Bachmann's anti-tax everything is based on a lie and the lie is that all those taxes are applied equally to everyone in America - they aren't and they shouldn't be. Unfortunately the bush admin had 8 years to shift the load from the rich/richer to the middle class - did I mention that like Bachman bush is a Republican? If Bachman wants to do something about taxes she need only look at her own parties implementation of inequities agains the middle class for inspiration.

And I agree that we should be investigatin Anti-American activities, such as promoting an unnecessary war for oil in Iraq, Allowing the world financial community to gorge and disgorge all over us, lawlessly taking away American civil liberties, serverly damaging the American economy by moving jobs (and businesses) offshore, creating enough ill-will around the world through imperialist/military backed activities to generate a terrorist backlash that killed up to 3000 people on 9/11. These are the Anti-American activities I would have investigated and several of Bachman's coaches would be headliners in that investigation (Rove, Bush, Cheney...).

If I were her I'd be careful how I defined Anti-American.

Firstly i have to disagree that taxes shouldnt be the same for everyone else. The only reason the rich are taxed more in this country is because a huge all consuming government cant exist without squeezing the most productive members of society, if the percentage tax rate was the same for everyone the major bread winners would still be paying a lot more than everyone else. Our progressive tax system is bad for the economy because it takes capital from the people who clearly have the ability to run and grow bussiness's and puts it into the pockets of big government, where it will be mostly squandered. Personally i like the idea of a consumption tax system where a person has the ability to keep all the money he earns and only pay taxes when he consumes goods and services, it seems much fairer to me, a person could make all the money they wanted but if they dont want to live in some grandoise life style then he shouldnt be penalized for it, plus, with free market economics, it would go to say those who consumed the least (ie the poor) would pay the least taxes, the middle class would pay according to however opulently they wished to live, and those who consumed the most (ie the rich) would pay the most, but the best part is you get 100% of what you work for, imagine nearly doubling your income and what you could do with that.

Secondly Iraq wasnt really about oil (although i do believe it was a war of choice and we should never fight a war of choice) Saddam was a threat (he would shoot at american aircraft everytime they would fly over Iraq) though not a major one, especially here at home, he couldnt touch us if he wanted, and i do agree there was something imperialistic about the whole ordeal, and it should be investigated and if something illegal did occur then those individuals should be brought to justice, but you cant lump the republican party with these few individuals who would take advantage of the general trusting good nature of americans.

VagrantPhilosopher: Who says the rich are "the most productive members of society"?

Many of them are lazy parasites, inheriting wealth and wasting it.

If the discrepancy between the rich and the poor grows too large, you risk revolution. Check out the French Revolution of 1789, where most rich aristocrats lost their heads (literally).

Finally, one of the best economic times in America's history was in the 1950s, when the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest people was 90%.

Bush 43 gave tax cuts to the rich. To the rest of us he gave the Great Recession. Not a good bargain, in my opinion. The "trickle down" evaporated before it hit those who needed it the most.

vagrant, did you seriously just say that saddam was a threat because he would shoot american planes as they flew over iraq?? really? what do you think we would do if an iraqi plane flew over the U.S? Stand and wave? No, we'd shoot it down. Does that make us a threat? Using your defenition of a threat, here's a way we could have made him not a threat...stopped flying our planes over Iraq.

AlanD2
Firstly the wealth that these "parasites" inherited (ill play your flawed scenario)came from SOMEONE PRODUCTIVE, it didnt just magically accumulate, and they waste it? You mean by buying things? thats called an economy and its what allows you to have a job and make a wage, and if all they do is buy things for themselves, then eventually they run out of money and are forced to be productive.

As far as the french revolution goes (my favorite revolution by the way) thats true, but the aristocrats could not have retained power for as long as they did without backing from the monarchy (ie the french army) Essentially the aristocrats and government were in bed together, sort of the way aig, goldman sachs and all the other money lenders and corporations are in bed with washington today, what we have isnt capitalism, its corporatism, if you want to see the corporations fall, allow more competetion, but this cant come from the government because theyre on those companies payroll and influence, too easily corruptable, we need fair and free markets, we need capitalism.

