Are you christian?

[citizenal]

Anyone who owns a gun can't call themselves a Christian. Jesus wouldn't have approved of a killing machine. Well, except a cross.

The right to defend oneself and the duty to come to the aide of others, is not denied to Christians. A gun is only a tool. How it is used makes it good or evil.

Guns are made to kill. That kinda edges 'em over to the evil side.

Guns can kill, but they are only tools. As such, they have no will or intent of their own. Without will and intent, there can be no evil. Therefore, to conclude that guns are on any side is wrong.

From the food for thought department! If guns truly are evil, then they should be banned altogether both to Citizens and Governments alike. Personally, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would permit citizens to have guns and ban them from anyone connected with government. Granted, this would not be an ideal situation, but is the lessor of two evils because evil tools in the hands of governments have the potential for the greater harm. To put this in another way, if only citizens had guns and government had none, we would all enjoy the luxury of a government which would not violate our rights or disobey the rules we have established for it; an ideal which no longer exists in the world today, especially in the United States.

 

[Mudda]

Anyone who owns a gun can't call themselves a Christian. Jesus wouldn't have approved of a killing machine. Well, except a cross.

The right to defend oneself and the duty to come to the aide of others, is not denied to Christians. A gun is only a tool. How it is used makes it good or evil.

Guns are made to kill. That kinda edges 'em over to the evil side.

Guns can kill, but they are only tools. As such, they have no will or intent of their own. Without will and intent, there can be no evil. Therefore, to conclude that guns are on any side is wrong.

From the food for thought department! If guns truly are evil, then they should be banned altogether both to Citizens and Governments alike. Personally, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would permit citizens to have guns and ban them from anyone connected with government. Granted, this would not be an ideal situation, but is the lessor of two evils because evil tools in the hands of governments have the potential for the greater harm. To put this in another way, if only citizens had guns and government had none, we would all enjoy the luxury of a government which would not violate our rights or disobey the rules we have established for it; an ideal which no longer exists in the world today, especially in the United States.

You must be one of the guys who was in the stand-off at the wildlife refuge in Oregon. The FBI is looking for you.

 

[Meriweather]

Christianity has one rule that I have a problem with. Believe their story or burn in hell. I don't believe their story and I don't believe I'll burn in hell for it either. This is why we are not a Christian nation. Not all Americans believe that.

Keep in mind it is the minority of Christianity (the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox portion) who are of the mind non-Christians burn in hell. Catholics and Orthodox do not teach this. Rather, these denominations are of the mind that they can lead people to the Kingdom of God, but for those that cannot be reached--whatever the reason--they are entrusted to a loving God where everything is possible, and who is not bound by human limitations.

 

[sealybobo]

Christianity has one rule that I have a problem with. Believe their story or burn in hell. I don't believe their story and I don't believe I'll burn in hell for it either. This is why we are not a Christian nation. Not all Americans believe that.

Keep in mind it is the minority of Christianity (the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox portion) who are of the mind non-Christians burn in hell. Catholics and Orthodox do not teach this. Rather, these denominations are of the mind that they can lead people to the Kingdom of God, but for those that cannot be reached--whatever the reason--they are entrusted to a loving God where everything is possible, and who is not bound by human limitations.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[the_human_being]

That's hardly what I find offensive. If you condone such language and vulgarity, then you must be of the same uncouth class he is.

condone what language? i find your politics vulgar. *shrug*

but i wasn't condoning vulgarity. and if you notice, i don't post in vulgarities.

Neither do I post in vulgarities. It is totally uncalled for. Also as far as your politics, I could care less and the same goes for your religion or lack thereof. Your views do not effect me in the least. If you don't like a particular politician, fine. If you hate God or Christians, fine. I am adult enough and old enough to accept the diversity of other people and their views although I do acknowledge that many people cannot abide others having views that differ from theirs. That is no problem of mine however, it is theirs.

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I take issue with dishonesty and ignorance. That said, I don't hate anyone though I think certain people are hateful.

And for the record I'm not an atheist. I just expect people to stick to their own religious beliefs and not legislate their own dogma. That seems fair and consistent with the secular government intentionally established by the founders.

Who is it that has legislated for their own dogma? I know the voters as a majority voted against gay marriage in several states but that was the wish of a majority of the people in those states. The SCOTUS voided the wishes of the people when they struck down the bans in those states.
As far as dishonesty and ignorance, we're always going to have both.

People voted against desegregation too. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's the job of the court to get in the way of things that violate equal protection laws.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

do you not understand the role of the court?

