Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 1, 2012, 10:01 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

81 Comments

81 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But aren't republicans trying to privatize (destroy) Social security, and cut Medicare money to the states?

That's not good for retirees.is it?

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Perhaps those things are bad for retirees, but democratic "values" (I use that term VERY loosely) are bad for society. It;s not the guns that are the problem today, it's the ATTITUDE and lack of values. Oh, I mean liberal policies.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well then there you go. Which liberal policies do you dislike, and which comparable conservative one do you prefer?

Does Ron Paul also think liberal policies are bad?

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 2 years ago

The 21st century may be kinda scary looking at first, but just remember that liberal policies like public education, separation of church and state, civil rights, clean water, indoor plumbing, the sun rising in the east... These were scary ideas at first too, and yet, they're what makes America so definitively almost great. We gotta do something about the flouride though, I am pretty sure it's bad news, it's in everything, seriously. Can we agree on that issue? You and me, two health nuts. Cut the f'ing flouride, right? Maybe it seemed like a good idea, but it's totally out of control, and generally unnecessary in the eyes of the people. Deal? Where is our common ground? That's the question we really have to ask ourselves. Do me that personal favor and consider it.

And, incidentally... It's not even the guns so much as when people who sound slightly disorganized and unhinged start polishing them while they're talking in terms of "us" and "them." We're all Americans here, and history suggests that we're gonna find our solutions by working together, and trying the whole "be realistic, be non-violent, be open minded, and compromise" thing. I think it's worth the 'ol college try, whaddya say, Buckaroo?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Hell yeah it would be good for retirees if you cut social security.

Social security explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN3n3MnYTbg&feature=player_embedded#!

If i could opt out of SS i'd have done it years ago. You can't compete with the amount of money you could have saved if you'd done it privately. Social security is a scam.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Weren't the Repubs complicit in stealing the Social Security Trust funds? Time after time? Maybe if they hadn't stolen the money for unnecessary wars? Unnecessary weapons systems (pork)? Unnecessary corporate welfare? Unnecessary tax cuts for the rich?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

For sure...i never said they weren't.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But before social security the elderly were dying destitute, alone, & eating dog food.

Is that what you want? I mean it's not like we have a culture that values the elderly. So many of us are so selfish we don't care what happens to anyone else. As long as we got ours the hell with anyone else.

Is that you?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Not at all...but this system wasn't designed for the elderly. If i told you "hey, how bout you give me a bunch of money every month for your retirement...but guess what...i'm not going to save it for you...i'm going to spend it...and what you get back isn't going to be anywhere near what you would have got if you would have just saved it yourself." No, you probably wouldn't go along with that...because it's a crock.

If they really cared about the elderly and wanted to force this upon the population...they would give the people a few different options of where they want their money saved....and the people's money would actually go to these areas (instead of being spent)...and the people could watch and see their retirement savings grow over time to an amount 20 times as much as what they're getting with the current system. Social security was about having money to spend...it always was.

But even with a better system. If i don't want to put money in for my retirement, should i be forced to by government? What if i'm a better investor? What if i have enough to retire on already (i don't..but that's a legit question)?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please you sound like a republican with their selfish privatization plan.

cut the ss payroll tax for low income people. eliminate the payroll tax limit so the wealthy pay finally. Also have a ss tax on cap gains, carried interst, passive income, bonuses... whatever.

Wealthy elderly should not take ss disburment. Means tested. don't make sense for them to take it right?

Thats it done?

Ok? we in agreement.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"I asked you point blank, you threw all kinda numbers. but the fact is an individual could lose it all. Too risky."

No they couldn't.....it could be kept in cash if someone were that worried about it....or CD's or bonds....if our currency was stable (sound money) people wouldn't have to invest it anywhere...it could literally sit in cash and appreciate.

"you threw all kinda numbers."

You mean facts? Yeah, they do sometimes get in the way of fairy tail thinking.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But they could invest in stocks and lose it all!

Why are you pretending/avoiding that reality. Don't you realize by acknowledging this reality you lose credibility?

Sorry.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"they could invest in stocks and lose it all"

In the history of the stock market this has never occurred and there is no reason to suspect it would. By stock market...i'm talkinga bout your money being spread out among many many stocks. Perhaps you'd view mutual funds as safer. If every business in the world went bankrupt at the same time and they all closed down you might have a point.