As far as the 50s go we had an economic boom because their was pent up demand for goods, and a baby boom, so growth was needed, we had a great economy inspite of a ridiculously high tax rate for the rich, not because of it, if those companies and entrepraneurs could have held on to 100% of what they made imagine how much faster and how many more investments could have been made. But really in the end your argument is bull shit, we had a 90% tax rate in the 30s and we were going through a depression.

Im not a subscriber to trickle down economics, if anyone needs a tax break, its the middle class, but you miss the point, progressive taxation doesnt work because it can be so easily manipulated by the aristocrats now while putting the burden on poor people, and middle class, and that is what creates the wealth gap we have today, if you want a more productive economy, let people keep what they earn, poor people will get less poor, the middle class will consume more, which will lead to more people investing in small bussiness's which will lead to a better economy for everyone, why are people penalized for producing ? It seems so counter productive.

Social Secretion
If i saw an iraqi plane flying over head it wouldnt bother me at all, as long as they werent dropping bombs and shooting people who cares? In the armistice saddam signed in 1991 it established Iraq as a no fly zone for Iraqi planes to protect the kurds and the oppressed groups from saddam, to enforce this agreement, american planes would patrol to make sure that these agreements were being met.
And what if saddam had managed to shoot down one of our planes killing your fellow citizens, illegally i might add? the mere shooting at our planes is a clear act of war (although not a war i think we should have fought)

Tell that to our government. They would not agree with you that it would be no big deal if an Iraqi military plane (while Saddam was still in power) was flying over the U.S. If it didn't land or turn around within seconds of us asking it too, we would absolutely shoot it down. It probably wouldn't even make it over U.S. land before being shot down over the Ocean. Don't be naive.

As for your comments on wealth and productivity...Pulling vast amounts of wealth out of the economy just to sit in a savings account and be passed down through inheritance is not being productive. A lower or middle class individual who slaves away working overtime to provide essential services to this country, and then spending the majority of every paycheck as soon as they get it is far more productive to our country. Just a thought.

AnalSecretion
Once again you completely ignore the agreements made in the 1991 armistice, i suppose you think Hitler was justified in throwing out the treaty of versailles to rearm germany.

And money in savings accounts is what makes it possible for the banks to loan out money in the first place, its not like its just sitting there in a dusty old vault collecting cob webs, its out working for people to make more money for regular joes and investors, thats how banks work. Your assumption that everyone with wealth only got theirs from some magical inheritance shows who the naive one is here, you have to work to keep wealth. And yeah, middle class work and consumption is the back bone of our society and economy, so tell me whats wrong with me wanting them to keep everything they earn working?

Did you even read my

ViagraPillpopper,

I did not say ALL wealthy people inherited their money. Pay better attention.

Did you not say "If i saw an iraqi plane flying over head it wouldnt bother me at all, as long as they werent dropping bombs and shooting people who cares?" That's what I was calling naive. VERY naive. And as for the 1991 armistice, what if after the U.S. nuked millions of people in World War 2, what if several world powers strong armed us in to letting their military planes patrol our skies to monitor further nuke use? What if the Saddam and the Iraqis were one of them? Would we put up with that? Or would we tend to ignore that "agreement"? I am not saying I agree with much of anything Saddam stood for, but it was still it's own country, was it not?

Try taking an unbiased, sociological perspective on things, and you may start to see the world in a different light. I thought a "philosopher" would know that.

I didnt hear you say, a few, or some, or most, money doesnt maintain itself, but you would just assume that every inhereter of a fortune is a dimwitted, unworthy fool who'll hide the money in a safe bury it in the backyard so poor people will suffer MUAHAHAHAHA
Thats not how the real world works, its a caricature of a fantasy, if someone wants to hold onto to their money, they either
a. Invest it into a savings account (Which is what allows banks to lend money to regular joes or entrepreneurs)
b. Invest in pre-established companies (ie stocks, etc, which allows companies to expand and grow)
c. Capitalistic venture, eg, opening up a bussiness of some sort or investing into one, allowing people to have jobs to support themselves.