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

 

[the_human_being]

I wonder how many of the God haters and atheists sleep with a pistol underneath their pillows terrified that the mean old Christians from the Baptist church down the road will come and get them some dark night? What a bunch of losers.

I would bet that most criminals and other evil doers were raised by Christians in the US.

Then you must believe that most Christians are Democrats since most criminals are Democrats.

 

[the_human_being]

Everyone knows that Mary was assfucked and some of the cum dribbled into her pussy. That's how she got pregnant but stayed a virgin.

Your post proves you are a vulgar and uncouth individual who should probably be locked away in an institution.

For making fun of a fairytale? What if he said the 7 dwarfs ran a train on sleeping beauty like 7 bill Cosby's?

At least you don't want to kill him for making fun. That would be your retarded cousins the Muslims.

You are as sick as who you defend.

Who am I defending? I'm making fun of you not defending anyone. You're all nucking futs.

His reply was a bit over the top offensive. But when he sees where our society is being controlled by ancient superstitions, its time to wake up. We can be nice once the patients are cured of their delusions. We're better than that. No one ever met God. Not Joseph Smith Mohammad moses Adam Noah Abraham Ishmael and the Jesus story is the greatest story ever told. Better than Homer's classics

Ok, what's offensive about the ways they could have impregnated a virgin? Either what I said, or Joseph whacks off into Mary's holy hole opening, or someone blows Joseph and spits it in. One of these methods is how Mary got impregnated. I'm a realist. Santa Claus doesn't actually exist.

You seem to continue to wish to prove your total depravity. There is no need. We believe you.

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is simply saying he is the doorway to the Father. How many doorways have you walked through without a second thought? I think many faithful Jews have walked through the doorway without giving it a second thought. On the other hand, for those who don't know the way to the Father, Jesus is saying, "It is this way, no other way. This is the door." Can't get to the Father by building a tower, or by blasting off into space.

 

[sealybobo]

condone what language? i find your politics vulgar. *shrug*

but i wasn't condoning vulgarity. and if you notice, i don't post in vulgarities.

Neither do I post in vulgarities. It is totally uncalled for. Also as far as your politics, I could care less and the same goes for your religion or lack thereof. Your views do not effect me in the least. If you don't like a particular politician, fine. If you hate God or Christians, fine. I am adult enough and old enough to accept the diversity of other people and their views although I do acknowledge that many people cannot abide others having views that differ from theirs. That is no problem of mine however, it is theirs.

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I take issue with dishonesty and ignorance. That said, I don't hate anyone though I think certain people are hateful.

And for the record I'm not an atheist. I just expect people to stick to their own religious beliefs and not legislate their own dogma. That seems fair and consistent with the secular government intentionally established by the founders.

Who is it that has legislated for their own dogma? I know the voters as a majority voted against gay marriage in several states but that was the wish of a majority of the people in those states. The SCOTUS voided the wishes of the people when they struck down the bans in those states.
As far as dishonesty and ignorance, we're always going to have both.

People voted against desegregation too. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's the job of the court to get in the way of things that violate equal protection laws.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

do you not understand the role of the court?

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

 

[the_human_being]

Neither do I post in vulgarities. It is totally uncalled for. Also as far as your politics, I could care less and the same goes for your religion or lack thereof. Your views do not effect me in the least. If you don't like a particular politician, fine. If you hate God or Christians, fine. I am adult enough and old enough to accept the diversity of other people and their views although I do acknowledge that many people cannot abide others having views that differ from theirs. That is no problem of mine however, it is theirs.

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I take issue with dishonesty and ignorance. That said, I don't hate anyone though I think certain people are hateful.

And for the record I'm not an atheist. I just expect people to stick to their own religious beliefs and not legislate their own dogma. That seems fair and consistent with the secular government intentionally established by the founders.

Who is it that has legislated for their own dogma? I know the voters as a majority voted against gay marriage in several states but that was the wish of a majority of the people in those states. The SCOTUS voided the wishes of the people when they struck down the bans in those states.
As far as dishonesty and ignorance, we're always going to have both.

People voted against desegregation too. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's the job of the court to get in the way of things that violate equal protection laws.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

do you not understand the role of the court?

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

 

[sealybobo]

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I take issue with dishonesty and ignorance. That said, I don't hate anyone though I think certain people are hateful.

And for the record I'm not an atheist. I just expect people to stick to their own religious beliefs and not legislate their own dogma. That seems fair and consistent with the secular government intentionally established by the founders.