And if you're worried about losing money in stocks, then invest in CD's or bonds or some other form of stable appreciating investment....or if you're that worried...keep it in cash. Government could recommended areas based on your age. This is nowhere near anymore risky than the current system...its safer....your system is insolvent....like i said before...8.6 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities over the next 70 years....that is a recipe for complete disaster and a complete loss on SS.

I don't even plan on getting SS checks....if i do i expect very minimal repayment...they can't meet the obligations in the future.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

More avoidance!

What if someone invests in 1 stock. And that 1 company goes bankrupt? They has happened in human history right?

In that scenario they lose it all. What happens to them? Dog food, destitution & death? Your continued pretense that it can't happen shows a lack of concern for people. And a dishonesty in presenting what I guess you think is an improvement (for the elite who know how to invest)

Privatization helps the 1% plutocrats who will get that money to buy and sell with and those elite few who know how to invest.

It leaves out the regular joe. In your plan, good, honest, hard working Americans are not protected from the 1% plutocrats who will prey on them.

If you wanna shore up the finances of SS, then we must increase the wealthiest contributions, and means test the disbursement.

It's the only way.

Peace.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Not enough. Becasue the poor investment result is a human being who cannot survive in retirement. Do you understand that profound issue. Destitution, dog food, & death. Please. try to understand. Their are people who will fail. It ain't enough to say "well they made the mistake, it's their own fault, I won't even pay for the dog food" "survival of the fittest" " I got mine". This country is better than that. We care about each other. Why don't you.?"

My system would provide more money for the poor than social security...its what i just showed you...even if you were forced to invest in bonds. I want them to have more money.

How about this...would you support a system that the government wouldn't be aloud to touch? A system where you can also watch your savings appreciate over time completely sealed off from government hands?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If it included a guarantee that you would have enough to live on in retiirement. Yes I would.

But since your privatization plan would allow millions to make poor investment choices and wind up with inadequate retirement income I can't support it.

Sorry. We can't allow people who've made mistakes to suffer "destitution, dog food, and death".

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"But since your privatization plan would allow millions to make poor investment choices and wind up with inadequate retirement income I can't support it."

There is no basis in fact of this statement...historical evidence proves the exact opposite...if it had been done this way people today (even your parents and grents you talked about) would have more money to spend in retirement.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No way!. My mom couldn't balance her check book, and didn't work long enough to "make any money" if she had invested.

She was on SSI by the age of 36. So she collected far and above her contribution. You didn't mention anything about that!

Are the disabled out of luck, like the financially uneducated?

Privatization only works for some. Most people need a guaranteed system. I know it's socialism and that's probably why you don't like it.

So many people (repubs) hate that most people love this system because it is a democratic program and it isn't capitalistic survival of the fittest. But you should just resign yourself to the superior quality of this democratic/socialist program.

Sorry. We disagree. Good luck in all your good efforts.

Peace

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"So my way is better than you way 'cause there is no risk of getting less money."

Your way has a 8 trillion dollar debt bomb attached to it!!! Like i said before...i don't even expect to get SS....and if i do it won't be anywhere near what i put into it.

My way there is absolutely no risk of getting less money at all. When was the last time the government didn't honor its bond pledge? Maybe its that you don't understand what i'm talking about.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I understand.

Your plan would allow me to invest how I want with some govt controls to prevent a total loss. However I could lose some money. Some investments offered can lose money. If I use those I could lose money. Maybe your plan calls for govt controls to prevent total loss (I don't think that is workable) but your plan does not include a guarantee that my investment will always make money. I could invest in stocks and come out with less money than I would've with the current system.

Sorry. Thats it. We disagree. My way is better 'cause we increase payments without any risk that someone would come out with less.

And whatever unfunded 8 trillion dollar debt bomb exists would be paid for by the increased tax on the wealthy.

Ok? All done. Problem solved. No privatization necessary.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"I could invest in stocks and come out with less money than I would've with the current system."

So don't invest in stocks....pretty simple. If you want a guaranteed minimum return (even though stocks have outperformed SS like crazy over the last 40 years).

In my way you can also increase in payments without any risks....cd's...bonds etc...payments that would be more than our current SS.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The point is if I do invest in stocks I could wind up with less than I would've with the current system.

You keep avoiding that fact. Please be honest and acknowledge this weakness.

My way there is no way to come up with less. It's better!

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Right makes might. You got that backwards.

Pres Obama is handling my military 1000 times better than Bush, I recognize that improvement and agitate for the end of drone bombins and all war.

