Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The last time a Clinton ran for office, they were paying 31% of their income in taxes. Personally, I don't begrudge anyone wealth, but I do not like it when they pay substantially less a percentage of tax than I have to .... like Mitt.And that means she should or should not take her SS? You are lame.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Remember Hillary taking a tax deduction for giving her used underwear to charity? She is so caring and thoughtful.More fool him.
Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
The point that you libtards can't get is that the clintons demonize the rich and the tax breaks available to them, AND THEN THEY DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS WITH THEIR MONEY.
Its called hypocrisy------------do as I say, not as I do.
Good point.I paid 26k into SS
I have collected 15K a year for 15 years
You do the math
Nothing needs to be changed, yo...
Is it better to speak of such things, or lock them away?And that means she should or should not take her SS? You are lame.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Remember Hillary taking a tax deduction for giving her used underwear to charity? She is so caring and thoughtful.
Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
The point that you libtards can't get is that the clintons demonize the rich and the tax breaks available to them, AND THEN THEY DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS WITH THEIR MONEY.
Its called hypocrisy------------do as I say, not as I do.
You do understand the concept and where the phrase came from in presidential campaigning history, and why?Is it better to speak of such things, or lock them away?And that means she should or should not take her SS? You are lame.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
The point that you libtards can't get is that the clintons demonize the rich and the tax breaks available to them, AND THEN THEY DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS WITH THEIR MONEY.
Its called hypocrisy------------do as I say, not as I do.
sure, speak about them, but don't lie about them.
You do understand the concept and where the phrase came from in presidential campaigning history, and why?Is it better to speak of such things, or lock them away?And that means she should or should not take her SS? You are lame.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
The point that you libtards can't get is that the clintons demonize the rich and the tax breaks available to them, AND THEN THEY DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS WITH THEIR MONEY.
Its called hypocrisy------------do as I say, not as I do.
sure, speak about them, but don't lie about them.
It was used by dem candidates in the later 1800's when rich industrialist were putting their candidate up for election..The last of the agricultural democratic candidates usually tried to get the farmer vote by using slogans of income inequality of farmers vs. industrialsYou do understand the concept and where the phrase came from in presidential campaigning history, and why?Is it better to speak of such things, or lock them away?And that means she should or should not take her SS? You are lame.
The point that you libtards can't get is that the clintons demonize the rich and the tax breaks available to them, AND THEN THEY DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS WITH THEIR MONEY.
Its called hypocrisy------------do as I say, not as I do.
sure, speak about them, but don't lie about them.
which concept?
Thank you for the compliment...It's terrifying that this criminally insane authoritarian sociopath has a single person in this country fooled into "thinking" that she is anything but a modern day hitler wanna be.
The lying and scandals that are well documented and reported definitively prove what an absolute disaster this putrid whore is and the fact that bed wetting liberals can ignore it proves that they're all deliberately ignorant regressive troglodytes.
Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Remember Hillary taking a tax deduction for giving her used underwear to charity? She is so caring and thoughtful.More fool him.Ron Paul isn't taking it.
Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
You were the one that disputed the fact that they took a tax deduction for donating their underwear to charity.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Remember Hillary taking a tax deduction for giving her used underwear to charity? She is so caring and thoughtful.More fool him.Ron Paul isn't taking it.
Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
It's uh, not the kind of thing I follow, dood. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if this is what you consider "news", you must be the Chief Petty Officer.
You were the one that disputed the fact that they took a tax deduction for donating their underwear to charity.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Remember Hillary taking a tax deduction for giving her used underwear to charity? She is so caring and thoughtful.More fool him.
Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
It's uh, not the kind of thing I follow, dood. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if this is what you consider "news", you must be the Chief Petty Officer.
You should be posting the following:
Thank you for enlightening me. I will try to do better next time.
You questioned my judgement??? I merely stated a fact about the Clinton's, which was relevant to the debate. I am sorry you find it so inappropriate.You were the one that disputed the fact that they took a tax deduction for donating their underwear to charity.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Remember Hillary taking a tax deduction for giving her used underwear to charity? She is so caring and thoughtful.
Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
It's uh, not the kind of thing I follow, dood. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if this is what you consider "news", you must be the Chief Petty Officer.
You should be posting the following:
Thank you for enlightening me. I will try to do better next time.
I see reading comprehension is not as strong in this one as, say, underwear tracking.
I proffered no opinion on whether such a deduction ever happened; I would have no perspective on which to rest such a position. What I did was questioned your judgment in tracking underwear as a useful tool in political wankitude.
Learn to read.
And is nice fat government medical coverage?Is he taking his nice fat Congressional pension?Ron Paul isn't taking it.
*It's worth noting that Congressman Ron Paul has never participated in the Congressional retirement plan, describing it as “immoral.” Paul is one of the 46 percent in the millionaires' club, with a disclosed net worth of between two and a half and five million dollars, which ranks him 77th in the U.S. House.
You questioned my judgement??? I merely stated a fact about the Clinton's, which was relevant to the debate. I am sorry you find it so inappropriate.You were the one that disputed the fact that they took a tax deduction for donating their underwear to charity.Allow me to educate you. Please get informed before responding to my posts.Umm... nnnnnnno. I sure don't.
You're actually following Hillary Clinton's underwear?
What, there's an app for that?
See a psychologist.
From the NY Times:
In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
Clinton Taxes Laid Bare Line by Line - NYTimes.com
It's uh, not the kind of thing I follow, dood. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if this is what you consider "news", you must be the Chief Petty Officer.
You should be posting the following:
Thank you for enlightening me. I will try to do better next time.
I see reading comprehension is not as strong in this one as, say, underwear tracking.
I proffered no opinion on whether such a deduction ever happened; I would have no perspective on which to rest such a position. What I did was questioned your judgment in tracking underwear as a useful tool in political wankitude.
Learn to read.
You clearly stated you did not know about the clinton's deducting for underwear. No need to feel insecure.
Neither.And is nice fat government medical coverage?Is he taking his nice fat Congressional pension?Ron Paul isn't taking it.
Link us up to where he does not take his pension and medical. If true, I would be impressed.Neither.And is nice fat government medical coverage?Is he taking his nice fat Congressional pension?Ron Paul isn't taking it.
Too bad your media fails to inform you...one would think this would make you realize how uninformed you are...but no. However I do believe he has stated he takes social security.
Former congressman Ron Paul refused to participate in the congressional pension system, labeling it "immoral".[7]Link us up to where he does not take his pension and medical. If true, I would be impressed.Neither.And is nice fat government medical coverage?Is he taking his nice fat Congressional pension?Ron Paul isn't taking it.
Too bad your media fails to inform you...one would think this would make you realize how uninformed you are...but no. However I do believe he has stated he takes social security.
