Kennedy said:

[Flash]

[


Sure mac, the impoverished, the voiceless, the powerless, the disenfranchised got all your stuff.

Fuck the welfare queens that demand that the government steal the money I earn so that they can have a free cell phone. I should have my individual rights protected from that thievery, don't you agree? You don't want somebody else to be able to steal your money through the government, do you? If you do then you are an idiot.

I am a very generous person that contributes substantially to charity. I believe in the Bible saying charity should come from the heart, family and church. That is much different that having a corrupt oppressive politician using the government to steal my money to pay off the greedy special interest groups that elected him, isn't it?

 

[Fenton Lum]

[
Kudos for the recognition that america has always been for and about a ruling aristocracy.

Nowadays the wealth of America is being raided by all kinds of assh0oles including the welfare queens who want free Obamaphones.

The way to fix the problem is actually very simple.

Strengthen the Bill of Rights to keep the filthy ass oppressive government from taking away the money that you earn and giving it away to somebody else. Problem solved!

Giving it to someone else like Boeing and Lockheed to pay for weapons?

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport.

I believe in non interventionism and only a defense that protects America. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. If the government needs to contract with defense companies to provide weapons for a necessary common defense then there is nothing wrong with that. I am willing to provide my fair share providing the money is spent wisely. You stupid greedy Libtads that don't pay any income taxes want other people to pay your defense bills for you, don't you?

I don't believe in any welfare, entitlements, subsidies and entitlements. For instance, I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler.

"I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler."

About those bailouts pard, ~90% of your fellow americans were against them to. And yet, they rolled right on through, under "both" "conservative"/rep and "liberal"/dem administrations.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If your point is that Republicans are just as much big government as the filthy ass Democrats then I agree. That is why I am not a Republican any more.

It is always wrong for the government to take money away from somebody that earns it and gives it somebody that didn't earn the money.It doesn't make any difference it it is farm subsidies or Obamaphones or Crooked Hillary giving money to pay off the foreign countries and corporations that contributed to her being rich. .

I'm saying that in effect you do not have two different parties, they are all the same thing.









And we are not.

 

[LeftofLeft]

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that would say those words? Or is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that believes those words?

The democrat party has become the party of huge government and dictatorial socialism. Kennedy and Truman would be republicans if they were alive today.

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[


Sure mac, the impoverished, the voiceless, the powerless, the disenfranchised got all your stuff.

Fuck the welfare queens that demand that the government steal the money I earn so that they can have a free cell phone. I should have my individual rights protected from that thievery, don't you agree? You don't want somebody else to be able to steal your money through the government, do you? If you do then you are an idiot.

I am a very generous person that contributes substantially to charity. I believe in the Bible saying charity should come from the heart, family and church. That is much different that having a corrupt oppressive politician using the government to steal my money to pay off the greedy special interest groups that elected him, isn't it?

You obviously didn't get the point.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that would say those words? Or is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that believes those words?

The democrat party has become the party of huge government and dictatorial socialism. Kennedy and Truman would be republicans if they were alive today.

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

We have all been taking home less and less in terms of spending power since the 1970s, and it's been utterly bipartisan, better wake up.

 

[LeftofLeft]

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that would say those words? Or is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that believes those words?

The democrat party has become the party of huge government and dictatorial socialism. Kennedy and Truman would be republicans if they were alive today.

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

We pretty much have an economy with a true 1 percent locked in now, we're just arguing about how we get there so we can call it what we like.

The Middle Class taxes have gone up as well as the cost of their healthcare while their take home pay has gone done. Demonizing the corporate cronies is a joke.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

We have all been taking home less and less in terms of spending power since the 1970s, and it's been utterly bipartisan, better wake up.

Okay, who is going to step up and help the Middle Class keep more of what they earn?

 

[Fenton Lum]

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that would say those words? Or is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that believes those words?

The democrat party has become the party of huge government and dictatorial socialism. Kennedy and Truman would be republicans if they were alive today.

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

We pretty much have an economy with a true 1 percent locked in now, we're just arguing about how we get there so we can call it what we like.

The Middle Class taxes have gone up as well as the cost of their healthcare while their take home pay has gone done. Demonizing the corporate cronies is a joke.

Since the 1970s, thus demonizing "either" party or it's adherents is mindnumbingly indoctrinated behavior.

 

[Fenton Lum]

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

We have all been taking home less and less in terms of spending power since the 1970s, and it's been utterly bipartisan, better wake up.

Okay, who is going to step up and help the Middle Class keep more of what they earn?

