Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Supreme Court Justice
Yeah great, more citizens united.
The Supreme Court decision ruled that some provisions of the McCain/Feingold campaign funding unconstitutional. That corporation's had similar rights as a person was determined by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago.
And now politicians are more bought and paid for than ever. Great move.
So are most of the social welfare leeches that vote to keep those in office that enable them to be leeches.
Is it a good thing?
Yeah great, more citizens united.
The Supreme Court decision ruled that some provisions of the McCain/Feingold campaign funding unconstitutional. That corporation's had similar rights as a person was determined by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago.
And now politicians are more bought and paid for than ever. Great move.
So are most of the social welfare leeches that vote to keep those in office that enable them to be leeches.
Is it a good thing?
Neither is good. A leech is a drain on society and those that enable leeches are worse. I have an excellent solution if you don't think someone that uses social welfare has what he/she needs. Write them a personal check without any of it going through the government to prove you care as much as you claim. We both know they won't get a dime if you actually have to do it yourself.
You asked why legislation is necessary. That's why. Because up until very recently in American history they couldn't even share a sidewalk or a drinking fountain with a white, let alone a school. You think racism that our country was built on and operated on for centuries disappeared completely in a few decades you're a moron and missed the events of the kkk all over the country recently.
So then two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stop adding more wrongs.
I think welfare should be temporary. Not sure what you are going on about. I would like a strong job market and wages so few are on welfare.
Normal market volatility?/---/ You'd still deny it.Links or it is just, right wing fantasy.He turned around a recession, but growth is slow.
It is? Not according to you boy. He said just a little over a year ago, and I quote, “America’s economy is not just better than it was eight years ago — it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world.” That doesn't sound like slow growth.
He said, at a State of the Union speech, "Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999." That doesn't indicate he believes the economy is slow.
That's just two quotes that contradict your claim. At other times, he talked about records he set and used the word booming. Slow and booming aren't antonyms.
How about you look at actual growth numbers? Idiot.
Obama's economic record. Increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and never even one year when the growth rate didn't even get to 3%, which is historically dismal.
View attachment 145579
It has to be relevant. Normal market volatility is simply, special pleading.Links or it is just, right wing fantasy.He turned around a recession, but growth is slow.
It is? Not according to you boy. He said just a little over a year ago, and I quote, “America’s economy is not just better than it was eight years ago — it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world.” That doesn't sound like slow growth.
He said, at a State of the Union speech, "Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999." That doesn't indicate he believes the economy is slow.
That's just two quotes that contradict your claim. At other times, he talked about records he set and used the word booming. Slow and booming aren't antonyms.
How about you look at actual growth numbers? Idiot.
Obama's economic record. Increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and never even one year when the growth rate didn't even get to 3%, which is historically dismal.
WTF, do your own homework.
All I see is signs claiming, One Way. Normal market volatility is simply, special pleading and a fallacy.Links or it is just, right wing fantasy.How about you look at actual growth numbers? Idiot.
Obama's economic record. Increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and never even one year when the growth rate didn't even get to 3%, which is historically dismal.
WTF, do your own homework.
The person making a claim should be the one to provide backup obviously.
That's a two way street.
The Supreme Court decision ruled that some provisions of the McCain/Feingold campaign funding unconstitutional. That corporation's had similar rights as a person was determined by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago.
And now politicians are more bought and paid for than ever. Great move.
So are most of the social welfare leeches that vote to keep those in office that enable them to be leeches.
Is it a good thing?
Neither is good. A leech is a drain on society and those that enable leeches are worse. I have an excellent solution if you don't think someone that uses social welfare has what he/she needs. Write them a personal check without any of it going through the government to prove you care as much as you claim. We both know they won't get a dime if you actually have to do it yourself.
So then two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stop adding more wrongs.
I think welfare should be temporary. Not sure what you are going on about. I would like a strong job market and wages so few are on welfare.
A question for trumpeters. If trump is successful bringing jobs back and kicking out immigrants increases wages, won't this change the distribution of wealth?
Lots of trumpeters here. Nobody will answer?
The rich got bailed out, not blacks.[Q
Some of us thought he had a mandate to "bailout blacks", not just the rich.
Wealth Inequality - Inequality.org
You are really confused about this, aren't you?
