Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 9:36:03 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

Where does family size come into it?



Hmmm... Family A (no children)... Family B (4 children) -- now which do you think might have higher FOOD expenses, for example?!!

Good GAWD, this had to be explained to you?!!


_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Dom4subssub4doms)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 9:43:24 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



Bill Clinton "won" the Presidency, and fucking LIED too (just like the current Lib-Liar in the White House) -- i.e., big fucking deal that the idiot Krugman "won" anything.




No. Wrong again. It is George W. Bush who "won" in 2000. Bill Clinton WON the presidency. HUGE, MASSIVE difference.


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 9:44:30 AM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
If you believe that only liberal politicians are liars and conservative politicians aren't, (and/or democratic politicians vs republican politicians) then you are very naive. They all lie. All of them!! So get over blaming sides. Start opening your eyes, thinking for yourself, and listening to people who are talking on levels that benefit you. While Romney paid 15% of his income in taxes, and Obama paid 20% of his income on taxes, and the avg middle class joe paid 30% of his income on taxes, surely you can see something wrong with that picture? If you can't then your mentality and mine are not on the same page, so no sense in either of us trying to "teach, bash, or trash" each other on who lies and who doesn't.

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 9:47:03 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



OJ SIMPSON "WON"...

1965 Named All-American collegiate football player
1967 Named Outstanding Player in the Rose Bowl
1968 Wins Walter Camp Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Maxwell Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Heisman Trophy
1970 Named Collegiate Player of the Decade by ABC
1970 Named to AFC All-star team
1972 Named Most Valuable Player in AFC
1973 Named NFL's Most Valuable Player
1973 Breaks single season rushing record
1973 Named Hickok Belt Professional Athlete of the Year
1979 Named NFL Player of the Decade by Pro Football Monthly
1983 Inducted into College Football Hall of Fame
1985 Inducted into Pro Football Hall of Fame
1993 Inducted into Rose Bowl Hall of Fame
1994 Inducted into USC Hall of Fame


So OBVIOUSLY OJ is a man of honor!!!   Is "so-and-so won..." really the best the Lefties can come up with?!! LOL



_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 9:52:07 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

If you believe that only liberal politicians are liars and conservative politicians aren't...



Please quote my EXACT words where I've allegedly stated I "believe" the above, as YOU claim. k'thanx.



_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 9:58:19 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



Bill Clinton "won" the Presidency, and fucking LIED too (just like the current Lib-Liar in the White House) -- i.e., big fucking deal that the idiot Krugman "won" anything.




No. Wrong again. It is George W. Bush who "won" in 2000. Bill Clinton WON the presidency. HUGE, MASSIVE difference.



Obviously READING is something you need to work on... see the highlighted words above -- and ummm... try to actually read them this time.  GASP... THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME?!! 



_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:04:52 AM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
Bill Clinton "won" the Presidency, and fucking LIED too (just like the current Lib-Liar in the White House) Post 24, if you need a reference.

But while you've asked me to comb over all your posts and find your exact words, I see that post 24 is what prompted me to respond to you. As I read back though, your main theme seems to be what liberals believe vs what conservatives? believe...or want to believe. But again, believing what a liberal vs a conservative tells you is falling into their "trap" of wordspeech, and their own personal opinions. And I know I don't have to tell you what they say about opinions

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:05:17 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



Bill Clinton "won" the Presidency, and fucking LIED too (just like the current Lib-Liar in the White House) -- i.e., big fucking deal that the idiot Krugman "won" anything.




No. Wrong again. It is George W. Bush who "won" in 2000. Bill Clinton WON the presidency. HUGE, MASSIVE difference.



Obviously READING is something you need to work on... see the highlighted words above -- and ummm... try to actually read them this time.  GASP... THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME?!! 



Seriously? Let me rephrase. WHY is won in quotation marks in YOUR post? Explain. Because as if you have written your sentence, it is WRONG. I am reading what you wrote. You're the one who chose to put quotation marks in there. Don't use quotation marks if you don't understand how to use them, or what the implications are for meaning. Again, it is YOUR writing that is at issue here, not my reading.


< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 5/4/2012 10:07:37 AM >


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:09:08 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

WHY is won in quotation marks in YOUR post? Explain.



Ummm... maybe because I was QUOTING the word used by the other poster?!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...





_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:10:08 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

WHY is won in quotation marks in YOUR post? Explain.



Ummm... maybe because I was QUOTING the word used by the other poster?!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...






Underlining does NOT mean the same as putting something in quotation marks. Do you seriously not know that? If you are quoting what you cite then the proper punctuation is, "Krugman won". But you weren't quoting that. You said "Bill Clinton 'won'". How is this a quote of "Krugman won"???? I guess now you can't read either.


< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 5/4/2012 10:13:35 AM >


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:12:42 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



OJ SIMPSON "WON"...

1965 Named All-American collegiate football player
1967 Named Outstanding Player in the Rose Bowl
1968 Wins Walter Camp Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Maxwell Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Heisman Trophy
1970 Named Collegiate Player of the Decade by ABC
1970 Named to AFC All-star team
1972 Named Most Valuable Player in AFC
1973 Named NFL's Most Valuable Player
1973 Breaks single season rushing record
1973 Named Hickok Belt Professional Athlete of the Year
1979 Named NFL Player of the Decade by Pro Football Monthly
1983 Inducted into College Football Hall of Fame
1985 Inducted into Pro Football Hall of Fame
1993 Inducted into Rose Bowl Hall of Fame
1994 Inducted into USC Hall of Fame


So OBVIOUSLY OJ is a man of honor!!!   Is "so-and-so won..." really the best the Lefties can come up with?!! LOL



What has this to do with the topic at hand?

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:16:01 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

WHY is won in quotation marks in YOUR post? Explain.



Ummm... maybe because I was QUOTING the word used by the other poster?!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...






Underlining does NOT mean the same as putting something in quotation marks. Do you seriously not know that? If you are quoting what you cite then the proper punctuation is, "Krugman won".



Ummm... I enlarged, bolded, and underlined the quote so YOU (since you're having such a hard time comprehending) might have a shot at understanding the nonsense you've been spouting.  Hint... look at YOUR OWN POST #23.  YOU YOURSELF quoted that poster's comment.  Do you see the word "won" in that poster's comment?!! GASP!!!



_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:17:58 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



OJ SIMPSON "WON"...

1965 Named All-American collegiate football player
1967 Named Outstanding Player in the Rose Bowl
1968 Wins Walter Camp Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Maxwell Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Heisman Trophy
1970 Named Collegiate Player of the Decade by ABC
1970 Named to AFC All-star team
1972 Named Most Valuable Player in AFC
1973 Named NFL's Most Valuable Player
1973 Breaks single season rushing record
1973 Named Hickok Belt Professional Athlete of the Year
1979 Named NFL Player of the Decade by Pro Football Monthly
1983 Inducted into College Football Hall of Fame
1985 Inducted into Pro Football Hall of Fame
1993 Inducted into Rose Bowl Hall of Fame
1994 Inducted into USC Hall of Fame


So OBVIOUSLY OJ is a man of honor!!!   Is "so-and-so won..." really the best the Lefties can come up with?!! LOL



What has this to do with the topic at hand?


A lame attempt at showing "winning" in one arena does not equal "truthful" in another - which, of course, no one is disputing.

But Krugman won an award for ECONOMICS. So the argument there is actually "winning" in one arena makes your views more "respected" in that same arena.

If I could explain more I would. Impossible


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:19:36 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

WHY is won in quotation marks in YOUR post? Explain.



Ummm... maybe because I was QUOTING the word used by the other poster?!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...






Underlining does NOT mean the same as putting something in quotation marks. Do you seriously not know that? If you are quoting what you cite then the proper punctuation is, "Krugman won".



Ummm... I enlarged, bolded, and underlined the quote so YOU (since you're having such a hard time comprehending) might have a shot at understanding the nonsense you've been spouting.  Hint... look at YOUR OWN POST #23.  YOU YOURSELF quoted that poster's comment.  Do you see the word "won" in that poster's comment?!! GASP!!!



I said, "if you are quoting what you cite". Obviously you did NOT quote what you cited. Again, not MY problem, but yours. And in all of your rhetoric, you have still not demonstrated that you understand the use and implication of quotation marks.


< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 5/4/2012 10:21:31 AM >


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:23:37 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



OJ SIMPSON "WON"...

1965 Named All-American collegiate football player
1967 Named Outstanding Player in the Rose Bowl
1968 Wins Walter Camp Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Maxwell Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Heisman Trophy
1970 Named Collegiate Player of the Decade by ABC
1970 Named to AFC All-star team
1972 Named Most Valuable Player in AFC
1973 Named NFL's Most Valuable Player
1973 Breaks single season rushing record
1973 Named Hickok Belt Professional Athlete of the Year
1979 Named NFL Player of the Decade by Pro Football Monthly
1983 Inducted into College Football Hall of Fame
1985 Inducted into Pro Football Hall of Fame
1993 Inducted into Rose Bowl Hall of Fame
1994 Inducted into USC Hall of Fame

So OBVIOUSLY OJ is a man of honor!!!   Is "so-and-so won..." really the best the Lefties can come up with?!! LOL



What has this to do with the topic at hand?


In reply to the "won" comment as some sort of alleged proof that anyone who has "won" something (in this case, the idiot Krugman... and author cited in the OP), ipso facto, implies they are somehow beyond reproach. Let me know if you need anything else explained to you.





< Message edited by MasterSlaveLA -- 5/4/2012 10:38:39 AM >


_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:26:53 AM   
Dom4subssub4doms


Posts: 95
Joined: 5/3/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

By PAUL KRUGMAN



Krugman = LIAR
 


.....

In Krugman Goes Around the Bend, I pointed out the absurdity of Krugman’s equating a group of country music fans destroying their own copies of Dixie Chicks CDs to Kristallnacht.

In
The Paul Krugman Truth Squad, Paul linked to a post by Donald Luskin that showed that Krugman had dishonestly attacked the Bush tax cuts by comparing a single year’s salary in a newly-created job against the ten-year cost of the tax cuts that created that job.

In
Krugman the Barbarian, I critiqued Krugman’s attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger, in which Krugman asserted that California’s taxes are “now probably below average.” Probably? He evidently was too lazy to look up the data–laziness is a frequent issue with Krugman–which showed that Californians then had the 8th-highest tax burden of the 50 states.

In
Poor Paul Krugman, I noted that, contrary to Krugman’s characterization of Wesley Clark’s views–Clark was Krugman’s candidate of the moment–Clark had testified under oath that Saddam Hussein “has chemical and biological weapons.”

In
Krugman On Civility, I ridiculed Krugman’s claim that the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 caused Osama bin Laden’s escape at Tora Bora in December 2001.

In
Krugman Descends Further, I noted that, while Krugman had repeatedly criticized Republicans for being “uncivil,” the U.K. cover of his book The Great Unraveling depicted President Bush as Frankenstein’s monster, and Dick Cheney as Hitler. (Some things never change, do they?)

In
Paul Krugman’s Credibility Recession, I showed that Krugman’s claims about current unemployment data were false. This was another case of Krugman making blithe (but fictitious) assertions about the unemployment numbers, assuming that no one would take the trouble to look them up.

In
That Was Then, This Is Now, I pointed out that Krugman had written disapprovingly about Enron without disclosing that he was a paid Enron adviser who, when he was cashing Enron’s checks, did nothing about the supposed abuses that were the subject of his column.

In
Ducks In A Barrel, we linked to a Donald Luskin column that showed how Krugman had misrepresented economic data to mislead his readers with respect to the Reagan administration’s record on taxes and the economy.

In
Paul Krugman, Around the Bend, I called Krugman on his false statements about Florida’s Governor Jeb Bush.

In
Krugmania, I pointed out that Krugman’s hysterical claim that President Bush stole the 2004 election in Ohio was based on false statements of fact that were easily demolished–if, that is, one actually does research instead of parroting goofy left-wing blogs, as Krugman so often does.

In
Krugmania, Continued, I demonstrated that Krugman lied–once again, uncritically repeating a baseless claim on a left-wing blog–with respect to the Navy’s performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

In
Deja Vu, I exposed another example of Krugman’s misleading characterization of economic data to draw a conclusion that was the opposite of the truth.

In
Krugman Flails Wildly, Misses, I cataloged falsehoods in a Krugman column about Social Security.

In
Krugman vs. Krugman, I pointed out that Krugman denounced, in his column, the idea that extending unemployment benefits can prolong unemployment as a “bizarre point of view,” while in fact his own textbook, Macroeconomics, makes precisely that point.

In
Krugman Embarrasses Himself, Again, I criticized Krugman for fabricating a quote that he attributed to Newt Gingrich, which led to a red-faced correction in the Times.

In
Sun Rises in East; Krugman Makes Fool of Himself, I ridiculed Krugman’s criticism of Republicans for using “eliminationist rhetoric,” i.e.–I’m not kidding!–”Fire Nancy Pelosi,” when Krugman himself wrote, to take just one of many examples: “A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.”

In
Paul Krugman, Buffoon, I criticized Krugman for blaming Michele Bachmann for Jared Loughner’s murders, based on a false account of what Michele said in an interview with me.

In
Paul Krugman, Punch Line, we posted a video of a room full of people bursting out in laughter when they learn that Krugman is the source for a liberal’s crackpot claim.

