It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by macman
Did some of the clueless rub off from Immaculated?
To pay for people not working, those working are floating the money to the Govt, so it can borrow it to give to those not working. Yep, that sounds great.
Can't wait till the economy gets even worse, even more people are out of jobs, and those with jobs will need to work harder to provide for themselves and the increasing amount out of work.
And I guess the opposite of trickle down, like the USSR, Cuba and so on are working or worked so well.
And again, business is there to create wealth for the owner.
The only time it is not, is in those fantastically successful places like USSR, Cuba and the rest.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mastahunta
Wow, how much weed did you smoke today?
You, a self proclaimed Marxist, gets to define what a RINO, Conservative or Republican is?
Now, that is funny.
I did not vote for either Bush.
Just like your logic, your assumption is wrong.
If I am a Marxist, then I should be able to recognize my own kind, your lack of logic is funny.
News Flash, 62,000,000 of your mates voted for him, AFTER created the largest governmental
expansion in US history, your fellow Rush listeners, Fox and friends, all of you.
This commie says you guys all govern very similar to BUSH...
Can you refutiate that Reagan raised taxes more times than Obama?
Can you?
Tell me which of these mythical "conservative" presidents are you dreaming of?
Ah, control the argument I see.
Here is the kicker, I didn't define you as such. Your screen name has it underneath.
I also don't live under the idea that I can define who you vote for. That is your choice.
And the whole Regan question? Go answer it yourself.
Never proclaimed my love of him. You assumed that.
Another failed assumption.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mastahunta
Wow, how much weed did you smoke today?
You, a self proclaimed Marxist, gets to define what a RINO, Conservative or Republican is?
Now, that is funny.
I did not vote for either Bush.
Just like your logic, your assumption is wrong.
If I am a Marxist, then I should be able to recognize my own kind, your lack of logic is funny.
News Flash, 62,000,000 of your mates voted for him, AFTER created the largest governmental
expansion in US history, your fellow Rush listeners, Fox and friends, all of you.
This commie says you guys all govern very similar to BUSH...
Can you refutiate that Reagan raised taxes more times than Obama?
Can you?
Tell me which of these mythical "conservative" presidents are you dreaming of?
Ah, control the argument I see.
Here is the kicker, I didn't define you as such. Your screen name has it underneath.
I also don't live under the idea that I can define who you vote for. That is your choice.
And the whole Regan question? Go answer it yourself.
Never proclaimed my love of him. You assumed that.
Another failed assumption.
So which conservative are you talking of?
What example of this real Conservative are you touting?
Reagan raised taxes 11 times...
I am telling you, "REAL"conservatism is a myth, just like communism.edit on 18-12-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mastahunta
So your retort is based in 2 main points.
First, it is better for the economy to have the Govt pay people that don't work by taking from those that are working.
Second, without it, people would all resort to crime and such.
That is it?
Good lord.
I seem to recall those being talking points from several major Dems this year.
Bush was not a Conservative.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mastahunta
So your retort is based in 2 main points.
First, it is better for the economy to have the Govt pay people that don't work by taking from those that are working.
Second, without it, people would all resort to crime and such.
That is it?
Good lord.
I seem to recall those being talking points from several major Dems this year.
So explain for us here, how people will
A. Survive without an income
B. Do without a way to earn an income
???
Simple...
You tell us, are you gonna put them up in your house?
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman
Bush was not a Conservative.
Yeah, another lie spread by conservatives to disconnect themselves from the obvious failures of the GW admin.
GW supported all the things you support here on ATS, eliminate laws that keep corporate abuse in check, big military, big police state. That is the heart of Conservatism, and that is what you believe in.
It is more denial.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman
Bush was not a Conservative.
GW supported all the things you support here on ATS, eliminate laws that keep corporate abuse in check, big military, big police state. That is the heart of Conservatism, and that is what you believe in.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman
As opposed to the conservative plan where banks pay people that don't work by taking from those that are working?
That is how the republicans have been running things.
Originally posted by macman
And again, business is there to create wealth for the owner.
The only time it is not, is in those fantastically successful places like USSR, Cuba and the rest.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mastahunta
It is clear that you have never run a business and are of the mindset that the owner not only owes all of society for their success, but also thinks that society gets to dictate what pay they draw as well.
The business was created to provide the owner a path to create wealth for themselves.
This clueless idea that chanting "well, they make SO much more money" does not lead to anything but showing your envy of those with.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by macman
And again, business is there to create wealth for the owner.
The only time it is not, is in those fantastically successful places like USSR, Cuba and the rest.
Please explain.
The only point of my business is to create wealth for me, the owner.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mastahunta
It is clear that you have never run a business and are of the mindset that the owner not only owes all of society for their success, but also thinks that society gets to dictate what pay they draw as well.
The business was created to provide the owner a path to create wealth for themselves.
This clueless idea that chanting "well, they make SO much more money" does not lead to anything but showing your envy of those with.
Explain to me how you create wealth without the help of other people by owning a business?
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman
Easy
Deregulation, the heart of all republican plans, prevent government from enforcing laws against business corruption.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by macman
Of course.
Paris Hilton.