If Saddam wanted to end the patrols he should've done it through the UN not the barrel of a gun. I dont think that america should be the police of the world but i also agree that a country should follow its treaties (to an extent as long as said treaty does not harm, opress, or otherwise endager civilians) so some sort of action against Saddam is justified. HOWEVER, i dont agree that war is the next necessary step, First economic sanctions, then assasination, if that fails, relentless bombing, but trying to impose our will as far as government onto civilians is not only a waste of time, and lives, its immoral. But yeah, thats just me as a soon to be military man, but deep down in my heart of hearts, im an anarchist.

VP
I have NO problem with a consumption tax to replace our current progressive tax structure. Just make sure you think it through.

Our economy has been relying on consumer spending for decades, to add a 20-25% increase on products will decimate retail sales for a long time. Which translates to more job loss, more shuttered businesses. But, if you are willing to make the sacrifice (investment), so am I.

I do have a problem with your insistence that we do not need government to provide services we ALL rely on. Because I fundamentally disagree that free markets are a magic elixir. That they would, on their own, provide those services in a manner that would allow all people access to them.

If truly free markets were such a good idea, why has every single example of a free market morphed into one with regulations and controls? (And please don't use the government is evil argument-you know it is flawed logic and that I won't accept the premise.)

On a side note, I left a response on the Beck/Scar article-I hope you read it, because I have appreciated our debate, and my estimation of your position has (to my surprise) been elevated.

I know it seems like prices would go up if you put one giant sales tax on everything but heres the thing, we already have heavy taxes on bussiness's and who do you think pays that? the consumer, and you never realize because they dont tell you that, its just worked into the final price of the product that you pay for. Plus we would see tax money coming in from people who are just visiting us, tourists and the like.

If you really want to learn the ins and outs of it check out the book "The Fairtax book" by Neil Boortz, trust me, its not as boring as its sounds and taught me quite a bit about our current tax atrocity we have at the moment.

And the reason we have people proposing legislation are for mostly political reasons, not GOOD reasons, not to say all regulation isnt well intended, but the saying the path to hell is paved with good intentions rings quite true in the world of politics, and you also have to remember that most of those regulations didnt come from the congressman themselves, more than likely the idea was created, and advertised by lobbyists with some sort of an agenda.

For example, the housing crisis. During the early years of the Bush administration (im talking pre 9/11 days, when he was still talking about compassionate conservatism) there was a feeling on the left and right that every citizen had the right to own a house, they believed it would be win win, the government wouldnt need to put up people in public housing, and we would have an economic boom, so what did they do? They used the Fed to pressure banks (especially Fannie mae and Freddy mac) to make interest rates on loans low and credit easily attainable, and it worked, housing boomed and poor people were getting houses.

But you cant artificially legislate society into a utopia, and that housing bubble burst, creating a credit freeze, killing bussiness's and the economy's ability to grow. So now all of us in 09 are getting this shit end of the stick, poor people are in heavy debt if not bankrupt, and we have people being thrown out in the streets because they were fooled into thinking they could afford this, but reality always catches up.

estcruzer -- Love your post.

"Anti-American" is a term all of us should use very carefully, and especially by wingnuts like Bachmann who have microphones. Remember Palin's "real Americans" (leaving the majority of us out of the running)? All of this talk is divisive, inflammatory and dangerous, as Joe McCarthy showed us.

Good response, estcruzer

I hear her saying no taxes, but I don't hear her offering any alternative. How is just shouting, leadership? Why do people vote for her?

Thank you. I can't believe people are just merrily posting along as if the rantings of a maniac has nothing to do with the incredibly vile and over the top reactions by many people who call themselves the "right." But, like all women who think they are Esther (in the bible), she will continue to spew, and spew regardless of the consequences. Awareness of ones actions isn't a quality that the righteous (self or otherwise) possesses.

