Who Am I Supposed To Follow????

[Colin norris]

I wonder what The Bidens got Corn Pop fir Christmas.
Keeping in mind that they are Charity cheapskates.

Very well plagairised.
After all that ridicule, has still the POTUS and you're still a brain dead republican hater.

 

[Dadoalex]

Meaning, of course, 100% accurate and correct.



I'm gonna have to conclude that "reasonably intelligent" is not a category in which one would find you.....as you completely missed the point of the OP.



Who ties your shoelaces for you????

I'll stick with incredibly ignorant.

I'd add incredibly stupid but I don't care to give your intellect too much credit.

 

[Dadoalex]

Are you attempting to defend rape?????


You must be a Democrat......and I see you received your free crack pipe.

What rape?
Who was charged?

Oh right.

More of your Clinton fantasies.

Try a REALLY REALLY big dildo.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Political Chic follows Putin

Yeah, and you have been on this kick that if you ain’t with Joey Skid mark Biden then you must be with Pootin the Imbecile…

 

[Dadoalex]

Q. Maybe a dildo would help?

A. LOL, I'm glad I didn't have coffee in my glass, I laugh out loud with a sip of water. Well, the screen needed to be dusted anyway.

Just sayin...

That level of fantasy goes beyond reality and into, well, you know.

 

[Dadoalex]

So then Biden virtually running as a MODERATE pledging
UNITY isn''t the Biggest Liar in Presidential History.
Name a Potus who lied so cavalierly.

Trump.

over 35000 times in 4 years.

 

[Foolardi]

Very well plagairised.
After all that ridicule, has still the POTUS and you're still a brain dead republican hater.

Such fascinating conglomerate of gobbledygook in sentence structure.
It'd be like having a Potus during his Inaugural swearing-in say stuff like
" Sure Daddio I can dig it.I think I can handle that stuff. "

 

[Dadoalex]

Bill Clinton:

Arkansas governor: 1979 - 1981 and 1983 - 1992

US president: 1993 - 2001

That's almost two decades, Math Midget.

My god the stupid just keeps on coming.

Hillary Clinton Senator from New York 2001-2009

I accept your apologies, fool.

 

[Colin norris]

Such fascinating conglomerate of gobbledygook in sentence structure.
It'd be like having a Potus during his Inaugural swearing-in say stuff like
" Sure Daddio I can dig it.I think I can handle that stuff. "

Of course it would be since you hate Biden. Piss off you intellectual derelict.

 

[norwegen]

My god the stupid just keeps on coming.

Hillary Clinton Senator from New York 2001-2009

I accept your apologies, fool.

I'm sorry you're stupid.

Thanks for accepting.

 

[Foolardi]

Trump.

over 35000 times in 4 years.

And yet how many Lies has Biden run up.
On the coordinated MSM Lie/Time clock.
We'll never knowed.Because the Left don't give a crap.
It's like the Democrats and the MSM don't have to put on their
pants one leg at a time.It's like why bother.Nobody's a Watchin'.
Nobody cares.Not even Mom.

 

[OldFlame]

It appears that Democrat 'principles' are what we call 'situational ethics.'


1. "Matthew Dowd plays the ‘dissent is treason’ card over criticism of Joe Biden on Russia and Ukraine




2. Or......this????

View attachment 606339








The truth is, of course, one cannot question whatever the party says at any time........even if it reverses it's orthodoxy 180°s.....




3. Of course Biden and the Democrats are directly responsible for Putin/Ukraine.
Days after his inauguration, Biden banned the Keystone Pipeline, and ended the energy independence that Trump gifted to American….

…..and at the same time removed any bar to enriching Putin…..removed sanctions and OK’s Nord Stream 2

Had both policies not been put in place, we’d be able to keep control of the gas station masquerading as a nation, Russia.

It’s almost like they all get their talking points emailed to them en mass, just check out every leftie thread on here accusing conservatives of supporting Putin. Yet had this happened while Trump was in office and he handled it with the ineptitude that Biden has, they’d be screaming (as usual) that Putin owned him. We all know that to be true, yet they pretend like they yet have any credibility left. Highly amusing to say the least. Putin owns biden, lock, stock, and barrel.

 

[Foolardi]

Of course it would be since you hate Biden. Piss off you intellectual derelict.

