If Hillary is a crook, why...

[Flopper]

So you're promoting a man with no respect, no honor, no dignity & the only loyalty he has shown anyone is to himself and Russia. A man that is currently involved in 3500 class action law suits over Trump University. The most incompetent, unqualified, dangerous candidate in this nations history.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam, by Ian Tuttle, National Review
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

And all because of your 20 year spoon fed hate of Hillary Clinton, with enough conspiracy theories to fill the capital building from floor to ceiling, without ONE single thread of evidence to prove any guilt on any one of them.

Bravo--you're a true Patriot of this country.

Hitlery is the most dangerous ever....even worse than the Barrypuppet...hands down.

This ^^^ is one of the most childish idiot-grams to date.

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

Yep, 20 million in two years for speaking fees from wall street. They don't pay for shit they don't want to hear.

Wall Street is MAIN Street's money. You're not going to separate MAIN Street from their money. Politicians often give speech's for money--either to fund their own campaigns or to donate it to their party.

Furthermore, if this is in a effort to support Donald Trump aka Mr. Wall Street himself--then you're barking up the wrong tree again. Trump was often accused of manipulating the stock market back in the 80's & 90's with large buys and sells.

Which shouldn't surprise you, as he has 3500 class action law suits going on right now with Trump University--that he is going to be embroiled in shortly.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam, by Ian Tuttle, National Review

Hillary gave 91 speeches in 2 years from April 2013 to March 2015. She was paid an average of $245,000 a speech which was the going rate for celebrities. Actually, many speakers get far more. During this period she was not connected to the government nor was she a candidate.

Complete List of All 91 of Hillary's Corporate Speeches and Speaking Fees

 

[OKTexas]

Incompetent, what I've been saying from the beginning. There was no way she was ever going to be indicted. She's too powerful and knows where too many skeletons are buried. Extremely careless is enough for me to want her kept out of the White House.

What evidence do you have besides the partisan comments by the FBI Director that HRC is "incompetent"? Post it, or be forever known as nothing more than one more echo from the chamber of biddable fools.

What more is needed beside the non-partisan comments by the FBI Director? She was extremely careless but he decided not to indict her, but as you know, lesser mortals have been prosecuted for such carelessness. She was the Sec State, trained and responsible to mark classified information classified and handle it properly. This she did not do. The post to which I responded indicate that she could be guilty of incompetence. Have you issue with that as well?

As if she was in charge of computer security, dupe.

She had physical control of the server, hell yeah she was in charge of security.

Ex NSA was the expert...

And who was his boss? What happened to the buck stopping at the top? Were you NEVER in a supervisory position?

 

[francoHFW]

This ^^^ is one of the most childish idiot-grams to date.

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

There's the 0.1% for raising their own taxes for the good of the country, and there are scumbag GOP 0.1%ers who've brainwashed you, dupe.

No need to raise their own taxes, the government takes donations, as much as you want to give.

Silly talking point. We need ALL the rich to pay their fair share to make the difference, of course.

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're promoting a man with no respect, no honor, no dignity & the only loyalty he has shown anyone is to himself and Russia. A man that is currently involved in 3500 class action law suits over Trump University. The most incompetent, unqualified, dangerous candidate in this nations history.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam, by Ian Tuttle, National Review
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

And all because of your 20 year spoon fed hate of Hillary Clinton, with enough conspiracy theories to fill the capital building from floor to ceiling, without ONE single thread of evidence to prove any guilt on any one of them.

Bravo--you're a true Patriot of this country.

Hitlery is the most dangerous ever....even worse than the Barrypuppet...hands down.

This ^^^ is one of the most childish idiot-grams to date.

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

Yep, 20 million in two years for speaking fees from wall street. They don't pay for shit they don't want to hear.

That's 40-80 speeches. It was tax deductible no doubt...

And?

 

[francoHFW]

Hitlery is the most dangerous ever....even worse than the Barrypuppet...hands down.

This ^^^ is one of the most childish idiot-grams to date.

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

Yep, 20 million in two years for speaking fees from wall street. They don't pay for shit they don't want to hear.

That's 40-80 speeches. It was tax deductible no doubt...

And?

And no evidence she changed any policy for it...total GOP BS...

 

[francoHFW]

What evidence do you have besides the partisan comments by the FBI Director that HRC is "incompetent"? Post it, or be forever known as nothing more than one more echo from the chamber of biddable fools.

What more is needed beside the non-partisan comments by the FBI Director? She was extremely careless but he decided not to indict her, but as you know, lesser mortals have been prosecuted for such carelessness. She was the Sec State, trained and responsible to mark classified information classified and handle it properly. This she did not do. The post to which I responded indicate that she could be guilty of incompetence. Have you issue with that as well?

As if she was in charge of computer security, dupe.

She had physical control of the server, hell yeah she was in charge of security.

Ex NSA was the expert...

And who was his boss? What happened to the buck stopping at the top? Were you NEVER in a supervisory position?

And wth is the big deal anyway lol? NOTHING HAPPENED but a gigantic pile of BS GOP propaganda....

 

[OKTexas]

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

There's the 0.1% for raising their own taxes for the good of the country, and there are scumbag GOP 0.1%ers who've brainwashed you, dupe.

No need to raise their own taxes, the government takes donations, as much as you want to give.

Silly talking point. We need ALL the rich to pay their fair share to make the difference, of course.

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

 

[OKTexas]

This ^^^ is one of the most childish idiot-grams to date.

