Chuck Warren » 25 Jul 2015 10:19 pm » wrote:I'm all for Wall Street capitalism. Eat the poor.

The thing is, the poor are much better at eating you. Did you think welfare was a charitable venture?

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:12 pm » wrote: You've been exposed as a shameless lying troll and a hopeless ignoramus, so who care what bulls*** you write?

Sorry, I don't have time for you here.

CP's started a cracking good thread about a hopeless ignoramus. Three guesses as to who it is?

RichClem » 26 Jul 2015 8:00 am » wrote: The ranting of a psychotic imbecile.

You're perhaps 2% correct.

From the guy who gets everything wrong, that number translates to 98% correct.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 6:58 pm » wrote: You can do it 100 times but you'll be shouting into the wind, because I'm logging off now.
Knock yourself out.

I thought Golfboy was an annoying little ****, but you have him beat by a mile.

Huey is equal parts RichClem stupidity and Golfboy's naggy, whiny, hair splitting, goal post moving annoyance.

Vaginaboy » 05 May 2014 12:23 pm » wrote:
LOL! says the one who didges questions with rants...Pot...Kettle...Black. Tool!

This is one of those instances which remind me to remind my liberal friends that:

No matter how many times these cons repeat a lie, it never magically becomes the truth,

I hear you're leaving us Vaginaboy - for some vacation or sabbatical?......Maybe it was a stint in prison. I didn't quite catch the details.

Fill us in when you're released.

Endoscopy » 05 May 2014 10:07 am » wrote: Oh WOW. Such a refutation of what I posted. How can i ever figure out how to make a combat this extremely logical take down of what I posted.

SILLY SILLY SILLY

It was not a refutation. It was a not very subtle expression of disappointment in your inability to acknowledge anyone else and a clue you can take with you as to why some of us are now passing by your extremely partisan rants.

Vegas » 04 May 2014 5:45 pm » wrote: Oh good lord. I know where you are going with this and I am not falling for it. Ive had this discussion a billion times with your kind. Im going to say this one more time. Libs want 100% socialism. They dont want 50% or 75% or any kind of mixed economy whatsoever. They want 100% government control. If you dont know this then you are an ignorant pig.

It's got to be getting more difficult by the moment, to square your indoctrinated beliefs with the reality on the ground. All you can do is rant and deny, deny, deny. Please Jesus, make these Libs behave like my media heroes told me they're supposed to!

What you WANT us to be is of no concern to us. It's obviously of great concern to you, though.

Let us know when your head explodes, pig.

Before it does, how 'bout taking a shot at cannon's question.

Now, THIS IS WHERE YOU NAME ONE CAPITALIST COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A WELFARE STATE COMPONENT, or this is where I school you that social welfare is part and parcel of capitalism, son.
I'll wait. We all will.
Name that country.

Huey » 21 May 2014 5:52 am » wrote: It is quite obvious. Every single one of the lefties arguing against the Citizen's United decision is wishing to remove a citizens right to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights in a group. Well, unless that group, like unions, is supporting their side.

.

Right here, you show your ignorance. An employee is not a citizen while that employee is under the control of any corporation that is not a non-profit or government institution. A corporation is not a citizen - its a corporation where employees are contracted to perform certain functions within the corporation. A union is not a citizen - it's an organization which exists for the sole purpose of advocating for its members and supporting them in their relationships with their employers.

You have this crazy notion that democracy and individual rights operate in an environment where the Constitutional rights of citizens are not recognized. They don't of course but it appears there is no dissuading you from your errant perceptions that employees enjoy the same rights in the workplace that they enjoy as citizens outside of the workplace.

If you believe that to be so, maybe you need to start a campaign to insist that corporations bestow the same rights to their employees that the Constitution bestows on them as citizens.

larryc12 » 29 Oct 2016 8:59 am » wrote: Well, no you can't, because I never defend the *******.

According to Huey and golfboy, it is not enough to simply not defend the beast. One must stab it with their steely knife repeatedly before dragging it to the edge of hell and tossing it over or be deemed a full fledged supporter of the beast.

Anything less is limp-wristed *** you will be neutered for if you were simply not defending Hillary. I assume it must be the same if you are simply not defending Trump. The boys never display partisan favoritism.

golfboy » 27 Oct 2016 2:52 pm » wrote: ^^ nothing this lying piece of **** can be trusted.

Are you referring to Trump or Guiliani?

Misty » 21 Oct 2016 7:50 pm » wrote:



Watch The Video Here If You Can Stomach It: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... ?cid=bitly

His daughters must have really had it rough, being so tempting to his addictive compulsion for beautiful young women. Can you imagine your own father pawing at you every time you walked by? They probably didn't bring many of their friends around either for fear of what he'd do to them.

Misty » 21 Oct 2016 8:20 pm » wrote: Yes let's larry.
Perhaps you can cite for me one of the days long Twitter rants that she has gone on when someone criticized her.
Or tell me how she always says that when someone hits her she feels the need to hit them back even harder.

Why can't you ever hear any criticism of Trump, who you say you don't like, without projecting it onto HRC?

Decent Christian man that he is, he cannot defend Trump's reprehensible words and deeds but cannot admit to such a thing for fear of being ostracized from the club. He does what all weak men do. He throws it back on a woman. He's not alone. There's an entire gaggle of those geese here with the same problem.