Originally Posted by Guest

And after that, you could show them the hacked e-mails from the DNC using ethnic slurs against Jews, referring to women as "Bimbos" and using the "N word" to describe African Americans. So which is the TRUE party of hate? We already know the Dems are the party of Hypocrisy, and now Hate---can we add a third "H word" to describe them (Other than Hilary)? I would submit "Hell bent to destroy America"

Link us to the emails. They would be fun to read.

Originally Posted by Guest

Such a nasty, putrid and telling word.

Real men (like myself)...would never think of uttering it

Let me guess though, you're one of the misogynists here that are completely intimidated by and feel inferior to women...am I right.





CNM

It is a telling and descriptive word that suits you perfectly!

"Real men" do not have a strapped on rubber *****, "real men" do not find anything about Hillary attractive or justified (she really struggles in that demographic), "real men" do not cringe at the word Cvnt. It is women, especially bull dike lesbians, that have a problem with the word Cvnt.

Appears you are wrong, again!

Originally Posted by Guest

It is a telling and descriptive word that suits you perfectly!

"Real men" do not have a strapped on rubber *****, "real men" do not find anything about Hillary attractive or justified (she really struggles in that demographic), "real men" do not cringe at the word Cvnt. It is women, especially bull dike lesbians, that have a problem with the word Cvnt.

Appears you are wrong, again!

YOU are the one who is wrong again.

Gentleman and real men...don't use that putrid word.

Only those who have been eviscerated, on an intellectual level, by females all of their lives...use it.

Nice try though.




CNM

Originally Posted by Guest

It is a telling and descriptive word that suits you perfectly!

"Real men" do not have a strapped on rubber *****, "real men" do not find anything about Hillary attractive or justified (she really struggles in that demographic), "real men" do not cringe at the word Cvnt. It is women, especially bull dike lesbians, that have a problem with the word Cvnt.

Appears you are wrong, again!

Originally Posted by Guest

Did you do as I say? Ashamed to do it aren't you?

Did you do as I say? Ashamed to do it aren't you?

Works both ways

Originally Posted by Guest

It is a telling and descriptive word that suits you perfectly!

"Real men" do not have a strapped on rubber *****, "real men" do not find anything about Hillary attractive or justified (she really struggles in that demographic), "real men" do not cringe at the word Cvnt. It is women, especially bull dike lesbians, that have a problem with the word Cvnt.

Appears you are wrong, again!

You seem to know a little too much on these subjects.

Originally Posted by Guest

You seem to know a little too much on these subjects.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Guest

so·cial·ism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]
NOUN

"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

You think it should all be owned by the 1%, you are braindead.

I think it should be owned proportionately to what YOU EARNED. If you do NOTHING, you "deserve" NOTHING. You should get to "keep what you kill" If that work ethic is down to 1%, we are in deep trouble. Bad enough it is down to 53%. And I'm not talking about the disabled or those who have a mental or physical challenge. I'm talking about the able bodied leeches that at first were glad to get something, then expected it, and now DEMAND it. It's really sad. We should remember the words of Gov. William Bradford of the Massachusetts Bay colony: "He who does not work, does not eat"

Originally Posted by Guest

I think it should be owned proportionately to what YOU EARNED. If you do NOTHING, you "deserve" NOTHING. You should get to "keep what you kill" If that work ethic is down to 1%, we are in deep trouble. Bad enough it is down to 53%. And I'm not talking about the disabled or those who have a mental or physical challenge. I'm talking about the able bodied leeches that at first were glad to get something, then expected it, and now DEMAND it. It's really sad. We should remember the words of Gov. William Bradford of the Massachusetts Bay colony: "He who does not work, does not eat"

Hillary needs to put her pants suits to good use and get out in the fields on her knees and get to work. She would starve if she had to depend on working from her knees elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Guest

Hillary needs to put her pants suits to good use and get out in the fields on her knees and get to work. She would starve if she had to depend on working from her knees elsewhere.

You have quite an imagination.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think it should be owned proportionately to what YOU EARNED. If you do NOTHING, you "deserve" NOTHING. You should get to "keep what you kill" If that work ethic is down to 1%, we are in deep trouble. Bad enough it is down to 53%. And I'm not talking about the disabled or those who have a mental or physical challenge. I'm talking about the able bodied leeches that at first were glad to get something, then expected it, and now DEMAND it. It's really sad. We should remember the words of Gov. William Bradford of the Massachusetts Bay colony: "He who does not work, does not eat"

We should do what a Pilgrim governor did back in 1620? When I call Republicans "Regressives", I had no idea they wanted to regress back to 1620.
Don't forget that Gov. William Bradford was also the one who got rid of Native Americans by giving them smallpox infected blankets.

Originally Posted by Guest

Hillary needs to put her pants suits to good use and get out in the fields on her knees and get to work. She would starve if she had to depend on working from her knees elsewhere.

Are you the kid the big kids would stuff in the locker when the coach wasn't around and just get to listen to the locker room talk?

Originally Posted by Guest

I think it should be owned proportionately to what YOU EARNED. If you do NOTHING, you "deserve" NOTHING. You should get to "keep what you kill" If that work ethic is down to 1%, we are in deep trouble. Bad enough it is down to 53%. And I'm not talking about the disabled or those who have a mental or physical challenge. I'm talking about the able bodied leeches that at first were glad to get something, then expected it, and now DEMAND it. It's really sad. We should remember the words of Gov. William Bradford of the Massachusetts Bay colony: "He who does not work, does not eat"

Once again the right peddles the false notion that the poor 'pay no taxes.'

When in fact, they pay a much higher % of their pay in taxes (ie: sales/gas/etc)...than higher wage earners.


Or did you forget that there are many other types of taxes... besides just 'personal income taxes?"

Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes

According to the report, the lower one’s income, the higher the effective state and local tax rate.

Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent, the report said.

In the 10 states with the most regressive tax structures, the bottom 20 percent pay up to seven times as much of their income in combined taxes as their wealthy counterparts.

And then of course there are the 'working poor,' who get paid so little that they qualify for welfare.

So let me get this straight, you have this hatred/haughty attitude toward the working poor getting help, but have no problem with the billions of dollars in profits companies make by paying low wages...knowing that the American Citizen will subsidize them when their workers qualify for welfare?

Why is that?





CNM

And who is the idiot that thought slavery was such a good idea?

I do know that the first slave owner in America was a black man from Virginia. And the first slaves he owned were WHITE.

Anthony Johnson (colonist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)