Bachman reminds me of an alarmist in a movie theater, yelling fire at the top of her lungs then sitting back with a smug smile on her face to watch the action her words inspired.
A foolish woman but secure in her own greatness she will disavow any blame, and never question herself.

Bucause they are not capable and besides they don't want to have their country destroyed.

Understand now or should I reapeat?

Bachmann is nutso, and why Paul
appeared with her is baffling.
Maybe he was being punked.

Associating Paul with extremists is unfair.
Every party has their share of wackos.
Paul is a sensible man who actually
believes in the Constitution. Shame on him, right ?

But what else is new ?
The liberal media had harsh words for the
thousands of peaceful "tea-baggers" in Washington,
desperately focusing on the few kooks in the crowd,

but somehow the same media seems to ignore the
overt, in the face, blatantly violent black hooded
far leftists who threw rocks at police and damaged police cars
at the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh.

If the tea baggers threw rocks and assaulted police
the liberal media would cover it like flies on shot.

sophia
These so-called "violent" black hooded leftists are are a well formed global group that appears at every global meeting every year, and sometimes twice a year, are they are indeed well covered by the press. Even the SWAT teams know they are coming, and meet them with teargas, pepper spray and firepower. What really bugs you--- that they dare to protest world poverty, environment and other world issues?

The harsh words that came out of the recent protest in WDC came from the signs that were carried by these so-called "peaceful teabaggers" themselves-- all the press had to do was show those signs that made that protest ugly; nevermind that those protesters hid under the protection of free speech, and had no fear of backlash. If you call that peaceful, good for you.

And PS sophia
Why weren't the teabaggers out there when the last administration was spending on the illegal war? Was it the liberal media, or the fact that Dick Armey and his gallery wasn't agitating them? Cowards all.

cheenthere

( "What really bugs you--- that they dare to protest world poverty, environment and other world issues?" )

No, what really bugs me is the VIOLENCE.
Where are the examples of Tea Bagger Violence ?
Where is the left wing media to cover an innocent black man Kenneth
Gladney (town hall participant) who was assaulted by
thugs of SEIU, sister organization to ACORN ?

Let's stop the partisan crap and tell it like it is.
The Iraq war was a disgrace, all for Halliburton stock.

The VIOLENT LEFT gets a pass from "mainstream media." Period.
If Tea Baggers assaulted Mr. Gladney, MSNBC would have
race baiting coverage 24/7.

Violence sophia?
Have you ever watched Animal Kingdom, or Disney, or been in the real world? You misuse the word violence, while you justify same re the baggers you give a pass to. I put forth the ugliness of that protest which you ignore. What you have is the Hoax News suggestive bs. that you buy into. Go ahead, who gives a damn.
The left gets a pass? So sayeth you, while proclaiming the middle of the road. I am surprised you can dress yourself in the morning much less get up out of the bed.Your lack of conviction is self-defeating, quit trying to sell it to those who have a commitment to social justice.

And sophia,
As evident. those who protested in PA were and are held accountable for the destruction of property, but no responsibility will be passed to those who confronted the President of the United States as used and abused by special interests, again because the cowards hid behind free speech, which you have view as a right granted to the "special few". That is not the foundation of this country.

And did you and yours abhor war violence sophia. I asked you that where were you and yours then. It is not so simple is it?

They don't mix well, at least on a consistent basis. Like rum and cheese, though I suppose now that I think about it, a rum cheesecake might be tasty if brown sugar was involved as well.

The worldviews of Paul (libertarian centered) and Bachmann (religious conservative centered) are if not a world apart, then from different continents. What they really seem to have in common is their mutual enemy, the broad spectrum of big taxing and big spending socialist liberals of the generic Democratic brand.

I am sure I am not saying the above correctly, but Paul is against being taxed for the sake of social programs that he believes are outside the purview of the Federal government, and likewise against laws at the Federal level that don't deal with issues given over to the Federal government in the Constitution, plus he's an anti-imperialist who believes we should bring the troops in Iraq home, and those in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc as well.