The 1% plutocrats hate Pres Obama. Their money is going to the elitist 1% plutocrat Romney.

ACA is a great achievment that will be complete when we put the private health insurers out of business.

I support direct democracy. until that exists I vote to keep right wing wackos out of power.

Elect progressives.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yes. Obama 2012. Four more Wars.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, you have a choice...should we protect against complete and utter stupidity? Perhaps you could make a waver saying "if you invest in stocks there is the slight possiblity you might lose some of your money...if you understand this check "yes"".

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Not enough. Becasue the poor investment result is a human being who cannot survive in retirement.

Do you understand that profound issue.

Destitution, dog food, & death.

Please. try to understand. Their are people who will fail. It ain't enough to say "well they made the mistake, it's their own fault, I won't even pay for the dog food" "survival of the fittest" " I got mine".

This country is better than that. We care about each other.

Why don't you.?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Your example assumes someone investing in 1 stock...government would be in charge of allocating safe areas for investment...you wouldn't be aloud to invest in one stock. Government would be in charge of providing safe areas to put your savings.

Your system vs. mine over the last 100 yeas....mine kicks butt.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your system don't exist!.

Government control? I thought you were trying to avoid that? so then the government can prevent a complete loss. But they cannot guarantee a livable retirement income.right?

Someone could invest in government approved investment and come up seriously short. Are you gonna avoid that reality.? Or will you come up with a new rule to address it?

What then? Dog food, destitution, & death?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Its a blind government approved investment right now!!! Actually it's not even an investment because your money has been spent!!! And it's an unfunded 8 trillion dollar illiquid scam.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Social Security was there for my grandmother, my mother when she was disabled, Itis loved by the people of this nation. It will be there for me, and if you wanna improve the benfits then we must remove the payroll tax cap on the wealthy, and means test the disbursement.

It's the only way.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

That's great...my grandparents use it as well. I think they'd be more happy if they had more money to use....and i think the country wouldn't have an 8 trillion dollar unfunded debt bomb where noone will get social security in the future.

My way makes you more money for your retirement...and it's solvent..what's so hard to understand about that???

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your way can also make you less money. Whether you admit it or not.

My way also makes you more money. But cannot make yuo less money. my way maintains the guarantee. but increases benefits by making the wealthy pay moreinto it and take less out. Leaving fatter paychecks for those who need it. Like our grandparents.

So my way is better than you way 'cause there is no risk of getting less money.

Ok? You agree with me? privatization boy.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Why wouldn't you want it privatized? You'd have more money to retire on! Instead of monthly crumbs of a giant cookie you've been baking all your life.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please I'm not thinking of me! I'm thinking of the many millions of poor people who could not invest it successfully.

The problem is stock markets crash. People get exploited and taken advantage of by money man. Stock broker 1% plutocrats love your idea. Which should our 1st red flag that it's a big mistake.

No it's better for every one if we maintain a guarentee retirement plan.

Sorry you gotta pay for your fellow Americans. Can you handle that? Your not selfish are you? It's not too socialist for you, is it?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I never said the poor people had to invest it, or had to choose a private investor to do it for them. If it's a government program wouldn't they be responsible for showing you a number of different areas they suggest to invest in? Who says you'd have to go through a private investor/broker?

I'm not being selfish at all...my system would put more money into the people retiring. Isn't that what you want??? You would have access to see your money growing...perhaps that sparks an interest to save more than is required for your retirement than you would have otherwise. You'd have the comfort of actually knowing where your money was...and knowing it wasn't being spent. And the system would actually work....instead of a complete catastrophic collapse like the current one is going to have.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

A) It isn't going to collapse. Benefits will be reduced, gradually, if it isn't fixed during the next several years. But why not fix it? It is easy to do. B) The flaw was taking the money out and spending it. (Both parties did it. ) And that could have been fixed at any time since the program started. C) It is the most popular government program, and there is no reason we should not all know where the money is, is there? People put in plenty of money for it to be fully solvent today.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Great article.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah i don't disagree with you on a, b, or c.

and if it was really done for the benefit of the people b and c would have been upheld.

[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Gore said he would change it so the money would be in a lock box ,in effect. He was totally ridiculed, but practically he was right. I heard the whole issue argued in the late 1960's. And both parties swept it under the rug so they could pay for Vietnam. What a bargain.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

It's amazing stuff like this has been discussed for that period of time...and nothing has been done.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah, it is disgusting. At that same time I was involved with libertarians and anarchists using the same arguments as today. How did that turn out?