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

Yep, 20 million in two years for speaking fees from wall street. They don't pay for shit they don't want to hear.

That's 40-80 speeches. It was tax deductible no doubt...

And?

And no evidence she changed any policy for it...total GOP BS...

She wasn't in government at the time dummy.

 

[francoHFW]

There's the 0.1% for raising their own taxes for the good of the country, and there are scumbag GOP 0.1%ers who've brainwashed you, dupe.

No need to raise their own taxes, the government takes donations, as much as you want to give.

Silly talking point. We need ALL the rich to pay their fair share to make the difference, of course.

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

 

[OKTexas]

What more is needed beside the non-partisan comments by the FBI Director? She was extremely careless but he decided not to indict her, but as you know, lesser mortals have been prosecuted for such carelessness. She was the Sec State, trained and responsible to mark classified information classified and handle it properly. This she did not do. The post to which I responded indicate that she could be guilty of incompetence. Have you issue with that as well?

As if she was in charge of computer security, dupe.

She had physical control of the server, hell yeah she was in charge of security.

Ex NSA was the expert...

And who was his boss? What happened to the buck stopping at the top? Were you NEVER in a supervisory position?

And wth is the big deal anyway lol? NOTHING HAPPENED but a gigantic pile of BS GOP propaganda....

How about you ask Comey, if he can state with absolute certainty that the hildabitches server was not compromised? His answer would be a resounding NO!

 

[OKTexas]

No need to raise their own taxes, the government takes donations, as much as you want to give.

Silly talking point. We need ALL the rich to pay their fair share to make the difference, of course.

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

 

[francoHFW]

Silly talking point. We need ALL the rich to pay their fair share to make the difference, of course.

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did slavery.....give a better answer.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell me, exactly what is a fair share? You talk about talking points and then uses talking points, give me a concrete definition of fair share. The top 10% are already paying 70% of income tax revenue, so tell the class what is the definition of fair share. NO TALKING POINTS ALLOWED.

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did Dread Scott and many other things since overturned. How much you want to bet that those particular questions have never been posed to them?

 

[francoHFW]

In my opinion, 40% over 250k, 50% over 500k, 60% over 5 million, 70% over 20 million.

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did Dread Scott and many other things since overturned. How much you want to bet that those particular questions have never been posed to them?

It's a proven fact that non-progressive taxes just ruin the nonrich and gild the rich. Been happening the last 35 years...also before Wilson.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, at least you have balls enough to commit. That leads me to a few questions, but I'm going to ask them one or two at a time so not to overload your obvious pea brain.

1. Would you agree that a dollar is an individual piece of property owned by someone, a simple yes or no is all that's required. Keep in mind, each dollar bears a unique serial number.

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did Dread Scott and many other things since overturned. How much you want to bet that those particular questions have never been posed to them?

It's a proven fact that non-progressive taxes just ruin the nonrich and gild the rich. Been happening the last 35 years...also before Wilson.

Am I detecting the stench of class envy here? Yep, think I am. What ever happened to everyone is equal under the law?

 

[francoHFW]

I just liked the way things ran before Reaganism....OK, yes.

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did Dread Scott and many other things since overturned. How much you want to bet that those particular questions have never been posed to them?

It's a proven fact that non-progressive taxes just ruin the nonrich and gild the rich. Been happening the last 35 years...also before Wilson.

Am I detecting the stench of class envy here? Yep, think I am. What ever happened to everyone is equal under the law?

Societies that pander to the rich don't do well.

 

[OKTexas]

Good, since you was kind enough to give me a direct answer, I'm going to cut to the chase, last question.

2. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows properties of the exact same value to be treated differently in tax law just because of where they fall in an imaginary stack?

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did Dread Scott and many other things since overturned. How much you want to bet that those particular questions have never been posed to them?

It's a proven fact that non-progressive taxes just ruin the nonrich and gild the rich. Been happening the last 35 years...also before Wilson.

Am I detecting the stench of class envy here? Yep, think I am. What ever happened to everyone is equal under the law?

Societies that pander to the rich don't do well.

Neither do societies that redistribute wealth to people who haven't earned it. It's a never ending cycle with the non-earners constantly demanding more. Like Franklin said, when the people discover they can vote themselves money form the treasury it will signal the end of the republic. That's paraphrasing of course.

 

[Londoner]

If it's your job to investigate a family member for a crime, what do you think the conclusion of that investigation will be?

Descartes believed that humans, with intellectual effort, could transcend emotion and see the world without bias.

Freud held that a belief in one's own neutrality was the most tempting belief of all.

 

[francoHFW]

All I know is that progressive taxation passed the Supreme Court. Like all the other stuff you basic and I mean basic constitutionalist dupes go on about. By definition.

So did Dread Scott and many other things since overturned. How much you want to bet that those particular questions have never been posed to them?

It's a proven fact that non-progressive taxes just ruin the nonrich and gild the rich. Been happening the last 35 years...also before Wilson.

Am I detecting the stench of class envy here? Yep, think I am. What ever happened to everyone is equal under the law?

Societies that pander to the rich don't do well.

Neither do societies that redistribute wealth to people who haven't earned it. It's a never ending cycle with the non-earners constantly demanding more. Like Franklin said, when the people discover they can vote themselves money for the treasury it will signal the end of the republic. That's paraphrasing of course.

The greedy idiot rich GOP discovered that 30 years ago...now the middle class is almost ruined...