If Biden is hated it has nothing to do with me.
And everything to do with character and lack thereof.
" Nothing,I will declare,goes further towards a man's liberation
than the act of surviving his need for character. "
-- John Ciardi { American Poet,editor }

 

[Colin norris]

If Biden is hated it has nothing to do with me.
And everything to do with character and lack thereof.
" Nothing,I will declare,goes further towards a man's liberation
than the act of surviving his need for character. "
-- John Ciardi { American Poet,editor }

Oh how noble of you. As if I'm expected to bow in respect for that.

 

[Foolardi]

It’s almost like they all get their talking points emailed to them en mass, just check out every leftie thread on here accusing conservatives of supporting Putin. Yet had this happened while Trump was in office and he handled it with the ineptitude that Biden has, they’d be screaming (as usual) that Putin owned him. We all know that to be true, yet they pretend like they yet have any credibility left. Highly amusing to say the least. Putin owns biden, lock, stock, and barrel.

" The action of Russia ... is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside
an enigma. "
-- Winston Spencer Churchill { Radio Broadcast,London,Oct.1,1939

 

[Vastator]

It appears that Democrat 'principles' are what we call 'situational ethics.'


1. "Matthew Dowd plays the ‘dissent is treason’ card over criticism of Joe Biden on Russia and Ukraine




2. Or......this????

View attachment 606339








The truth is, of course, one cannot question whatever the party says at any time........even if it reverses it's orthodoxy 180°s.....




3. Of course Biden and the Democrats are directly responsible for Putin/Ukraine.
Days after his inauguration, Biden banned the Keystone Pipeline, and ended the energy independence that Trump gifted to American….

…..and at the same time removed any bar to enriching Putin…..removed sanctions and OK’s Nord Stream 2

Had both policies not been put in place, we’d be able to keep control of the gas station masquerading as a nation, Russia.

I wouldn't piss down Bidens throat, if his trachea was on fire.

 

[Foolardi]

I wouldn't piss down Bidens throat, if his trachea was on fire.

What if he said /// " Please,please,Dear God by all means.I will gladly
give my consent for my Confession afterwords ... Father. " { some priest }.

 

[Vastator]

What if he said /// " Please,please,Dear God by all means.I will gladly
give my consent for my Confession afterwords ... Father. " { some priest }.

It wouldn't mean shit...

 

[okfine]

Political Chic follows Putin

Of course. What sheep do.

 

[okfine]

All Leftists....

In his book "Intellectuals," Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy. "I'm afraid you've got it wrong," Picasso explains, "we are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."



Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders donated just over 1% of his total income last year, and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren donated 5.5% according to her tax information.” UVa Student Asks Beto Why He Gave Less To Charity Than A College Student

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) released 15 years of tax returns on Sunday, showing that she and her husband earned $1.9 million last year and gave $27,000 to charity — or 1.4 percent. Harris reported no charitable giving at all during her first three years as California’s attorney general.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and her husband donated $6,600 of their $338,500 income to charity last year, or just under 2 percent,

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and her husband made $215,000 last year and gave $3,750 to charity, also just under 2 percent.

When Mitt Romney finally relented under pressure and released his tax returns in 2012, they showed that he and his wife had given away $4 million out of the $13.7 million they took in during the previous year, or 29.4 percent. Romney didn’t even deduct $1.8 million of donations that year so that he could live up to his statement that he’d always paid an effective tax rate of at least 13 percent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...85bd448/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f47f35fb184e







Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Byron York 9/15/08 NR



Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html



Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.

Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.

From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.



Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post) Obama Tax Returns: Low On Story Lines And Charity Donations



According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

" Ann Coulter Are ‘hope’ And ‘change’ Still Tax-deductible? - Ann Coulter



The convenient cliché propagated by many people is that those who truly care about the needy will be supportive of new or expanded government programs. Those who oppose this approach of throwing endlessly increasing sums of money at social programs are commonly labeled as heartless and lacking in compassion. That is not only a false label but it shows a lack of knowledge about American history as well as a lack of understanding about how the incentives created by many large government programs are fundamentally flawed.



Coerced "charity" via government taxation has several corrosive effects:

Anchor Rising: "Who You Gonna Call?" The Little Platoons

www.anchorrising.com

Hey Trumpy one. How's Melania doing with her charity checkbook?
Oh, I forgot. You may go way off topic, so never mind.