Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[kaz]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

Poor fella. Opposition is a terrible thing, eh?

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

You don't know what a "neocon" is, moron. When you label people, at least learn what the labels mean

 

[kaz]

Government should do its job and that is to maintain the country...A government too small would just let corporations shit all over the place and we'd have bad food, dirty air and shitty water

Don't forget we'd eat dogs, children would be slaves, women wouldn't get clean underwear and boy scouts wouldn't help little old ladies across the street. We'd dump our garbage on the moon, the streets would flow with blood and candy would taste like broccoli. Wow, corporations suck, we need government to take care of us, I feel you. they do such an outstanding job

 

[kaz]

History has taught society one thing and that at the end of the day business cares more about profit then anything...

Your posts have taught us that you can say something that is true yet completely fail to grasp what it means. The problem is actually that government doesn't make a profit. That's why they don't give a shit about us, their collections department has guns. Corporations have to compete for your approval or you go to their competitor. Government doesn't have to compete, they remove your choice.

Why does the word Marxist bother you people again? It is what it is, why don't you just say you are a Marxist?

 

[Wry Catcher]

ONCE MORE BUBBA

Without false premises, distortions and LIES what would you EVER have?


You mean Rand doesn't stand on principles? Thanks

OK, she doesn't. rand said she doesn't want social security and she didn't pay the taxes while turning down getting some of her taxes back. Obviously she isn't actual libertarian. Actual libertarians give money to government to protest how much government spends. Liberals of course cheat on their taxes and you're fine with that, why wouldn't you be? You're fucking retarded.

Anyway, you must hate fucking Obama, obviously this is a principle thing to you. Obama said he should pay more taxes, but he doesn't. Wow, what a fucking hypocrite, according to your standards. You voted for Romney just to make the point, didn't you?

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

 

[kaz]

OK, she doesn't. rand said she doesn't want social security and she didn't pay the taxes while turning down getting some of her taxes back. Obviously she isn't actual libertarian. Actual libertarians give money to government to protest how much government spends. Liberals of course cheat on their taxes and you're fine with that, why wouldn't you be? You're fucking retarded.

Anyway, you must hate fucking Obama, obviously this is a principle thing to you. Obama said he should pay more taxes, but he doesn't. Wow, what a fucking hypocrite, according to your standards. You voted for Romney just to make the point, didn't you?

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

 

[Dad2three]

ONCE MORE BUBBA

Without false premises, distortions and LIES what would you EVER have?


You mean Rand doesn't stand on principles? Thanks

OK, she doesn't. rand said she doesn't want social security and she didn't pay the taxes while turning down getting some of her taxes back. Obviously she isn't actual libertarian. Actual libertarians give money to government to protest how much government spends. Liberals of course cheat on their taxes and you're fine with that, why wouldn't you be? You're fucking retarded.

Anyway, you must hate fucking Obama, obviously this is a principle thing to you. Obama said he should pay more taxes, but he doesn't. Wow, what a fucking hypocrite, according to your standards. You voted for Romney just to make the point, didn't you?

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

 

[Dad2three]

Skyrocketing? Bubba, this isn't the end of a GOP Prez term!

Hint record CONSECUTIVE months of hiring AND 5.1% unemployment after the shithole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policy gave US

this discussion is the cities raising unemployment, not the national average, retard

Source dumbfuk?

OK, here's how it works, blank shooter. you don't answer questions, you don't get to ask them. That's a no negotiation deal. When you start backing up your crap and responding to questions, then you get to ask them.

word

Bubba, YOU are the one being obtuse AND making posits YOU can't back up. Dumbfuk

Right, which is why you don't take questions, got it

Bubba, I take and answer questions all day, what I don't do is deal with false premises!

NOW YOU MADE THE POSIT, IT WAS ON YOU TO BACK IT UP!


You said cities unemployment is "skyrocketing" I assume you meant in those cities where min wage was increased? SOURCE? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

You don't know what a "neocon" is, moron. When you label people, at least learn what the labels mean

Yep, Neocons are those Klowns you Randian fetishists rail against, then turn around and support and vote for!

 

[Dad2three]

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

 

[kaz]

OK, she doesn't. rand said she doesn't want social security and she didn't pay the taxes while turning down getting some of her taxes back. Obviously she isn't actual libertarian. Actual libertarians give money to government to protest how much government spends. Liberals of course cheat on their taxes and you're fine with that, why wouldn't you be? You're fucking retarded.

Anyway, you must hate fucking Obama, obviously this is a principle thing to you. Obama said he should pay more taxes, but he doesn't. Wow, what a fucking hypocrite, according to your standards. You voted for Romney just to make the point, didn't you?

