Enough about guns, what's with all the illegal immigrants!?

[einhander]

Just liberal drivel from you my friend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You're a sad, smelly pig.

But I can't prove it.

[kickinindian]

Just liberal drivel from you my friend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

you listen to a lot of AM radio stations huh?

[marshallnoise]

you listen to a lot of AM radio stations huh?

Read books too. Shocking, I know.

What you espouse are talking points from Leninists from all eras . It is an old, tired ideology that had a facade of caring with a motivation of subjugation. The individual is lost for the betterment of the collective.

Why entertain a failed ideology?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[nando]

Why don't you get specific with this (poor) argument and tell us exactly which programs should be cut, and why they should be cut?

let's start with all those welfare programs for oil companies and military contractors.

[marshallnoise]

let's start with all those welfare programs for oil companies and military contractors.

Just so you have it on record, I don't believe in subsidies for corporations either. Now fit me in the box again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[nando]

Was I responding to you? Did I say anything about what you thought?

I think some of you nuts come in here just for the sake of arguing.

[marshallnoise]

Was I responding to you?

No, but you were implying very clearly that those who don't like social services were somehow in favor of business subsidies otherwise known as corporate welfare.

I just wanted make sure I wasn't thrown into that generalization like many are prone to do.

But, was BraveUlysses talking to you too? Hardly.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[nando]

I wasn't implying anything. You made that up in your own mind.

[einhander]

well its true some people, some in power even, scary I know! dwell on the past and it dosen't allow the world to move forward such as not believing in global warming or universal rights for all creeds and orientation it's just ass backwards that we even still use religious based values.

What you espouse are talking points from Leninists from all eras . It is an old, tired ideology that had a facade of caring with a motivation of subjugation. The individual is lost for the betterment of the collective.

Why entertain a failed ideology?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I think Lenin was quiet on global warming. Can't prove it though.

Also, the Constitution may have some oblique reference to equality for different people. Not totally sure.

Those Leninists are subversive characters though - they could be lurking everywhere.

Kook.

[nando]

hey now, we all know the founding fathers were a bunch of lazy leaching leftists. Equal rights for all, pffft!

[einhander]

hey now, we all know the founding fathers were a bunch of lazy leaching leftists. Equal rights for all, pffft!

Seriously. What a bunch of Leninist cocksuckers.

Don't even get me started on the Bill of Rights - sheer pinko-commie propaganda.

[marshallnoise]

hey now, we all know the founding fathers were a bunch of lazy leaching leftists. Equal rights for all, pffft!

Equal opportunity =/= equal outcome.

Classical Liberalism =/= liberal statism.

Apples =/= oranges.

[marshallnoise]

I think Lenin was quiet on global warming. Can't prove it though.

Also, the Constitution may have some oblique reference to equality for different people. Not totally sure.

Those Leninists are subversive characters though - they could be lurking everywhere.

Kook.

You have a hard time reading, don't you?

[einhander]

You have a hard time reading, don't you?

No.

Why?

[marshallnoise]

I wasn't implying anything. You made that up in your own mind.

Nahh, I don't think so.

In fact, if it was so obvious that when people complain about "welfare" they mean both social programs as well as corporate subsidies, then your post is redundant, because then you have said the same thing that was already common knowledge.

But since you went to the effort of specifically calling out corporate "welfare" you inherently imply that those who complain about social services turn a blind eye to subsidies.

Still, was BraveUlysses talking to you in the first place? Or did I make that up in my own mind too?