Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[Arizona Willie]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

p

 

[Dad2three]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

STOP BITCHIN, PAY YOUR GAWDDAM TAXES AND STOP ALLOWING THE GOP TO KEEP PUTTING SHIT ON THE CREDIT CARD WHILE THEY GIVE TAX CUTS TO THE "JOB CREATORS" THAT DAMN POLICY HAS BEEN A EMPIRICALLY PROVEN FAILURE!!

Taking US from 20% of GDP Carter/Clinton had US at to UNDER 15% where Dubya/GOP left US? Grow a fukkn brain!

 

[Arizona Willie]

What other kind of post could we expect from someone whose Nom de Guerre is a euphemism for turds.
========

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

 

[Arizona Willie]

So when are you going to offer some INTELLIGENT opposition?

All we see from you is SNARK, SMEAR, SMARM, INNUENDO, ETC. ETC
========

Poor fella. Opposition is a terrible thing, eh?

 

[kaz]

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

Gotcha, if the government ever hired contractors before then it's the same. one contractor = one million contractors. It's as much brainpower as you apply to anything else...

 

[kaz]

Whoa, so you expect Rand to adhere to your principles, while you don't expect that from Obama, when Obama shares your principles and Rand doesn't?



Retardation sucks, doesn't it, dudley?

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

Rand paid so much more than her fair share that getting a little of it back was hypocrisy zero.

now Obama, saying he should pay more taxes and fighting to raise taxes while not paying them, that hits the perfect 10 in the hypocrisy scale

Sorry, I keep forgetting, Rands two fellow travelers who CHOSE not to suck off the teet of the collectivists, weren't the principled ones it was was Miss Rand who chose to indulge. Got it

Paying less in taxes is sucking off government. Gotcha, Karl. Of course, government taking money is government giving money, all money is the people's money.

Note you're still not man enough to respond to the part that while you demand Rand give government more money, you are actually OK with obama saying he should pay more taxes while proposing higher taxes, then not paying them

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

STOP BITCHIN, PAY YOUR GAWDDAM TAXES AND STOP ALLOWING THE GOP TO KEEP PUTTING SHIT ON THE CREDIT CARD WHILE THEY GIVE TAX CUTS TO THE "JOB CREATORS" THAT DAMN POLICY HAS BEEN A EMPIRICALLY PROVEN FAILURE!!

Taking US from 20% of GDP Carter/Clinton had US at to UNDER 15% where Dubya/GOP left US? Grow a fukkn brain!

Clinton had us under 15%? Who do you think spends the money in this country anyway, the President?

Since the GOP took over the Congress under DumBama, nearly all their disagreements have been about money. Republicans want to spend less while DumBama wants to spend more. And look for the government shutdown because we want to quit funding abortion mills like Planned Parenthood.

Our problem isn't taxation--our problem is spending.

 

[kaz]

OK, here's how it works, blank shooter. you don't answer questions, you don't get to ask them. That's a no negotiation deal. When you start backing up your crap and responding to questions, then you get to ask them.

word

Bubba, YOU are the one being obtuse AND making posits YOU can't back up. Dumbfuk

Right, which is why you don't take questions, got it

Bubba, I take and answer questions all day, what I don't do is deal with false premises!

NOW YOU MADE THE POSIT, IT WAS ON YOU TO BACK IT UP!


You said cities unemployment is "skyrocketing" I assume you meant in those cities where min wage was increased? SOURCE? lol

You answer zero questions ever. Address how Obama is not a complete and utter hypocrite for not paying taxes he said he should pay while fighting for higher taxes, you keep running and hiding from that one

Oh right the LAW Obama is pushing for that the US tax system is built on? Weird you don't understand we don't have a voluntary tax
system? Yeah, it's "hypocritical" not to pay tax rates you advocate for *shaking head*

Exactly. Double standard, Rand just takes checks that are a tiny part of what she paid, its how the system works. but suddenly Obama is the subject and we don't have a voluntary tax system as if he can't pay it. he can. you are one ... stupid ... *****

 

[kaz]

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

Republicans can't stop thinking in partisan terms about anything, can you?

Yeah, says the guy who supports their policies.

Can't refute the FACTS huh bubs? Not surprised at your lack of even trying!