Who is it that has legislated for their own dogma? I know the voters as a majority voted against gay marriage in several states but that was the wish of a majority of the people in those states. The SCOTUS voided the wishes of the people when they struck down the bans in those states.
As far as dishonesty and ignorance, we're always going to have both.

People voted against desegregation too. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's the job of the court to get in the way of things that violate equal protection laws.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

do you not understand the role of the court?

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

 

[the_human_being]

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is simply saying he is the doorway to the Father. How many doorways have you walked through without a second thought? I think many faithful Jews have walked through the doorway without giving it a second thought. On the other hand, for those who don't know the way to the Father, Jesus is saying, "It is this way, no other way. This is the door." Can't get to the Father by building a tower, or by blasting off into space.

He also said, "No one comes to me unless the Father call him first." So the question arises as to what about those who are not called?

He also said, "Many are called but few are chosen." Now the question arises as to the status of those who were called but were not chosen.

You also should address Paul's statements concerning predestination. If the chosen are already predestinated to be saved, what about all those not predestinated to be saved? Are these damned by simple omission?

 

[the_human_being]

Who is it that has legislated for their own dogma? I know the voters as a majority voted against gay marriage in several states but that was the wish of a majority of the people in those states. The SCOTUS voided the wishes of the people when they struck down the bans in those states.
As far as dishonesty and ignorance, we're always going to have both.

People voted against desegregation too. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's the job of the court to get in the way of things that violate equal protection laws.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

do you not understand the role of the court?

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

 

[sealybobo]

People voted against desegregation too. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And it's the job of the court to get in the way of things that violate equal protection laws.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

do you not understand the role of the court?

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

I'm sorry but because of Obamacare, I am forced to cut your hours to 29 hours per week. You will need to find another part-time job in order to increase Mr. Obama's job creation figures for this month. Have a nice day. Go onto the exchange and find some high co-pay, high deductible health insurance for yourself and your family since we will no longer be providing employer supported insurance plans.

 

[peach174]

Actually, as usual, the Supreme Court blew it. The simple fact is that neither the states nor the federal government have the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The only reason the states got into regulating marriage was for the purpose of generating revenue. The Supreme Court should have told the states to discontinue charging for and requiring marriage licenses and/or any other fees related to marriage. They stopped short of doing so.

The mere fact that many states put the marriage issue on the ballot testifies that they did not understand the Constitution in the first place and were overstepping their bounds. This ended up costing a lot of money and a lot of hard feelings among the people toward one another and toward the Court itself. All this could have been avoided had these states simply stayed out of attempting to define marriage outside the Bill of Rights.

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

Why do we need a raise? Answer; to pay for bigger government.
Because the Government took almost 3 Trillion last year from all the people who pay taxes.
You get a raise and then the government turns around and continues to take more from your hard earned money to give to others.
Some really need that help, but many are just taking it because they don't want to work.

Do some research on how Governments who take that much away from the private sector, eventually goes under.

 

[sealybobo]

We give tax breaks to people who shack up for a reason. Instead of heating two homes they only need to heat up one.

And we give tax breaks to people for having kids because we clearly want them breeding. I don't but "We" do. Who's we? Probably the corporations who need workers and churches who need bodies in the pews.

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

I'm sorry but because of Obamacare, I am forced to cut your hours to 29 hours per week. You will need to find another part-time job in order to increase Mr. Obama's job creation figures for this month. Have a nice day. Go onto the exchange and find some high co-pay, high deductible health insurance for yourself and your family since we will no longer be providing employer supported insurance plans.

We should have went with single payer. Then the corporations wouldn't have to worry about paying for healthcare. Then maybe they could be competitive with companies in other nations who don't have to worry about paying for healthcare because the citizens have socialized medicine.

And notice you right wingers say American companies pay the highest taxes in the world? Isn't that strange to you? You would think corporate taxes would be higher in countries that provide healthcare to all their citizens.

And we shouldn't have let the corporations write the ACA. That's how much America is owned by the rich. Now half the GOP wants to make a billionaire like Trump our president. How smart are we?

 

[peach174]

Exactly why we need to do away with tax breaks except for the wealthy and corporations because they are the only ones paying taxes. We need a national federal sales tax so everyone will have some skin in the game.

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

I'm sorry but because of Obamacare, I am forced to cut your hours to 29 hours per week. You will need to find another part-time job in order to increase Mr. Obama's job creation figures for this month. Have a nice day. Go onto the exchange and find some high co-pay, high deductible health insurance for yourself and your family since we will no longer be providing employer supported insurance plans.

We should have went with single payer. Then the corporations wouldn't have to worry about paying for healthcare. Then maybe they could be competitive with companies in other nations who don't have to worry about paying for healthcare because the citizens have socialized medicine.

