are no answers, only questions. If the pilots were dead so were all of the passengers and crew from oxygen deprivation which is not a bad way to go for those who are concerned about suffering.
Does anyone have more than one IQ? Perhaps he is trying to say that his number of IDs is larger than the score of Masons IQ which would be admitting that he is using over 100 ID's if the mystical Mason is even average. The mysteries of a deranged mind are always entertaining even if sometimes dangerous.
Seems the only thing little z can win is a battle against a fictitious foe that no longer exists on the battle ground except in his feeble mind. In that Mason has won as he has taken over little z's mind without writing a word. Every shadow, every post is another bogey man tormenting little z every day.
The canard that the media is all liberal has got to come to an end. It is not. It is also not stupid, so of course it does not agree with a lot of right wing issues like global warming denial or intelligent design.
No Hitch they did not rule that. They still restrict the amount you can give to one candidate. They did not rule that money could not be restricted. They ruled that an individual can give to as many people or groups as he wants.
Still those contributions can be redirected back to an individual or group after they are out of the donors control. You can now give the limit to each person on office in one party and then they can redirect it to support one or a handful of candidates. With no overall restriction they can buy a whole city commission as the Kochs are attempting in Iron county or a state legislature in several states where they don't even live, or federal legislators in states where they don't have residence either.
This was not a conservative decision. Overturning years of precedence in their last two campaign funding decisions this court has turn out to be the most radical and least conservative ever.
Little z states that Blacks, Hispanics and women don't believe in American values. So what does he think American values are? Slavery, abuse and inequality?
Take away old white men and he would have walked away with 75%
just so both sides get their views out and voters can decide in their best interests how to vote. Hitch the big lie worked for Hitler and it still works today. say it loud, day it often and people will eventually believe it. The more money you can spend blasting your opponent the better chance you have. Face it most campaign ads are negative telling you why you should vote against some person and not for some policy.