Obama did bailed out Wall Street big time, didn't he? After all Wall Street gave him more money in 2008 than they gave to McCain and more money in 2012 than they gave to Romney.
Meanwhile Obama increased poverty, decreased family income, really decreased debt, had dismal economic growth and increased income disparity.
Pretty much a failure for Blacks and everybody else except the Limousine Liberals that supported him.
If you are really concerned about income disparity then you wouldn't ever vote for someone that embraces Left economics because all that ever does is make the poorer more poor.
You don't create prosperity by taking money away from somebody that earned it and giving it away to somebody that didn't earn it. You Moon Bats have a difficult time understanding that simple concept.
You create prosperity by getting out of the way of capitalism so that it grows the economy and everybody benefits.
Left economics - the richer get richer and the poor gets poorer.
Capitalism - the richer get richer and the poor also gets richer.
Little rock 9 was 1957, moron.You asked why legislation is necessary. That's why. Because up until very recently in American history they couldn't even share a sidewalk or a drinking fountain with a white, let alone a school. You think racism that our country was built on and operated on for centuries disappeared completely in a few decades you're a moron and missed the events of the kkk all over the country recently.Because until very recently in history they literally COULD NOT do those things!!They were born to Sammy. Being born isn't a skill. We all did it.
Blacks were born black. Why should being born black get you special consideration when it comes to admittance to college or hiring?
They've been able to do those things for years. Don't equate not willing to do so with being unable to do so.
Why didn't you say you support the hypocritical concept of using race to advance a group that complained about race being used to deny? If using race is bad, it's bad whether you benefit or are denied. It can't be a good thing and excused away because "you're making up for something".
I started school in the mid to late 1960s. I sat in classrooms with blacks from the time I went to 5K. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, restrooms, lessons, etc. For a black my age to say they didn't have the chances I had is nothing more than an excuse.
The NAACP lawyers that argued Brown v BOE had law degrees, many from segregated schools. Are you saying their law degrees because they came from segregated schools were of a lesser value?
Little rock 9 was 1957, moron.You asked why legislation is necessary. That's why. Because up until very recently in American history they couldn't even share a sidewalk or a drinking fountain with a white, let alone a school. You think racism that our country was built on and operated on for centuries disappeared completely in a few decades you're a moron and missed the events of the kkk all over the country recently.Because until very recently in history they literally COULD NOT do those things!!Blacks were born black. Why should being born black get you special consideration when it comes to admittance to college or hiring?
They've been able to do those things for years. Don't equate not willing to do so with being unable to do so.
Why didn't you say you support the hypocritical concept of using race to advance a group that complained about race being used to deny? If using race is bad, it's bad whether you benefit or are denied. It can't be a good thing and excused away because "you're making up for something".
I started school in the mid to late 1960s. I sat in classrooms with blacks from the time I went to 5K. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, restrooms, lessons, etc. For a black my age to say they didn't have the chances I had is nothing more than an excuse.
The NAACP lawyers that argued Brown v BOE had law degrees, many from segregated schools. Are you saying their law degrees because they came from segregated schools were of a lesser value?
Really, not long ago at all. Also I am a woman.Little rock 9 was 1957, moron.You asked why legislation is necessary. That's why. Because up until very recently in American history they couldn't even share a sidewalk or a drinking fountain with a white, let alone a school. You think racism that our country was built on and operated on for centuries disappeared completely in a few decades you're a moron and missed the events of the kkk all over the country recently.Because until very recently in history they literally COULD NOT do those things!!
They've been able to do those things for years. Don't equate not willing to do so with being unable to do so.
Why didn't you say you support the hypocritical concept of using race to advance a group that complained about race being used to deny? If using race is bad, it's bad whether you benefit or are denied. It can't be a good thing and excused away because "you're making up for something".
I started school in the mid to late 1960s. I sat in classrooms with blacks from the time I went to 5K. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, restrooms, lessons, etc. For a black my age to say they didn't have the chances I had is nothing more than an excuse.
The NAACP lawyers that argued Brown v BOE had law degrees, many from segregated schools. Are you saying their law degrees because they came from segregated schools were of a lesser value?
Brown v BOE was 1954, boy.