The people had better get off their asses and do it for themselves, your political system is designed to keep you right where you are.

 

[rightwinger]

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that would say those words? Or is there any democrat or liberal in the USA today that believes those words?

The democrat party has become the party of huge government and dictatorial socialism. Kennedy and Truman would be republicans if they were alive today.

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

The problem for working Americans is that their take home pay has not increased in spite of the economy adding $50 trillion in wealth in the last eight years

That is the largest rise in the tide in history and none of the smaller boats benefitted from it

 

[Skull Pilot]

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

We have all been taking home less and less in terms of spending power since the 1970s, and it's been utterly bipartisan, better wake up.

Okay, who is going to step up and help the Middle Class keep more of what they earn?

Why can't they do it and elect one of their own to office ?

 

[Flash]

Nowadays the wealth of America is being raided by all kinds of assh0oles including the welfare queens who want free Obamaphones.

The way to fix the problem is actually very simple.

Strengthen the Bill of Rights to keep the filthy ass oppressive government from taking away the money that you earn and giving it away to somebody else. Problem solved!

Giving it to someone else like Boeing and Lockheed to pay for weapons?

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport.

I believe in non interventionism and only a defense that protects America. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. If the government needs to contract with defense companies to provide weapons for a necessary common defense then there is nothing wrong with that. I am willing to provide my fair share providing the money is spent wisely. You stupid greedy Libtads that don't pay any income taxes want other people to pay your defense bills for you, don't you?

I don't believe in any welfare, entitlements, subsidies and entitlements. For instance, I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler.

"I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler."

About those bailouts pard, ~90% of your fellow americans were against them to. And yet, they rolled right on through, under "both" "conservative"/rep and "liberal"/dem administrations.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If your point is that Republicans are just as much big government as the filthy ass Democrats then I agree. That is why I am not a Republican any more.

It is always wrong for the government to take money away from somebody that earns it and gives it somebody that didn't earn the money.It doesn't make any difference it it is farm subsidies or Obamaphones or Crooked Hillary giving money to pay off the foreign countries and corporations that contributed to her being rich. .

I'm saying that in effect you do not have two different parties, they are all the same thing.









And we are not.

The filthy ass Democrats promises bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promises good government but mostly delivers the same bad government as the filthy ass Democrats.

Our country is turning into a corrupt out of control bloated oppressive welfare state shithole. It is past the point of being fixed through the election process. Electing Republicans over filthy ass Democrats would be slightly better but not enough to make a difference.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yep. He also said a rising tide raises all ships. Liberals ignore this because it is the basis for supply side, or, what the modern day liberal refers to as "trickle down". Back to Kennedy, Liberals would refer to the "riding tide raising all ships" economic policy as a failure because there would be a delta in the size of the ships.....essentially, "the income gap". When the economy is booming and everyone's income is going up as well as their take home pay, Liberals double down on "income inequality" as a problem.

When has an economic policy rooted in class envy ( income redistribution) ever led to economic prosperity?

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

The problem for working Americans is that their take home pay has not increased in spite of the economy adding $50 trillion in wealth in the last eight years

That is the largest rise in the tide in history and none of the smaller boats benefitted from it

Wealth in the appreciation of assets has nothing to do with the income of the masses

 

[Pamforyoursam]

Giving it to someone else like Boeing and Lockheed to pay for weapons?

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport.

I believe in non interventionism and only a defense that protects America. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. If the government needs to contract with defense companies to provide weapons for a necessary common defense then there is nothing wrong with that. I am willing to provide my fair share providing the money is spent wisely. You stupid greedy Libtads that don't pay any income taxes want other people to pay your defense bills for you, don't you?

I don't believe in any welfare, entitlements, subsidies and entitlements. For instance, I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler.

"I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler."

About those bailouts pard, ~90% of your fellow americans were against them to. And yet, they rolled right on through, under "both" "conservative"/rep and "liberal"/dem administrations.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If your point is that Republicans are just as much big government as the filthy ass Democrats then I agree. That is why I am not a Republican any more.

It is always wrong for the government to take money away from somebody that earns it and gives it somebody that didn't earn the money.It doesn't make any difference it it is farm subsidies or Obamaphones or Crooked Hillary giving money to pay off the foreign countries and corporations that contributed to her being rich. .

I'm saying that in effect you do not have two different parties, they are all the same thing.









And we are not.

The filthy ass Democrats promises bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promises good government but mostly delivers the same bad government as the filthy ass Democrats.

Our country is turning into a corrupt out of control bloated oppressive welfare state shithole. It is past the point of being fixed through the election process. Electing Republicans over filthy ass Democrats would be slightly better but not enough to make a difference.