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

Rand paid so much more than her fair share that getting a little of it back was hypocrisy zero.

now Obama, saying he should pay more taxes and fighting to raise taxes while not paying them, that hits the perfect 10 in the hypocrisy scale

 

[Wry Catcher]

History has taught society one thing and that at the end of the day business cares more about profit then anything...

Your posts have taught us that you can say something that is true yet completely fail to grasp what it means. The problem is actually that government doesn't make a profit. That's why they don't give a shit about us, their collections department has guns. Corporations have to compete for your approval or you go to their competitor. Government doesn't have to compete, they remove your choice.

Why does the word Marxist bother you people again? It is what it is, why don't you just say you are a Marxist?

Why don't you just say you're a dishonest, anti democratic and a bigot? The evidence that you are is in all of your posts.

What you claim is Marxist, is simply progressives and liberals making an effort to argue for and remind callous conservatives of the traditional ethos of Americans.

 

[kaz]

this discussion is the cities raising unemployment, not the national average, retard

Source dumbfuk?

OK, here's how it works, blank shooter. you don't answer questions, you don't get to ask them. That's a no negotiation deal. When you start backing up your crap and responding to questions, then you get to ask them.

word

Bubba, YOU are the one being obtuse AND making posits YOU can't back up. Dumbfuk

Right, which is why you don't take questions, got it

Bubba, I take and answer questions all day, what I don't do is deal with false premises!

NOW YOU MADE THE POSIT, IT WAS ON YOU TO BACK IT UP!


You said cities unemployment is "skyrocketing" I assume you meant in those cities where min wage was increased? SOURCE? lol

You answer zero questions ever. Address how Obama is not a complete and utter hypocrite for not paying taxes he said he should pay while fighting for higher taxes, you keep running and hiding from that one

 

[kaz]

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

Republicans can't stop thinking in partisan terms about anything, can you?

 

[kaz]

History has taught society one thing and that at the end of the day business cares more about profit then anything...

Your posts have taught us that you can say something that is true yet completely fail to grasp what it means. The problem is actually that government doesn't make a profit. That's why they don't give a shit about us, their collections department has guns. Corporations have to compete for your approval or you go to their competitor. Government doesn't have to compete, they remove your choice.

Why does the word Marxist bother you people again? It is what it is, why don't you just say you are a Marxist?

Why don't you just say you're a dishonest, anti democratic and a bigot? The evidence that you are is in all of your posts.

What you claim is Marxist, is simply progressives and liberals making an effort to argue for and remind callous conservatives of the traditional ethos of Americans.

What I claim is Marxism is straight from the communist manifesto justified by the exact same rhetoric. Hence my describing it as Marxism. See how that works? Marx ... Marxist philosophy ... Marxism ???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

Poor fella. Opposition is a terrible thing, eh?

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

 

[kaz]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Well stated

 

[Wry Catcher]

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

 

[Dad2three]

True, Rand DIDN'T stand on her principles like her fellow travelers did. Thanks for agreeing!



Liberal BELIEVE in Gov';t Bubba, ND GOV'T POLICY THAT DICTATES WHAT TAX POLICY IS. Weird you don't get that? lol

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

Rand paid so much more than her fair share that getting a little of it back was hypocrisy zero.

now Obama, saying he should pay more taxes and fighting to raise taxes while not paying them, that hits the perfect 10 in the hypocrisy scale

Sorry, I keep forgetting, Rands two fellow travelers who CHOSE not to suck off the teet of the collectivists, weren't the principled ones it was was Miss Rand who chose to indulge. Got it

 

[Dad2three]

Source dumbfuk?

OK, here's how it works, blank shooter. you don't answer questions, you don't get to ask them. That's a no negotiation deal. When you start backing up your crap and responding to questions, then you get to ask them.

word

Bubba, YOU are the one being obtuse AND making posits YOU can't back up. Dumbfuk

Right, which is why you don't take questions, got it

Bubba, I take and answer questions all day, what I don't do is deal with false premises!

NOW YOU MADE THE POSIT, IT WAS ON YOU TO BACK IT UP!


You said cities unemployment is "skyrocketing" I assume you meant in those cities where min wage was increased? SOURCE? lol

You answer zero questions ever. Address how Obama is not a complete and utter hypocrite for not paying taxes he said he should pay while fighting for higher taxes, you keep running and hiding from that one

Oh right the LAW Obama is pushing for that the US tax system is built on? Weird you don't understand we don't have a voluntary tax system? Yeah, it's "hypocritical" not to pay tax rates you advocate for *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

Republicans can't stop thinking in partisan terms about anything, can you?

Yeah, says the guy who supports their policies.

Can't refute the FACTS huh bubs? Not surprised at your lack of even trying!