Bachmann does have some commonality with Paul in terms of minimizing taxation and not spending money to rescue big business and big banking from itself, but at the same time she has no reluctance to push a conservative Christian agenda into Federal law, such as banning same-sex marriage and she is a bit of an imperialist, such as supporting the troop surge in Iraq and willing to consider a nuclear option in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. I would venture that Bachmann is a staunch supporter of the state of Israel, while Paul would be neutral, especially in the sense of not providing aid to Israel or any other country.

Paul is an advocate of minimal government, the kind that stays out of the free market and personal matters, and that if government does need to become involved, that it's handled at the state level. Bachmann strikes me as an advocate of small government who nevertheless doesn't mind using the Federal government to push her values and end-times agenda.

Geez, i was just confused because cheese and rum go awesome together.

especially gouda, with a little Sailor Jerry, mm..mmmm

Just as good going down as when coming up.

VagrantPhilosopher - I am more of a gin and tonic man myself. Had a few this evening while watching Hercule Poirot on PBS. But to each his or her own.

I was just taking some shots of gin earlier tonight, along with some rails of xanax and a couple blunts.

I suppose im weird like that, when im not reading Spinoza, or Miller, or Locke or Name Drop, then im finding different ways to alter my consciousness, however hallucinogens are my prefered drug, it just sucks i live in such a poor town, theres no money to make here, constantly poor, but i can get shrooms for 5 months of the year =)

Big ass ones too.

Vermont?

You summed it up nicely. Kudos.

well said mutch

wow I agree with you here vagrant...also on the mushrooms, too funny.

Each day just goes so fast
I turn around - it's past
You don't time to hang a sign on me
Love me while you can
Before I'm dead old man
A lifetime is so short
A new one can't be bought
And what you've got means such a lot to me
Make love all day long
Make love singing songs
There's people standing round
Who screw you in the ground
They'll fill you in with all the sin you seeek

it just drives me nuts when people think im a republican, or dont know what a libertarian really is. Politics, to me it seems, destroys peoples souls by making them slaves to themselves, and they have no idea, one shared delusion.

Well if you're talking about me with the slaves to themselves bit i'd have to disagree. I understand what a libertarian is. A couple reasons why I'm not.
I'm pro-choice. I don't want that left up to the states.
I'm for all sorts of industrial regulations as far as polluting goes.
I am very much in favor of the progressive tax system so we can pay for everything from roads to schools to parks to (gasp) single payer health care.
Other than those things I bet we agree on a lot vagrant. If there's one area I consider myself a libertarian it is foreign policy. That, along with Republican-esque support of big business is where I disagree with the Dems.

I'm pro choice as well, but its not federal issue, if a state is misguided enough to ban abotrtions then it means either that person will just go to another state, or even worse, do it back alley style, eitherway governments should keep their hands off our reproductive rights.
Im for regulation as far as the dumping of waste goes, if you pollute a waterway you should be held responsible to clean it. Most pollution is caused by power plants though and our demand for energy, which we could completely solve by going nuclear. The waste created is miniscule and isnt a major threat to anyone if disposed of properly.

But heres the problem with your thoughts on the progressive tax system
Roads are paid for by the tax on gas, not income tax.
Schools and parks are paid by property taxes, not income tax.
The idea of a single payer system seems like such a farced to me, if you go into any hospital with an emergency they are required by law to take care of you, they dont just throw you out for not having insurance. It seems like just a way for the few most powerful insurance companies to get government backing, essentially monopolizing power on regulation (this is essentially pure corporatism)
The 45 million uninsured can be broken down as follows, about a third are young people who could afford but make the calculated risk not to ,about a fourth are intermittenly lapsed in coverage, as in they ran into trouble and dropped their coverage temporarily, theyre not chronically uninsured. Then if you take illegal immigrants out of the picture, that leaves you with a 11 million people, who qualify for medicaid benefits but are either unaware, or unwilling.
The health insurance market is THE most heavily regulated market in our economy and that is the real reason it sucks.