There are some differences, today. Then, they were upset because DoD was not competitively bidding some small percentage of contracts. Now it is only a small percentage that they DO bid, No mercenaries, now half of the military is mercenaries. (Also CIA, DIA etc.)

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Did you discover the lily pads?"

Lily pads?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah the mercenary stuff is just out of control. Just got finished reading Maddow's "Drift" which dug into a lot of that stuff. Nice little system they got going to perpetuate the military presence overseas with minimal repercussions felt over here.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree. your system sounds like a privatization scam. Sorry..

SS can be improved by expanding the payroll tax to have wealthy people pay as well. And to means test the disbursement. The other way to improve it would be to increase the amount of workers who pay, and keep increasing that number.

It's the only way.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Why is it a privatization scam??? Government give's you investment options or general recommendations based on your age....you get to watch your savings grow as you invest in it. How is that a scam? So my idea is a scam...the one where you're going to get more money than the current one and you can watch your retirement savings grow. But the system that takes your money and spends it....doesn't show you where its put and you don't have access to view your money is the legit counter to what i'm suggesting? Give me a break. If you want a big pool of money the government can spend just call it that....don't call it my retirement savings.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Does your system include a guarenteed retirement check.? No! It don't what if I choose an investment, the 1% plutocrats screw the economy and I watch my investment not grow but shrink.

You never mention that. Just like the republican privatization scams, they never mention that either. What happens then?

A guarentee is critical. You ain't got it. I don't support it.

Just tax the greedy, selfish rich who fucked the economy and are sitting on trillions of dollars.

It's the only way.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

What guarantee's are you going to have on your retirement check in 70 years with the current system and the 8.6 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilites??? That sounds like a sound system for a return on investment.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2012/tr2012.pdf

"Does your system include a guarenteed retirement check.?"

There are incredibly secure areas to put you money which the government would be in charge of suggesting. If we had sound money this wouldn't be an issue at all (as with sound money it can't be stolen through inflation...crashes wouldn't harm the average person). But there is no way to predict the future...lets take a look at the past. If you had done what i'm suggesting for the last 40 years.....lets take three examples

1.) you earn a lot - 106,800 2.) Middle income - 49,445 3.) low income - $24,723

Your social security payments would be:

1.) high income - $2,033.00 2.) middle income - $1,358.00 3.) Low income - $891.00

If you'd have invested it in stocks:

1.) High income - $4,586.00 2.) Middle - $2,621.00 3.) Low income - $1,287.00

If you'd invested in bonds (incredibly safe)

1.) Wealthy - $2,539.00 2.) Middle - $1,565.00 3.) Low income - $896.00

This is only with two investment options....there are many many many different options out there...but it takes a look at a risky one...and a secure or safe one. Pretty easy to see which system i'd pick if someone offered me the choice for my retirement.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So then you system does not guarentee retirement income.

And as such I am opposed.

Sorry, but your numbers are really cool. Thx

[-] -1 points by bearclaw (-152) 2 years ago

The obama admin is and has been a disaster since 2008. Should send him packin back to Kenya where he belongs, but now they do not want him there either

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh no. You're a right wing wacko birther?

Bush and his 1% plutocrat puppet masters created this "great recession"!

We would be recovering faster if not for the obstruction, abuse of filibuster, delay, and watering down of dem efforts by your republican 1% plutocrat tools.

Despite the treasonous efforts of your repubs Pres Obama has managed to improve (slowly) the economy.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah it actually does...and it will definitely guarantee more than the current system.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nope. I don't think so.

Sorry. I asked you point blank, you threw all kinda numbers. but the fact is an individual could lose it all. Too risky.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by bearclaw (-152) 2 years ago

Economy adds 163,000 jobs in July, unemployment rate rises to 8.3 percent!!!! rah rah rah, go obummer go, you da man.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

but still light years ahead of your boy Bushs negative 750K per month! So that is progress.

AND it is an increase despite your republicans continued (treasonous) efforts to prevent a strong recovery. Repubs have stopped all Dem jobs bills. State Repubs have been firing gov workers during an unemployment crises because they are trying to slow the economy so they could get win on election day.

Dishonest, treasonous republicans.