Well show your disgust and don't vote then.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats"

He didn't realize Republicans would figure out a way so that the rising tide only lifts the yachts

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

The problem for working Americans is that their take home pay has not increased in spite of the economy adding $50 trillion in wealth in the last eight years

That is the largest rise in the tide in history and none of the smaller boats benefitted from it

Wealth in the appreciation of assets has nothing to do with the income of the masses

Yes it does when those with the wealthy insist on government subsidies while they complain they "can't afford" to pay higher wages

 

[Skull Pilot]

What you are describing is a socialist economy with a true 1 percent locked in. Reagan and Bush II rose the economic tide with their policies. Universal Home ownership was a worthwhile cause but the Democrats felt that financial controls and rules on loan limits was either "not fair" or "racist" that while many buyers could qualify for a $250,000 house, not all of those buyers could qualify for a $500,000 house.

Reagan and Bush sold us on the idea that if we took care of the yachts, all the other boats would naturally just do better

So, all the money went to the yachts and they got bigger and fancier

Meanwhile, the other boats struggled to stay afloat

Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats would let the non-yachts keep the level of fuel (i.e. take home pay) that Reagan and Bush did other boats would do more than just float.

The problem for working Americans is that their take home pay has not increased in spite of the economy adding $50 trillion in wealth in the last eight years

That is the largest rise in the tide in history and none of the smaller boats benefitted from it

Wealth in the appreciation of assets has nothing to do with the income of the masses

Yes it does when those with the wealthy insist on government subsidies while they complain they "can't afford" to pay higher wages

You do know that a tax deduction or a write off is not a subsidy don't you?

And besides not all wealthy people employ others

 

[Flash]

[Q


You obviously didn't get the point.

I get the point. You are confused on the concept of liberty.

You think that somebody that doesn't pay one red cent of income tax or hardly any other taxes should have the right to use the government to force taking money away from me to pay their bills.

They have a word for that. It is called thievery.

Greedy Lbtards justify that thievery.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Giving it to someone else like Boeing and Lockheed to pay for weapons?

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport.

I believe in non interventionism and only a defense that protects America. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. If the government needs to contract with defense companies to provide weapons for a necessary common defense then there is nothing wrong with that. I am willing to provide my fair share providing the money is spent wisely. You stupid greedy Libtads that don't pay any income taxes want other people to pay your defense bills for you, don't you?

I don't believe in any welfare, entitlements, subsidies and entitlements. For instance, I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler.

"I was against that jackass Obama taking taxpayer's money to bailout banks and to bailout GM and Chrysler."

About those bailouts pard, ~90% of your fellow americans were against them to. And yet, they rolled right on through, under "both" "conservative"/rep and "liberal"/dem administrations.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If your point is that Republicans are just as much big government as the filthy ass Democrats then I agree. That is why I am not a Republican any more.

It is always wrong for the government to take money away from somebody that earns it and gives it somebody that didn't earn the money.It doesn't make any difference it it is farm subsidies or Obamaphones or Crooked Hillary giving money to pay off the foreign countries and corporations that contributed to her being rich. .

I'm saying that in effect you do not have two different parties, they are all the same thing.









And we are not.

The filthy ass Democrats promises bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promises good government but mostly delivers the same bad government as the filthy ass Democrats.

Our country is turning into a corrupt out of control bloated oppressive welfare state shithole. It is past the point of being fixed through the election process. Electing Republicans over filthy ass Democrats would be slightly better but not enough to make a difference.

Calm down, this is going to require a collective coherence, which explains why the system likes and foments all the anxiety and hysteria. You have been pointed at the poor, that's who the system wants you to blame; the poor took your stuff? Please, they have no power to lobby for anything.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street/bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy veresus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

That's your system, and the poor had no way in hell of doing that to you. What you are missing is that now the system is coming for you, they already got all they could from the poor.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[Q


You obviously didn't get the point.

I get the point. You are confused on the concept of liberty.

You think that somebody that doesn't pay one red cent of income tax or hardly any other taxes should have the right to use the government to force taking money away from me to pay their bills.

They have a word for that. It is called thievery.

Greedy Lbtards justify that thievery.

Someone's certanly confused, I agree. Your system steals from all of us.

 

[Flash]

Well show your disgust and don't vote then.

In the meantime you can run down to the polling booth as fast as your little feet can carry you and vote for Crooked Hillary, who is the most corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and disgusting person ever to run for President and then later on you will try to blame her failures on somebody just like you did with Obama's failures.