Alan Keyes keynote at Pittsburgh TEA party

Emailed to source url does viagra work on premature ejaculation follow link who am i essay help my essay is too short source url buy name brand viagra https://roanokechowan.edu/pharmacy/names-for-generic-cialis/21/ get link follow follow link buying essays cheap paper writing follow url by mail sale viagra nexium compra via internet do canada cost of viagra from cvs get link sur quel site acheter viagra go how to check ip address connected to my wifi drug interaction for prednisone follow viagra baby see url viagra online trusted go to site viagra para que es https://glennfoundation.org/drugstore/cialis-for-sale-40-mg/25/ z pack online pharmacy case study house no 22 click here contact.ipr@gmail.com. Posted to IPR by Paulie.



Bonus track:

26 thoughts on “Alan Keyes keynote at Pittsburgh TEA party

  1. G.E.

    Look at that gangsta-ass El Duche pose Keyes is sporting in the second vid from the bottom. This turd truly has to be the most shameless individual to ever inhabit Earth.

  2. Rocky Eades

    Il Duce poses are all the rage now, apparently. Obama does it a lot. Limbaugh at CPAC did it a lot too.

  3. Luke

    as the person who emailed these videos in and as aa former Keyes supporter I have to say it was pretty stupid tog ive him the keynote speech. He made the abortion issue a majorr issue in the gop. Which I extremely liked but since then he has made us prolifers the laughing stocks of everyone else involved in politics

  4. marcylee

    Hey Luke! How has he made prolifers a laughingstock?

    And why are you no longer a Keyes supporter? Have you abonded your pro-life view because it may not be pretty or agreeable in the eyes of your friends?

  5. Peter Gemma

    Keyes has long been a practicing ass. Who on earth invited him to speak? How many people were there … I suppose it’s hard to estimate how many people didn’t come out because the rally took on a kook city image.

  6. John C

    I think part of his problem with his daughter is that he has done well repressing his tendencies and expects her to have the “self control” to do the same.

  7. Trent Hill

    GE’s question is a good one, Luke, why do you support Mike Huckabee, who wants higher taxes and more government, over Ron Paul–who is more pro-life and more small-government?

  8. Luke

    Know Mike Huckabee supports the fairtax which is smaller government. While Ron Paul doesn’t even want to continue the war in Afganastan.

  9. paulie Post author

    The war in the graveyard of empires isn’t smaller government; neither is the fraudulent “fair” tax.

  10. Trent Hill

    The “FairTax” doesnt decrease taxes at all–it’s revenue neutral–while Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing.

    And no, Ron Paul doesnt want to continue the disastrous war in Afghanistan. It’s the graveyard of empires.

  11. paulie Post author

    True, except that the revenue neutrality depends on getting rid of the income tax – in reality, it’s a lot harder to get rid of tax than pass a new one, so the most likely outcome is both sales and income taxes. Some people don’t realize this, while others do:

    Delaware Libertarian reports

    Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University–one of the world’s brightest economists and an Obama supporter/consultant–admits in the latest issue of Scientific American (the link is to the gated version; sorry, I went out and bought the dead tree edition) admits that what Barack Obama wants to do cannot be done without massive tax increases.

    Here are the revelant segments:

    Obama’s budget plan properly focuses on areas that public economics identifies as priorities: health, education, public infrastructure, and research and development, especially sustainable energy–all areas where the US lags discernably behind many parts of Europe. The president’s vision of an expanded federal role is on target and transformative, but the financing will be tricky. This year’s deficit will reach an astounding $175 trillion, or 12 percent of GDP. In the plan, the government debt held by the public will balloon from 40.8 percent of GDP in 2008 to 65.8 percent in 2013, a level that will weight heavily on the budget for years.

    Obama’s budget plan aims to reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GDP by 2013 and then to level it off until 2019. This deficit is relatively large, but even that target will be very difficult to achieve and sustain. With significant increases in entitlements spending and higher interest payments on the rising public debt, the plan is to cut the deficit mainly through higher taxes on the rich, reduced military outlays for Iraq and Afghanistan, new revenues from auctioning carbon emissions permits, and finally a squeeze on nondefense discretionary spending as a share of GDP (which is set to decline from 4.7 percent in 2010 to 3.3 percent in 2019). Such a squeeze on nondefense spending seems unlikely–and indeed undesirable–at a time when government is launching several much needed programs in education, health, energy and infrastructure.

    The truth is that the US, like Europe, will probably have to raise new revenues by a few percent of GDP if the government is to carry out its expanded role. Within a few years we will probably see the need for new broad-based taxes: perhaps a national sales or value-added tax such as those common in other high-income countries. If we conitued to assume that we can have the expanded government that we need without the tax revenues to pay for it, the build-up of public debt will threaten the well-being of our children and our children’s children. No parent, or citizen, should find such an approach acceptable.

  12. Trent Hill

    Paulie,

    Im not argueing the feasibility of the plan–but the plan itself. If it succeeded as suggested–it would not lower taxes one penny.

  13. paulie Post author

    True…but it would increase big government in other ways. It is likely that all purchases will have to be tracked to prevent tax resistance, and this may be the excuse to do away with paper money.

    Also, the “rebate check” puts the whole country (except for those who do not use SS numbers or fill out the rebate forms) on a giant welfare program. When most people in the country get used to getting a government check every month, that can’t be goo d for the prospects of keeping government growth down.

    Finally, retired people who paid income taxes all their lives and saved get to be taxed on whatever is left over yet again.

  14. Rocky Eades

    @ #15 et al – The GAO or the OMB has determined that to be revenue neutral – as of a couple years ago, before the fed gov went totally insane – the so-called “Fair Tax” rate would have to be as high as 56%, not the 30% that the fairtaxers were claiming.

    And Paulie is correct, there will be a consumption tax and an income tax. Hell, even the “probable” candidate for US senate here in Georgia said this weekend that the fairtaxers and the flattaxers (another fraudulent tax reform scheme) in the LP need to come up with some kind of “realistic” compromise tax plan to replace the current one. (implying that there are only two tax reform plans being discussed within the LP – both of which involve massive amounts of taxation.)

  15. paulie Post author

    Aaron Zelman of JPFO points out that the purchase-tracking likely enforcement mechanism will cause government to have a list of who buys bullets, and how many. This is of course also true of controversial reading and viewing material, etc.

    It’s also a disincentive to starting businesses if small business owners have to file taxes, but if they remain employees of others they don’t have to file. Keeping more people as employees rather than independent business owners is big government working in tandem with big corporations.

  16. paulie Post author

    Keyes and Alex Jones are now openly calling for Obama’s assassination.

    Nothing in Steve’s article from your link says that they are. Got more?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *