RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution

RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 10:45:16 AM)
If that's what you have to tell youself. [8\|] (yawn)

mnottertail -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 10:49:34 AM)
So, the teabaggers and neo-cons are government welfare patients, how is that news, I thought that was common knowledge.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 10:55:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms 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. Funny thing about these kinds of analyses - the accurate perspective always prevails in the end.....[:)]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:01:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA 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 wrote: Krugman won... (Note the use of the word "won") I wrote: Clinton "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"?!! [8\|] You are using the word in a completely different way from the poster. There is NO NEED to quote the word "won" given the point you were trying to make. Not to mention, you still have not demonstrated that you understand the implication of putting the quotes around the word "won" as you did in your sentence. Let me ask you point blank. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION OF PUTTING QUOTATIONS AROUND THE WORD THAT YOU DID. I am NOT asking you to explain your INTENT. I am asking you if you understand the IMPLICATION. And in repeated responses to me, you are still unable to answer that question. Implication - that which is implied....it has nothing to do with your intent.

cloudboy -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:15:10 AM)
I still love that rant from a right wing nut job: Keep the government out of my medicare program. [image]local://upfiles/210115/1523FC231F3041D7827D39AC3E2D4963.jpg[/image]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I still love that rant from a right wing nut job: Keep the government out of my medicare program. Please tell me that was photoshopped....[&:]

Hillwilliam -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I still love that rant from a right wing nut job: Keep the government out of my medicare program. Please tell me that was photoshopped....[&:] nope

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:55:39 AM)
I couldnt find it but I heard a ranting tea partier at atoen hall saying trhe same things. People forget the right ran in 2010 attacking the standards of care panels and democrats for "cutting medicare" then...came" the ryan plan lol

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA 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?!! [8\|] How about you address the points now thta you have attacked the man? ` I know zealots are big on the power of personal destruction as an arguement but I'd prefer som e facts and not from that toilet of a site.l Actually, you are the one with zero creidbilty in these parts

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 11:59:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Using Quotation Marks The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. (Emphasis Added) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ Thus, you're wrong -- as usual. Now go start a thread on quotation marks, commas, periods, or whatever else flips-your-bagel before Hilly's head explodes over your "off topic" comments.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 12:10:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms How about you address the points now that you have attacked the man? I already did... HE'S A PROVEN LIAR. But since you want MORE evidence that Krugman is, was, and will forever be COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT... ACTUAL GOV. DATA: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/2011/2011_recipient_tan.htm Do you see all the BLUE STATES at the top of the list?!! OH MY GAWWWWWWD... FUCKING SHOCKING?!! [8\|] [image]local://upfiles/687741/D9723A0CE91142139E986DF3FD4B2193.jpg[/image]

tweakabelle -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 1:14:25 PM)
quote: 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 I admire your optimism for having a go at explaining .......please don't take the failure of your attempt personally. Some things are inevitably doomed no matter how hard or how ingeniously we try to rescue them from their fate

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 1:45:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Using Quotation Marks The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. (Emphasis Added) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ Thus, you're wrong -- as usual. Now go start a thread on quotation marks, commas, periods, or whatever else flips-your-bagel before Hilly's head explodes over your "off topic" comments. This is NOT the question I asked. I did not ask for the primary function of quotation marks. I asked you for the IMPLIED meaning of the quotation marks in the sentence you had used. What about this do you not understand. And what is funny, is that you are not answering because you don't know the answer. And it's not off topic. I am asking you to explain YOUR post that YOU think is on topic. And you can't even explain your post to us, because you don't understand the implied meaning of quotation marks. You don't even understand your own post! [&:]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 1:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: 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 I admire your optimism for having a go at explaining .......please don't take the failure of your attempt personally. Some things are inevitably doomed no matter how hard or how ingeniously we try to rescue them from their fate I am nothing if not optimistic [:D]

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 1:48:18 PM)
yeah because the welfare is the only federal money they get. My taxes pay for their highways, their schools, their clean water projects, their social security retirees, rurtal electrification, farm subsidies, food stamps , their medicare recipents, their medicare recipients, the bridges, the airports....christ you dont get it. If CT pays 15k a person in taxes....and ga and sc pay 5k of course they are suckingn on our tit ?????? If I am paying for their highways its wealth redistribution and welfare hit the arrow on the per capita and it will list high to low food stamps bread basket of the south See paying more taxes is redistributive and suportuing deadbeats or it isnt. Myself I dont mind i pauid 10k and 2k of it never returned to CT becaue those poor places need it. I do mind when those poor places act like we dont pay our way when they'd still be using outhouses and dirt roads without our tax dollars

fucktoyprincess -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 1:51:00 PM)
TANF does not represent all government money paid out to states. Seriously? This is hardly a refutation of Krugman. Nice try, but NO.

subrob1967 -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 2:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess TANF does not represent all government money paid out to states. Seriously? This is hardly a refutation of Krugman. Nice try, but NO. According to THIS LIST Alaska is the only "red" state in the top FIVE... And since the federal government OWNS 69.1% of the land, so it's ONLY FAIR they pay for their own land... Dontcha think? In fact, according to the HUFFPO, Alaska, Mississippi and Tennessee are the ONLY red states in the top ten... Go figure edited to add... Barack H Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for peace so Krugman's doesn't mean much...Obama's is kinda funny since he killed Osama Bin Laden, and helped depose Ghadaffi, dontcha think?

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 2:30:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 According to THIS LIST Alaska is the only "red" state in the top FIVE... And since the federal government OWNS 69.1% of the land, so it's ONLY FAIR they pay for their own land... Dontcha think? In fact, according to the HUFFPO, Alaska, Mississippi and Tennessee are the ONLY red states in the top ten... Go figure edited to add... Barack H Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for peace so Krugman's doesn't mean much...Obama's is kinda funny since he killed Osama Bin Laden, and helped depose Ghadaffi, dontcha think? You're not actually expecting a RATIONAL, let alone HONEST, answer are you?!!

subrob1967 -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 2:37:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA You're not actually expecting a RATIONAL, let alone HONEST, answer are you?!! Nah, I used a biased source... Oh wait... Um how about, "well Krugman is a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER... Oh wait... So are Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Kim Dae-jung, Kofi Annan and UN Here we go... You neocons are stupid fucktards! Yeah, that will be the reply.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/4/2012 2:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 ...you've asked me to comb over all your posts and find your exact words ...to support your FALSE statement below -- which you haven't. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA 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.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875