Really, not long ago at all. Also I am a woman.Little rock 9 was 1957, moron.You asked why legislation is necessary. That's why. Because up until very recently in American history they couldn't even share a sidewalk or a drinking fountain with a white, let alone a school. You think racism that our country was built on and operated on for centuries disappeared completely in a few decades you're a moron and missed the events of the kkk all over the country recently.They've been able to do those things for years. Don't equate not willing to do so with being unable to do so.
Why didn't you say you support the hypocritical concept of using race to advance a group that complained about race being used to deny? If using race is bad, it's bad whether you benefit or are denied. It can't be a good thing and excused away because "you're making up for something".
I started school in the mid to late 1960s. I sat in classrooms with blacks from the time I went to 5K. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, restrooms, lessons, etc. For a black my age to say they didn't have the chances I had is nothing more than an excuse.
The NAACP lawyers that argued Brown v BOE had law degrees, many from segregated schools. Are you saying their law degrees because they came from segregated schools were of a lesser value?
Brown v BOE was 1954, boy.
So then two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stop adding more wrongs.
I think welfare should be temporary. Not sure what you are going on about. I would like a strong job market and wages so few are on welfare.
As you know, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama nearly doubled the number of people on welfare. He did that by changing the work requirement for welfare when he signed the failed Stimulus Package.
And now politicians are more bought and paid for than ever. Great move.
So are most of the social welfare leeches that vote to keep those in office that enable them to be leeches.
Is it a good thing?
Neither is good. A leech is a drain on society and those that enable leeches are worse. I have an excellent solution if you don't think someone that uses social welfare has what he/she needs. Write them a personal check without any of it going through the government to prove you care as much as you claim. We both know they won't get a dime if you actually have to do it yourself.
So then two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stop adding more wrongs.
I think welfare should be temporary. Not sure what you are going on about. I would like a strong job market and wages so few are on welfare.
I think welfare shouldn't exist. I think that if you want someone to have something they don't have, you should buy it for them personally. I think if someone wants a higher wage they should do something to earn it by improving their skills. You want higher wages given to someone because they exist. You're trying to solve a problem with money when the problem isn't caused by a lack of money.
A question for trumpeters. If trump is successful bringing jobs back and kicking out immigrants increases wages, won't this change the distribution of wealth?
Lots of trumpeters here. Nobody will answer?
What is beyond your comprehension and why ask?
So are most of the social welfare leeches that vote to keep those in office that enable them to be leeches.
Is it a good thing?
Neither is good. A leech is a drain on society and those that enable leeches are worse. I have an excellent solution if you don't think someone that uses social welfare has what he/she needs. Write them a personal check without any of it going through the government to prove you care as much as you claim. We both know they won't get a dime if you actually have to do it yourself.
So then two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stop adding more wrongs.
I think welfare should be temporary. Not sure what you are going on about. I would like a strong job market and wages so few are on welfare.
I think welfare shouldn't exist. I think that if you want someone to have something they don't have, you should buy it for them personally. I think if someone wants a higher wage they should do something to earn it by improving their skills. You want higher wages given to someone because they exist. You're trying to solve a problem with money when the problem isn't caused by a lack of money.
Welfare is fine on a temporary basis. You want everyone between jobs to go bankrupt?
Is it a good thing?
Neither is good. A leech is a drain on society and those that enable leeches are worse. I have an excellent solution if you don't think someone that uses social welfare has what he/she needs. Write them a personal check without any of it going through the government to prove you care as much as you claim. We both know they won't get a dime if you actually have to do it yourself.
So then two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stop adding more wrongs.
I think welfare should be temporary. Not sure what you are going on about. I would like a strong job market and wages so few are on welfare.
I think welfare shouldn't exist. I think that if you want someone to have something they don't have, you should buy it for them personally. I think if someone wants a higher wage they should do something to earn it by improving their skills. You want higher wages given to someone because they exist. You're trying to solve a problem with money when the problem isn't caused by a lack of money.
Welfare is fine on a temporary basis. You want everyone between jobs to go bankrupt?
No it's not.
I've provided a way for all those you reference to avoid that. It involves YOU doing for them what you say should be done. If they go bankrupt, you're not doing your part. If they do, I could care less.
Those sound real important. You have one that really does anything?
Supreme Court Justice
Yeah great, more citizens united.
The Supreme Court decision ruled that some provisions of the McCain/Feingold campaign funding unconstitutional. That corporation's had similar rights as a person was determined by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago.
And now politicians are more bought and paid for than ever. Great move.
