It's a slow loris.

Studies that focus on the effect of tax cuts on the economy point toward job creation, higher wages, and an increase in revenue. The fact that the economy is experiencing a downturn cannot be linked to the Bush Tax Cuts. The slide is due to other problems. I'm pulling from multiple sources so I'll help you out by quoting those studies HERE, so you don't have to read all day (just half a day).

What does the following article tell you (cited by Lori Robertson, author of the Fact Check article you linked to)?

"History demonstrates that lower tax rates are good for the economy. The tax rate reductions in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s all resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. Moreover, even though critics complained that these tax rate reductions would allow the "rich" to keep too much of their money, upper-income taxpayers actually wound up paying a greater share of the tax burden during all three decades, because lower rates reduced the incentive to hide, shelter, and underreport income."
Heritage.org

Obama knows that he shouldn't be raising taxes.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."
The Huffington Post

Lowering taxes for the big earners means freeing up more capital in the private sector. THAT'S A GOOD THING! Raising taxes obviously has the opposite effect.

"The higher the bracket, the greater the penalty. By the time taxpayers reach the 39.6 percent bracket, they are able to keep only about 60 cents of any added income--and this is counting only the federal individual income tax. This high tax "price" of government has adverse effects on work effort, but most of the economic damage occurs because punitive tax rates discourage saving and investment. Indeed, because upper-bracket taxpayers earn most of their income by supplying capital to the market, and because capital is extremely sensitive to changes in tax rates, this is one of the most important reasons to reduce the top tax rate.

More specifically, high tax rates encourage upper-income taxpayers to alter the location, timing, and composition of their portfolios to protect their income. This misallocation of savings and investment reduces the economy's growth rate and deprives workers of the capital they need to be more productive; and this lower productivity means, of course, that workers will earn less income."

-Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Heritage.org

Just read the Joint Economic Committee's studies on Tax Rates VS. Tax Revenues:

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden."
House Joint Economic Committee Report April 1996

In response to the Rolling Stone article you presented:

"Referring to the chart on page 5 of the census report, we see that the top of the lowest fifth bracket went from $13,471 in 1967 to $16,116 in 1998, a growth of 19.6% in real terms. During the same time, the top fifth of wage earners went from a minimum of $53,170 in 1967 to $75,000 in 1998, a growth of 41.1%. Similar increases can be observed in each of the income brackets.

Everyone got richer, but the rich got richer faster.

This is hardly surprising. Someone that is rich is going to have more extra money that they can invest which, in turn, creates more money. Money generates money and no-one disputes that being rich is, by definition, a financial advantage in a capitalistic society. Short of draconian wealth redistribution, this will always be the case. However, the macro-economic data from 1967 to 1998 does not support the assertion that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The data supports the position that everyone got richer. While there may be year to year variations in a negative direction, the long-term trend is that all Americans are getting richer."
Letxa.com

From the same article:

"Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance (given that you can only give a tax cut to someone that pays taxes, and that the "rich" are really the only ones that pay taxes in any substantial manner) or is disingenous (because the person knows this to be true, but makes the accusation anyway). The statement "a tax cut favors the rich" should be reworded "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes." It would be just as accurate but obviously without the class warfare undertones. Unfortunately, those that state "tax cuts favor the rich" are usually hoping for those class warefare undertones, so hoping for them to use the more accurate and less divisive words is probably utopian."
Letxa.com

...but what do Barack Obama, The Heritage Foundation, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Joint Economic Committee know?

I was like W T F watching this, but I'll upvote the vid just for the wrongness of this comment. Hehehe...

>> ^petpeeved:
Man, Amy Winehouse has put on some weight.

Slow Loris

Don't ya just love Lori's rural Ontario accent?

I agree with *catsanddogs.

Unfortunately, if it is a dupe it should be discarded.

But it is not a dupe, one is 14min the other an over an hour. So, by the 'different content loris rule' this is not a dupe.

"I have to agree, I can't possibly see how this women would be considered a murderer."

True, but Lori Drew is a Class-A cunt just the same.

The parents look like total emotionally-bound basket cases, notwithstanding they are grieving for their daughter....BUT-from the explanation the mother goes into, one can gather she was ill-equipped to deal with the dynamics of the parent-child relationship-What is that, you ask? Well, who can say, but I would hasten to guess, that if you followed the mom and dad, back to their parents, and then to the parent parents, you most likely have co-dependency, psych problems, in other words, weak-minded individuals passing on their fuck-ups to their kids-

Tragic-the other viddy you posted raven, has the poor girl as a goddamn pharmaceutical guinea pig, so its no wonder she was near the edge-

how about this one: MySpace is like crack cocaine for idiots who could pass a piss test with flying colors, and we have the last 2 generations of kids and parents, who don't understand the dynamics of meaningful, tangible relationships, and spend too much goddamn time on the computer-(Oh, but it's fine to meet someone on the internet, maybe find some fuck buddy, or someone who will listen to me tell you how I have always wanted to be a girl, someone to party with, etc.) Fucking morons! We are already at capacity for flakes on Earth, let's' just crank out some more!!!

Some 30-40 something folks already feel like Howard the fucking Duck on planet now, because this shit has all happened in the span of 40 years......and you people don't think yer a buncha meatbots??? Give me a fucking break!!

This also looks like a a case of parents hoping to fix a fuck-up, by "trying something new" with their daughter, knowing little of the dynamics involved-God when is the mothership coming??!!! HURRY!!!!

oh yeah, and that bitch lori drew IS a cunt, and she's raising another one to unleash on the world....and y'all think the casualties in Iraq are horrifying...the real horror is back here in the U.S......

See also, Lori Drew's Side of the Story

The news media has so far shielded the guilty parent, why, I am not sure, but her identity was recently leaked by another parent on the same block, who was sick of her getting away with it. The guilty mother, Lori Drew, has repeatedly said that she is not at fault, that "things got out of hand", and that now she is being unfairly targeted by members of her community (no shit sherlock, wtf did you think would happen??). In any case, the blog Megan Had It Coming recently appeared in the last few weeks and its author is now claiming to be Drew... whether or not that is a hoax is at this point in time debatable, but either way, authentic or not, its author is certainly a nutjob, and it makes for a disturbing read.

"Loris" is a common real life nickname for people called "Lorenzo", as I am. But it's totally a gay nickname.

When I was in high school, sometimes people were happy to see me, so they called me "Lohohohohohooooris", where the "hohoho" were things like laughters.

So I choose Lo'oris as nick, where the apostrophe means that there were more characters there (as usual in Italian).

In some sites I'm not allowed to use the apostrophe, so just Looris.

no, don't worry go ask it

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Hey Loris!

What's Up! I posted a clip from the Colbert Report. I think it would go well in the Colbert Playlist Mix made- how do I go about asking her? Is there should I wait for her to see it? Is there some sort of etiquette I am breaking by asking her?

MH

Hey Loris!

What's Up! I posted a clip from the Colbert Report. I think it would go well in the Colbert Playlist Mix made- how do I go about asking her? Is there should I wait for her to see it? Is there some sort of etiquette I am breaking by asking her?

MH

A semplification of a contraction of an expansion of a nickname for my real name.

Lorenzo -> Loris -> Lohohohohohoris ("ho" is almost laughing) -> Lo'oris (-> Looris / Lo_oris)

Official nick should be "Lo'oris" but some softwares don't want apostrophes.

Bah, you just didn't have the required amount of alcohol to watch it, Farhad! The comic books were great and I liked the movie, too. Lori Petty just taking no guff from anyone throughout.