And notice you right wingers say American companies pay the highest taxes in the world? Isn't that strange to you? You would think corporate taxes would be higher in countries that provide healthcare to all their citizens.

And we shouldn't have let the corporations write the ACA. That's how much America is owned by the rich. Now half the GOP wants to make a billionaire like Trump our president. How smart are we?

High Corporate Taxes leads to less jobs and Companies moving. All other countries have recognized this but not America.
Do you know that almost very President we have had was wealthy?
It is not the wealth of our Presidents.
It's because the progressives of both parties who have taken us farther away from our Constitution.
We need to get this government more into a balance again of freedom and less government.

 

[sealybobo]

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

I'm sorry but because of Obamacare, I am forced to cut your hours to 29 hours per week. You will need to find another part-time job in order to increase Mr. Obama's job creation figures for this month. Have a nice day. Go onto the exchange and find some high co-pay, high deductible health insurance for yourself and your family since we will no longer be providing employer supported insurance plans.

We should have went with single payer. Then the corporations wouldn't have to worry about paying for healthcare. Then maybe they could be competitive with companies in other nations who don't have to worry about paying for healthcare because the citizens have socialized medicine.

And notice you right wingers say American companies pay the highest taxes in the world? Isn't that strange to you? You would think corporate taxes would be higher in countries that provide healthcare to all their citizens.

And we shouldn't have let the corporations write the ACA. That's how much America is owned by the rich. Now half the GOP wants to make a billionaire like Trump our president. How smart are we?

High Corporate Taxes leads to less jobs and Companies moving. All other countries have recognized this but not America.
Do you know that almost very President we have had was wealthy?
It is not the wealth of our Presidents.
It's because the progressives of both parties who have taken us farther away from our Constitution.
We need to get this government more into a balance again of freedom and less government.

No, it's because corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share, they sent too many jobs overseas, we spend too much on the military and war, we allow corporations to hire illegals, we didn't properly regulate manufacturing which is vital to our success, we let companies move overseas and continue to sell their products here and we let bankers take over the federal reserve in 1914. Not to mention we went off the gold standard.

There isn't a candidate that exists that is honest about the debt. There was one but none of you neocons wanted to listen to Rand Paul. I don't blame you. Him and his dad are fucking nuts. But they are right about this one thing.

I don't care if a person is wealthy. Are their policies anti middle class and poor? Because Democratic and Republican politicians are all rich. So what? The question is, are they greedy bastards or working for us?

I love the rich and corporations telling us that WE are the problem when they own the country and THEY are doing smashingly well. Seems to me like we are getting played.

 

[sealybobo]

We would love to be paying some of the taxes. If you will just give us some of the money we will gladly pay some of the taxes. An appropriate % of course. Oh, and this way works. Your way doesn't.

This reminds me of when the private bankers like JP Morgan and Rockafeller took over the Federal Reserve. They gave away their millions to charity. BFD. You just took over a country. What's a few million?

You must be a Liberal. Your favorite words are "GIVE ME".

Yes, as in GIVE ME a raise

I'm sorry but because of Obamacare, I am forced to cut your hours to 29 hours per week. You will need to find another part-time job in order to increase Mr. Obama's job creation figures for this month. Have a nice day. Go onto the exchange and find some high co-pay, high deductible health insurance for yourself and your family since we will no longer be providing employer supported insurance plans.

We should have went with single payer. Then the corporations wouldn't have to worry about paying for healthcare. Then maybe they could be competitive with companies in other nations who don't have to worry about paying for healthcare because the citizens have socialized medicine.

And notice you right wingers say American companies pay the highest taxes in the world? Isn't that strange to you? You would think corporate taxes would be higher in countries that provide healthcare to all their citizens.

And we shouldn't have let the corporations write the ACA. That's how much America is owned by the rich. Now half the GOP wants to make a billionaire like Trump our president. How smart are we?

High Corporate Taxes leads to less jobs and Companies moving. All other countries have recognized this but not America.
Do you know that almost very President we have had was wealthy?
It is not the wealth of our Presidents.
It's because the progressives of both parties who have taken us farther away from our Constitution.
We need to get this government more into a balance again of freedom and less government.

If a company moves, why allow them to sell their products here? I bet they have a competitor who's willing to pay the taxes.

How come American companies are begging to do business with China? Does China let corporations make all the rules and not pay any taxes? Yet still Pepsi is begging to tap that market.

Republicans always think the American people have a weak hand in poker but in reality we are the house and we should be making the rules.