In
Iowahawk vs. Krugman, we linked to Iowahawk’s dissection of yet another attempt by Krugman to lie with statistics, this time on education.

In
Liberals: Wrong Again, Do They Care? I ripped Krugman’s baseless claim, which turned out to be entirely false, that Koch Industries stood to benefit from the sale of a handful of small, antiquated power plants in Wisconsin. This was one of countless examples of where Krugman repeated outlandish claims made on far-left web sites as though they were Gospel, without doing any investigation to determine whether they had merit, or, as in this case, were obvious fantasies.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/why-paul-krugman-doesnt-like-us-and-vice-versa.php

 
 


Evertone should read tese. They show Krugman said we were rishing into war with Iraw, That we had no idea if they were the threat they were being made out to be, that the economic cost of the wasr would be devestating, that if was wrong to pull out resources fromAfganistan so soon to which Powerline argues they werent needed anymore in 2003. The california tax blog post ignore s the article ands cherry picks oner sentence. the fact is Krugman claimned in that editorial Arnold would have to cut education despite saying otherwise and he did and he pointed out hoew unjust a tax system is that a 500k house can have 14400 in rela estate taxes and a 4 million doallr one a few thousand......I stopped there. it becoame obvious the Krugman truth squad were actually his best supporters by challanging him on so many things he eventually was proved right on.





(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:30:58 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess



I realize you're having a hard time understanding something so simple, but here it is again... try to get it this time...

Poster wroteKrugman won...  (Note the use of the word "won")

I wroteClinton "won"... (Note the quotes around the word the poster used... "won", which I used as well -- i.e., quoted because I used THEIR word)


Still too complicated for you to figure out why I QUOTED the word "won"?!!




< Message edited by MasterSlaveLA -- 5/4/2012 10:33:08 AM >


_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:37:52 AM   
Dom4subssub4doms


Posts: 95
Joined: 5/3/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Krugman won...



OJ SIMPSON "WON"...

1965 Named All-American collegiate football player
1967 Named Outstanding Player in the Rose Bowl
1968 Wins Walter Camp Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Maxwell Memorial Trophy
1968 Wins Heisman Trophy
1970 Named Collegiate Player of the Decade by ABC
1970 Named to AFC All-star team
1972 Named Most Valuable Player in AFC
1973 Named NFL's Most Valuable Player
1973 Breaks single season rushing record
1973 Named Hickok Belt Professional Athlete of the Year
1979 Named NFL Player of the Decade by Pro Football Monthly
1983 Inducted into College Football Hall of Fame
1985 Inducted into Pro Football Hall of Fame
1993 Inducted into Rose Bowl Hall of Fame
1994 Inducted into USC Hall of Fame

So OBVIOUSLY OJ is a man of honor!!!   Is "so-and-so won..." really the best the Lefties can come up with?!! LOL



What has this to do with the topic at hand?


In reply to the "won" comment as some sort of alleged proof that anyone who has "won" something (the idiot Krugman... and author cited in the OP), ipso facto, implies they are somehow beyond reproach. Let me know if you need anything else explained to you.



well, well you actually can identify a false arguement. then you know those powerline posts all appeal to a false authority and often utilized strawmmen and wote pieces discrediting a sentence and claming they discredited the point . You also know that winning a nobel prize in economics is not like winning a raffle it's earned by work and theory and it is a peer award. You also know that even if they did come in a kracker jack box the idea Krugman doiesnt know economics as an expert would require the beleif that economics courses dont teach real economics sinc eht e man worte a widely used tex for college studies. When speaking on economics he actually is an authority not a flase one. You still havent discredited the claim that coinservative states citizens recieve huge subsididies form liberal state taxes

< Message edited by Dom4subssub4doms -- 5/4/2012 10:40:16 AM >

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:42:33 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


What has this to do with the topic at hand?


In reply to the "won" comment as some sort of alleged proof that anyone who has "won" something (in this case, the idiot Krugman... and author cited in the OP), ipso facto, implies they are somehow beyond reproach. Let me know if you need anything else explained to you.





In other words, it had NOTHING to do with the topic which is.

" conservative reliance on welath redistribution"

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to MasterSlaveLA)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution - 5/4/2012 10:43:40 AM   
MasterSlaveLA


Posts: 3991
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms

then you know...



...that Krugman is a liar, and has zero credibility -- but feel free to worship at his alter, if that's what twirls your beanie?!!



_____________________________

It's only kinky the first time!!!

(in reply to Dom4subssub4doms)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125