T1B

You and Wagon the ones voting for the cakk to be pushed up further, Dio.

There is NO reason to support and encourage shit.

poptart wrote:There is NO reason to support and encourage shit.

That's what bitter Reaganites said about Ford v. Carter in '76.

But it turned out there was a difference. Some of us can tell between crappy and horrific. And we can't afford four years of Carter redux at this point in history. Besides, McClown is really old. If he gets the right running mate, all could work out for the best.

Do you want to see America ' irretrievably destroyed' as well?

And you know Ford would have been better than Carter ... how?

I want to see the country's direction be based on the Constitution.
Both candidates clearly piss on the Constitution, hence, no support from me.

Gee, I know that is a highly irrational line of thinking. lolz


It might be better for America, long term, if Obama wins this election.
Perhaps more likely, in that event, that a REAL Constitutional conservative will arrive on the scene in '12.

But I'm not really holding my breath on that either.

mvscal wrote:
You should be thrilled to know that paying your fucking taxes and your fucking bills got you nothing except a bigger tax bill and a dick up your ass while a bunch of fucking bums laugh in your face.

You seem pretty bitter.

Did the "man" fuck you over?

Did your disabilty check not arrive on the 1st day of the month?

poptart wrote:And you know Ford would have been better than Carter ... how?

He was a known quantity. Like McClown is. And he hardly could have been worse.

poptart wrote:It might be better for America, long term, if Obama wins this election.
Perhaps more likely, in that event, that a REAL Constitutional conservative will arrive on the scene in '12.

That's what they said about Clinton. The difference is this time there may be no long term.

Why do you hate America?

I'd actually like to see 2 to 300,000 tax-paying Americans conspire to all NOT pay federal income tax in 2009.

Get busy organizing that.

poptart wrote: It might be better for America, long term, if Obama wins this election.

Only from the standpoint of that we won't have to listen to people bitch about Bush being the anti-christ anymore and McCain his surrogate.

Wait, that's short term.

But if Obama wins, so be it. You won't see me shedding any crocodile tears. I've long since learned to accept ('sup, Bob Dole) and respect the will and wisdom of the American electorate.

That's the power of voting, and if you don't get that, there's not much else I can say to you other than to just go fuck yourself.

poptart wrote:I'd actually like to see 2 to 300,000 tax-paying Americans conspire to all NOT pay federal income tax in 2009.

Get busy organizing that.

I'm busy trying to save America from becoming the Obamanation.

I'll work on that next year.

poptart wrote:I'd actually like to see 2 to 300,000 tax-paying Americans conspire to all NOT pay federal income tax in 2009.

Like that's not already happening?

Federal income tax is not near as onerous as state income tax, btw.

Especially if you live and work in Missouri but your hot wife works in Kansas. :brad:

Actually meant to say 2-300,000,000.

My bad.


You're an incredible pinhead in this thread, Wagon.

The DemocRATS have found the one guy in America who's a bigger cocksucker than John Kerry ... and they've thrown their support behind him.

The Repugnicunts have found the one guy in America who's a more disingenuous asshat than George Bush ... and they've thrown their support behind him.

Two open-border big government socialists, and you're chirping about having some sort of 'duty' to place a vote for either dipshit.

That logic might have flown when I was about 8 yrs old.

poptart wrote: Two open-border big government socialists, and you're chirping about having some sort of 'duty' to place a vote for either dipshit.

When it comes to immigration reform, McCain talks first about securing our borders.

Nice try swinging at the pinata, though.

poptart wrote:That logic might have flown when I was about 8 yrs old.

And yet ironicly, you're acting like an 8 year old.

Well, a typical one. I was a tad more mature at eight. For the record, I can say without qualification that over the last couple of years NOBODY here has been harsher on McClown than I. But I'm not 8. Or even 15. When I was 15 I was making phone calls for Ronald Reagan to save us from that clown Ford. When he went down, I pretty much thought who gives a fuck? what's the difference.

Jimmy Carter showed me there was a difference. For the worse.

Of course, I'm not a high school freshman any more. I've grown up. Maybe you can do the same before Novenber.




Or not. In which case, STFU forever. I'll debate with Marxists like BSuck or idiots like Nicky. Their idiocy is pathol;ical, not deliberate. But vermin like mvscum (and possibly you) who want to irretreivably destroy America?

America may be doomed thanks to you and your ilk. But I'll stand to the emd. No Matter What.