You support Republican policies WAY more than I do, dickless one

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

p

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

 

[Dad2three]

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

Rand paid so much more than her fair share that getting a little of it back was hypocrisy zero.

now Obama, saying he should pay more taxes and fighting to raise taxes while not paying them, that hits the perfect 10 in the hypocrisy scale

Sorry, I keep forgetting, Rands two fellow travelers who CHOSE not to suck off the teet of the collectivists, weren't the principled ones it was was Miss Rand who chose to indulge. Got it

Paying less in taxes is sucking off government. Gotcha, Karl. Of course, government taking money is government giving money, all money is the people's money.

Note you're still not man enough to respond to the part that while you demand Rand give government more money, you are actually OK with obama saying he should pay more taxes while proposing higher taxes, then not paying them

YOUR inability to be honest, EVER is noted Bubba

Ayn Rand who railed against collectivists and collectivism, unlike the other two fellow travelers, sucked hard on the teet of the collective as soon as she could!

OK with Obama paying the taxes he pays according to current law? Sure just like I think it was stupid of Romney to pay more than he was required to pay, just because he wanted to look better than he was on the tax system he fought for!

I fight for CHANGING the laws, (like Obama), not a voluntary taxing system, if I wanted that I'd try Greece or Somalia!


Now that ALL your talking points were demolished, what else do you have Bubba?

 

[Dad2three]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

p

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

 

[Dad2three]

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

Republicans can't stop thinking in partisan terms about anything, can you?

Yeah, says the guy who supports their policies.

Can't refute the FACTS huh bubs? Not surprised at your lack of even trying!

You support Republican policies WAY more than I do, dickless one

Sure Bubba, sure. We "believe" you...lol

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

Gotcha, if the government ever hired contractors before then it's the same. one contractor = one million contractors. It's as much brainpower as you apply to anything else...

When caught in a lie, Kaz resorts to ad hominem.

Two graphic examples too prove his statement was untrue, and he doubles down on being dishonest.

Others may want to read about POGO:

About POGO

Our Work

Featured Investigations

POGO's Action Center

And,

Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors

 

[kaz]

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

Rand paid so much more than her fair share that getting a little of it back was hypocrisy zero.

now Obama, saying he should pay more taxes and fighting to raise taxes while not paying them, that hits the perfect 10 in the hypocrisy scale

Sorry, I keep forgetting, Rands two fellow travelers who CHOSE not to suck off the teet of the collectivists, weren't the principled ones it was was Miss Rand who chose to indulge. Got it

Paying less in taxes is sucking off government. Gotcha, Karl. Of course, government taking money is government giving money, all money is the people's money.

Note you're still not man enough to respond to the part that while you demand Rand give government more money, you are actually OK with obama saying he should pay more taxes while proposing higher taxes, then not paying them

YOUR inability to be honest, EVER is noted Bubba

Ayn Rand who railed against collectivists and collectivism, unlike the other two fellow travelers, sucked hard on the teet of the collective as soon as she could!

OK with Obama paying the taxes he pays according to current law? Sure just like I think it was stupid of Romney to pay more than he was required to pay, just because he wanted to look better than he was on the tax system he fought for!

I fight for CHANGING the laws, (like Obama), not a voluntary taxing system, if I wanted that I'd try Greece or Somalia!


Now that ALL your talking points were demolished, what else do you have Bubba?

So Obama is following "current law." that's your standard, right? Well no Rand can't follow "current law" she has to give government money.

Even you have to feel butt hurt from that flagrant hypocrisy

 

[kaz]

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

Republicans can't stop thinking in partisan terms about anything, can you?

Yeah, says the guy who supports their policies.

Can't refute the FACTS huh bubs? Not surprised at your lack of even trying!

You support Republican policies WAY more than I do, dickless one

Sure Bubba, sure. We "believe" you...lol

"we?" so who are these hordes of Republicans hanging on your every word? Name them.

Just so you know, "I" is a far more powerful word than "we." Why? You can speak for "I." When you say "we" that means your dick isn't inflated without the approval of others. Others who don't exist

 

[kaz]

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

Gotcha, if the government ever hired contractors before then it's the same. one contractor = one million contractors. It's as much brainpower as you apply to anything else...

When caught in a lie, Kaz resorts to ad hominem.

Two graphic examples too prove his statement was untrue, and he doubles down on being dishonest.

Others may want to read about POGO:

About POGO

Our Work

Featured Investigations

POGO's Action Center

And,

Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors

When Wry's ad hominem gets ad hominem back, he cries and whines like a little *****.

And none of your links still show actual content regarding the extent on contractors, only that contractors existed. that the founding fathers weren't anarchists doesn't make them marxists, completely contrary to your black and white world

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

p

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.