Most of the great injustices perpetrated by the Church were perpetrated when it acted in conjunction with a state or states or acted as an aggressive state itself. The Spanish Inquisition was a franchise job; control was given by the Pope to the Spanish Crown. Islamic Jihadists wish to impose an Islamic state. And to be fair to the Church they had a mixed record when it came to American Indians. Bartolome de las Casas condemned the actions of the Conquistadors and while initially pro-African slavery he reversed his position and became an early abolitionists. Church intellectuals, especially those from Salamanca, were early proponents of international law in the form of natural law and argued against the abuses that the American Indians, in both N and S America, suffered through. Of course not all Church members shared these views, but credit ought to be given where credit is due.

Oh please. Obama overwhelmingly was elected. That's what's so troubling to most of the right. They simply can't believe that a man of his hue was trusted by so many Americans over McCain, Paul and Romney. It just drives people who hate anyone not white and American bat crazy. If it weren't so pathetic and potentially fatal, most sane people would be laughing their butts off right now. The sights are something to behold!

See marie, your really whats wrong with america

Sane people are trying to move to a place beyond race where everyone is an INDIVIDUAL and treated as such.

But you and your prism view of the world and race is coming to and end, we're not white people, black people, yellow people, we're just people, and it doesnt matter that you just want to label people into groups, segment them into pigeon holes and pretend they want or are thinking the same things, divide them, the fact that everyone is different, yet the same is just something beyond your tiny comprehension, we are the individuals, and your injection of race, although a wrench in gear of progress now, will soon lose its power, yes, you cant stop the wheels of progress now, no matter how you try to drag us back down, there is no stopping, I have a dream, that one day a black man, and a white man, can sit down together at the table of brotherhood and look at each other and to never occur to each owns minds that for one second think they were different, that the day will come when men and women of all colors realize that we are all different, yet all the same, every single one of us, yet, we are all alike, for we, together in this human family, carry apart of god inside all of us.

'Yeah, and when Obama hugged Hugo Chavez ,it was the death of his career, right?'

Is that different than Bush holding hands with Sunni theocrat Prince Bandar bin Sultan?

GM

No, and why do you immediately assume im a bush supporter?

are you too slow witted to detect sarcasm?

You're right about the war and peace, but to be fair, our president is pro-choice and paul is not. President is for a decent living minimum wage, while paul is not. The list goes on but let me bring up one more...Ron Paul stated that he thought it was wrong for the federal government to force slave owners to give up their slaves. He thought the fair thing to do would be for the government to buy these people from the slave owners. Now that is not one of the craziest things I've ever heard! Down with Ron Paul.

"Choice" is a states issue. Personally, I am repulsed by it, but I know nothing will ever be done about it so we can at least follow the law. I love how to the liberals, gay marriage is a states issue but abortion is not. Almost EVERYTHING is a states issue under a correct interpretation of the Constitution. What is a Federal issue is mass murder in the Middle East. Apparently that doesn't bother you enough to join the real peace movement.

If you think that the government can actually give everyone a living wage by decree without negative consequences, you probably also believe in the tooth fairy. Price controls don't work.

Ron Paul said that in every other western country at that time, the government had bought the slaves' freedom. Were those governments crazy? The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves(until it became politically expedient to do so). I am not pro the South or the North, but you need to get all the facts.

Let's see now............
Rush Limbaugh = Keith Olberman; Glenn Beck = David Shuster; Bill O'Reilly = Rachael Maddow; Sean Hannity = Ed Shultz; Ann Colter = Randi Rhodes; and Michelle Malkin = Janeane Garofalo.
Crazies are in the eye of the beholder........

The crazies don't run the Dem Party? Didn't the President send 20k more troops to the meat grinder(Afghanistan)? Didn't the Dems pass everything Bush wanted from 2006-2008? At lease the GOP is good at PRETENDING to be a true opposition party. The DEMS make the one party scam too transparent.