[-] 1 points by flip (6878) 2 years ago

you must be young and have not played the market much - what is your return if you started investing in 1999? and how long did it take the market to recover from the crash of 29? do you invest in index funds or pick indivdual stocks -before you do check out what bill gross says about investing going forward

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

"hey, how bout you give me a bunch of money every month for your retirement...but guess what...i'm not going to save it for you...i'm going to spend it...and what you get back isn't going to be anywhere near what you would have got if you would have just saved it yourself."

Social security isn't the problem. It's a great program. The problem is the group of assholes in congress borrowing/spending a lot or the money on bullshit like wars that kill people. When they do that they might as well just call it an additional tax. Which I agree is bullshit.

But that is no reason to kill social security. A cookie jar law just needs to be passed that says

"HANDS OFF MY COOKIES"

and all the money should only go toward the program.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

That's pretty much what i was saying in my second paragraph. Although if i had it my way people wouldn't be forced into it. But yes, if you want to force people into it and you're doing it for the benefit of the "people" then you'd do it in some similar fashion that i described (think of your 401k where you can watch your retirement savings grow, and you know where it is at..and the money is actually there)....instead of the current one which is a complete sham.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nah - my 401K took a beating in 2008 - due to something called the economic meltdown. A lot of people took a huge beating on the ol 401K.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I didn't say it would be where your 401k is invested...and you can't take your 401k and say "shit, in 2008 i took a huge beating"...it doesn't work like that. It's long term investing...not day trading. But that's besides the point.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm all for improving it. But getting rid of it... no.

[-] -2 points by Perspect1ve (-107) 2 years ago

Social security? You mean the plan that our govt has drained dry? If you didn't know Obamacare cuts $500 billion from Medicare. Pull your head out of your ass dumbfuck.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

$500 billion over 10 years from eliminating waste & fraud.

No need for the vulgarities.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Perspect1ve (-107) 2 years ago

LOL you really are programmed well and you don't even realize it. So you think letting people invest 10% of the money they pay into social security as they see fit a bad thing? The govt sure as hell hasn't been good stewards of THE CITIZENS MONEY. The govt HAS NO MONEY other than that they take from the people. They've looted the social security trust fund and it's full of IOU's which aren't worth shit. I certainly think that I CAN MAKE BETTER DECISIONS about how my retirement money is invested than the govt.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree.

I don't think you could make better decisions than my cat fluffy.

[-] 0 points by Thereaper88 (-30) 2 years ago

Yes. Start hating old people..

[-] -1 points by bearclaw (-152) 2 years ago

Economy adds 163,000 jobs in July, unemployment rate rises to 8.3 percent!!!!! Go Obummer go, you da man

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

republicans versus the democrats is a boring game.

Let's talk specifically on issues. Playing into propaganda is a bad move.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

Everybody leaves the Democrat state for an improved quality of life after they retire; we go in search of fiscal and social conservatism.

[Deleted]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Yeah the fiscal situation on California is just fine. They have so much money that they are going to build a bullet train up the middle of the state. The Democrats did a great job allright.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Amazing how quickly Arnold and all those conservative tax bills are forgotten.

That was part of the plan in the first place.

[-] -2 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Arnold didn't make the benefit deals with the unions, Gray Davis did.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We already know how much you HATE actual workers, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

As usual it's just more slight of hand.

I do believe one of those bills was called prop 18, but I could be mistaken, as I don't live there, but I sure do know how badly (R)epelican'ts are fucking up Michigan.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Good question.

Why do you hate yourself?

Why take that hate out on others?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Michigan is now (R)epelican't and they are who raised my taxes.

Those same (R)epelican'ts pissed all over our State constitution to introduce "EM" laws..

This list is shit.

You got something more accurate?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're the one hung up on "blue and red".

I'm guessing when the fucks raised my taxes with the help of a corrupt conservative court that's been in place for decades..

It's still better than the shit that goes on in Florida, but it's getting there.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Please show me the Dems that are purging voter roles?

Please show me the Dems that fear the word vagina.

They are not the same, and it was a Dem that cut my taxes before the teabagge(R) motherfuckers raised them, with the help of that fucked up conse(R)vative court.

I've already proven your list is questionable at best, and the result of some kind of Koch stye marketing BS at it's most likely.

Florida has become a (R)epelican't cesspool of lies.

You couldn't get me near the place these days.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OIC. It's available on the internet.

Well, if that's good enough for you. I guess it is.

This latest teabagg(R) tax increase has been painful for my wife and I.

And what did TEA stand for, again?

I guess it's OK if they tax me, eh?

Lying piles of shit, every last teabagging one of them.