Securing the borders and "amnesty" are two different issues.

Another blindfolded dumbfuck swinging at pinata's.

Wagon, you ignorant putz, you can't claim to be remotely serious about dealing with illegal immigration if you fully support amnesty for ILLEGALS.

Supporting a closure of the border goes without saying.
Anyone in a 'leadership' position who opposes it needs to be given a one-way boat ticket to Cuba ... pronto.
Bush's deplorable 'handling' of the illegal problem is quite possibly his greatest failure os POTUS, and the fact that you are continually in here sucking him off is evidence that you are quite simply a clueless rube.

You can pull your head out of your skinny ass any time now.

Anyone supporting amnesty, as McFlame does, is shitting on YOU, you dumb fucking hayseed.


Interesting to learn that you enjoy it.

poptart wrote:Wagon, you ignorant putz, you can't claim to be remotely serious about dealing with illegal immigration if you fully support amnesty for ILLEGALS.

Pull your xenophobic head out your ass.

These "illegals" are more productive and beneficial to this American nation than are anyone who posts here, and that's for sure.

Would that we should have such a work ethic.

I work with these guys, they're my neighbors... I like them better than some putz who fled to South Korea, capiche?

LOL


Do your own research into the COST to the taxpayers -- that's YOU, dumbfuck -- because of illegals in this country.

Over 11 Billion Dolllars a year in California alone.
And that number will do nothing but skyrocket as time goes by.

Imagine the cost nationally.

You're so totally out to lunch here, Wagon, that I'm embarassed for you.


Close the border, send the illegals home, cut the gov handouts and watch 'the yobs that American's won't do' get gobbled up by ... Americans.

It's common fucking sense.

Look into it.

poptart wrote:Close the border, send the illegals home, cut the gov handouts and watch 'the yobs that American's won't do' get gobbled up by ... Americans.

At what wages>?

It's not my concern.

Cut the pitiful welfare state and low pay beats the hell out of NO pay, no?

you just don't understand welfare reform, pops

"reform", means "spend more on it than ever"

'Income redistribution' is another goodie.

poptart wrote:'Income redistribution'

That's all Ringo & Hunny Bunny were doing- redistributing income

poptart wrote:It's not my concern.

Obviously, since you remain pitifully clueless.

How un-Christlike.

I'm led to believe that you left America because some Mexican took your landscaping job and no way could you make ends meet being a tennis instructor alone.

LOL

Tossing 'pitifully clueless' around while having no rational basis for support of ...

- floods of LAWBREAKERS entering the country (Why do you hate the rule of law, why do you hate the constitution, why do you hate America?)

- taxpayers being fleeced SEVERELY - California alone to the tune of over 11 Billion dollars a year

... makes you look fairly foolish.


Provide rational reasoning for your support of such lunacy and you can toss the 'pitifully clueless' tag around ... and "I like to have beers with Pedro and Juan after work on Fridays, they're good guys and they always buy the first round," won't cut it. haha



Snickers, please.

War Wagon wrote:

poptart wrote:It's not my concern.

Obviously, since you remain pitifully clueless.

How un-Christlike.

Leave him out of this.

I don't think the patheticly misguided tool in question has resorted to theology to back his foolishness, nor would any honest opponent of his silly wold view do the same.

pop, you're becoming the problem, not the solution. You're agreeing with mvscum, that should say it all.

End of sermon. We'll agree to disagree I guess.

Much Love, Vaya Con Dios and Carpe Noctum.



Dins can correct the spelling, as always.

Diogenes wrote:Not to mention there are 7 SC Justices over the age of 70.

There are four (Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg) over the age of 70. A fifth (Breyer) turned 70 last week. A sixth (Souter) turns 70 next year.

As for those four . . .

I'm pretty sure Stevens is gone no matter who wins the election. He'll be past 90 by the next Presidential election.

Ginsburg probably leaves if Obama wins, stays if McCain wins. But she's had some health problems, so she may be forced out regardless.

I don't see Kennedy going, he's arguably the most powerful person alive today. Given the Court's current makeup, he's usually the deciding vote in 5-4 decisions.

Scalia is the wildcard, he's just whimsical enough to retire . . . or not.

I don't think Breyer leaves either, at least not right away. He just became retirement-eligible upon turning 70 last week. Retiring at this point would be unusual, although not completely unprecedented.