Bingo!!! And no matter how they try to compare Olbermann, Maddow, Shuster et al to the delusional rantings of their cable/radio heroes, nobody brought guns to presidential appearances, shot up and killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum, and possibly hung a federal worker for just doing their job. Oh, and you can also add Tim McVeigh to the list of wackos brought to you by the radical right. What do they all have in common? They all hate the government, make money off of and people crazy by ranting against it, and use every government service(including garbage pick up and postal services) every chance they get. Now whose more gullible and stupid. Them or their followers?

Carole65: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Colter, and Michelle Malkin are all liars.

The other commentators you mention (mostly MSNBC) are not.

If you can't understand this distinction, I guess you're crazy too.

Typical Carole response. How long did that take you to think up carole, and what does it add, some childhood thing that you never got over?

nightdragon83: I didn't say we had "no" crazies on the left. The Friday march as reported by the AP:

"The thousands of demonstrators in the so-called People's March were demanding solutions to environmental and economic crises they believe were created by the G-20, said Pete Shell, a protest organizer."

"The demonstration was sponsored by The Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh peace organization. The group held a festive mid-march rally, which included folk singers and speakers on various issues."

"The march had a city permit and organizers pledged to keep it nonviolent. The demonstrators apparently kept their word."

These were the "lefties" you mentioned. But on Thursday:

"The Thursday march didn't have a permit and police declared it illegal almost as soon as it began. Small bands of anarchists responded to officers' overwhelming show of force by rolling huge metal trash bins, throwing rocks and breaking windows. Police fired bean bags and canisters of pepper spray and smoke."

"Civil liberties groups decried what they called a heavy-handed and unwarranted police response to the Thursday protests. They complained that riot officers focused on largely peaceful, if unsanctioned, demonstrations when they should have been paying more attention to small groups of vandals that smashed windows of city businesses."

It doesn't look to me that this group was "lefties. I think anarchists fit in more with you conservatives, just like the assassin of "Tiller the Baby Killer".

nightdragon83: Your Fox News commentators are "SUCCESSFUL" because there are so many unthinking conservatives in this country. It is quite possible to be both popular AND crazy, you know.

Alan, I love your retort. I expected a more unprejudiced view like "all commentators exaggerate to make their point".
And, cbeenthere, I might have know that my post would put your panties in a knot. I added, what I thought, a little levity, something that doesn't seem to be in your character.

Carole65: Some commentators do "exaggerate to make their point".

Others - typically on Fox News - just lie. I hate to be blunt, but that's the way it is.

Ok, Carole, the way you manipulate information so it misinforms others makes me laugh. HAHAHAHA. You are so funny.

This Carole75 freak is a typical female who married for money, just a higher caste than a street walker, and then uses it's idle time to stir $#%^. Reminds me of the Eagles song. Your Lyin eyes.

Really?? Where did you get that information? However, even if they are non-partisan, as you say, that doesn't negate their egregious behavior.

nightdragon83 & Carole65: From ACORN's web site:

"ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C."

"ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system."

Naturally conservatives oppose ACORN, since the people that ACORN registers are mostly poor and usually Democratic. When ACORN helps the poor, they are often opposed by businesses and industries that are conservative.

Carole does no research shoots from the... wherever.

You would think with all the poor people Republican administrations create that they would love them.

Why do you keep creating more poor people if you dislike them with your policies.

More important. Why do Republicans which includes the Christian Reich hate poor people.

What Jesus are you people praying to.

Alan, you still didn't answer my question about ACORN's non-partisan activities. When and how much did they donate to Republican campaigns? I'm not saying that they haven't, but they have donated to Democrat campaigns.
And, cbeenthere, what research have you contributed lately to any subject? Is attacking posters all you can muster?

Carole65: As a 501(c)(3) organization, ACORN is prohibited by law from using any money to promote specific candidates. This means no campaign donations to either Republicans or Democrats.

So you are wrong when you say "they have donated to Democrat campaigns."