Nope, doesn't substiate anything you wrote Max:

"Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread"

Hell, I don't think anyone on any thread thought about dismantling SS, but the two train of thoughts around here are:

1) More government spending on SS above the usual COLA
2) More privatization of SS to try to get above COLA.

(09-22-2016 03:25 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

So in other words you just made that **** up

Got it.

The links substantiate everything I said. They're eager to dismantle a program the effect of which will throw tens of millions of our nation's most vulnerable on the streets.

So are they being "thrown out in the street" because the program would be dismantled or because of all the money the program was stealing from them over the years?

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

This is exactly my point.

(09-22-2016 03:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

This is exactly my point.

So you're in denial about what your party does to hard working people who pay their own way.

(09-22-2016 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

no one wants to cut off social security payments. But how much better off would grandma have been if she had been allowed to invest the ungodly amount of money she has paid into social security.

Could have fooled me. One guy suggested it was unconstitutional, another guy that it was a "racket", and another that it was a threat to his freedom. Doesn't sound to me they were okay with it.

If they were allowed to invest the money, some would win. Great! But some would also lose. And in the wake of a crash like in 2007, millions would have lost the shirts off their backs. So maybe you don't want all the seniors to die on the streets-- just the bad investors. Privatizing SS is a racket pushed by corporations hoping to inflate their stock prices.

(09-22-2016 03:28 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Hell, I don't think anyone on any thread thought about dismantling SS,

You think wrong. Please read the thread in question before commenting. Here's the link:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-791729-page-2.html

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

1. Steals your money:

Didn't Trump use other people's money to settle lawsuits that involved his for-profit business?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

2. Strips away your rights:

Didn't Trump promise to "open up libel laws" in order to be able to sue newspapers that hurt his feelings? Sounds Putinesque. Not good for the 1st Amendment...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2...aws-219866

3. Not only condones, but supports illegal behavior

Didn't Trump encourage violence at his mass rallies by promising to pay for their legal fees? Didn't he make an illegal donation to a campaign right before she was considering investing his "university"?

4. Weakens the security of the nation

Didn't Trump advocate for a foreign government to hack and spy on Americans? Haven't hundreds of high ranking officials whose job is national security come out against Trump?

So you're voting Hillary, right?

(09-22-2016 03:38 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

no one wants to cut off social security payments. But how much better off would grandma have been if she had been allowed to invest the ungodly amount of money she has paid into social security.

Could have fooled me. One guy suggested it was unconstitutional, another guy that it was a "racket", and another that it was a threat to his freedom. Doesn't sound to me they were okay with it.

If they were allowed to invest the money, some would win. Great! But some would also lose. And in the wake of a crash like in 2007, millions would have lost the shirts off their backs. So maybe you don't want all the seniors to die on the streets-- just the bad investors. Privatizing SS is a racket pushed by corporations hoping to inflate their stock prices.

Again, if the elderly had been able, even required, to invest the amount they have paid into Social security, they would be better off. If I had the option to opt out I would have and done the investing on my own. I would be better off long term, way better off.

(09-22-2016 03:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

This is exactly my point.

Well, he is not wrong.

Social Security has been stealing from my family for years.

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Riiiiiight.

And the R's or Conservatives around here are the ones suggesting the other side wants old people (like many or most of our own Family members, parents etc) to "die in the streets".

Indeed, we're "salivating" over the idea.

You guys even listen to yourselves? Rational discussion around here generally is coming from one side, and one side only, and it ain' the leftists.

(09-22-2016 03:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:38 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

no one wants to cut off social security payments. But how much better off would grandma have been if she had been allowed to invest the ungodly amount of money she has paid into social security.

Could have fooled me. One guy suggested it was unconstitutional, another guy that it was a "racket", and another that it was a threat to his freedom. Doesn't sound to me they were okay with it.

If they were allowed to invest the money, some would win. Great! But some would also lose. And in the wake of a crash like in 2007, millions would have lost the shirts off their backs. So maybe you don't want all the seniors to die on the streets-- just the bad investors. Privatizing SS is a racket pushed by corporations hoping to inflate their stock prices.

Again, if the elderly had been able, even required, to invest the amount they have paid into Social security, they would be better off. If I had the option to opt out I would have and done the investing on my own. I would be better off long term, way better off.

Logic is a tough swallow for Max. The government will take care of you.

(09-22-2016 03:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

This is exactly my point.

So you don't think that people who advocate the positions outlined above are evil?

(09-22-2016 03:39 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:28 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Hell, I don't think anyone on any thread thought about dismantling SS,

You think wrong. Please read the thread in question before commenting. Here's the link:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-791729-page-2.html

Wow.. okay, so Harmon made ONE post about considering SS a racket and that's "Several people salivating"?

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

Guess what. That doesn't ignore the fact that it still steals and it is Unconstitutional. I would rather have my money and my freedom.

Then again, the belief of self reliance is dead in America.

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

And YOU KNOW (and are being intentionally obtuse), or if you don't know, should actually go do some lernin' on the subject, that
NO ONE is suggesting we just "do away" with SS and leave people reliant on the ponzi scheme to hit the road and fend for themselves.

Any reforms, and there need to be reforms lest the entire schithouse goes up in flames, would be incremental. Pushing back retirement age 2 months a year for the next 10 years or something along those lines.

Which, for most people not out back hand-hoeing the North Forty for 40 years, wouldn't be much of a burden at all. Who is, or actually wants to, retire at 58? 60, 65? Unless you're already wealthy or set, HATE what you do, or by simple math it just makes sense?

Most "retirees" I know have done 20 yrs. in that job, took a little time off, draw a monthly check, and went back to work making golf clubs, teaching young uns, "consulting" the BIG one, or whatever else.

So, yea. Maxi-P's hysterical notion of ANY changes to SS will mean it's demise instead of to ensure it's solvency and make stable for the next generation of retirees (the boomers, this BIG 'UN) is just that- Hysterical.

(09-22-2016 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

And YOU KNOW (and are being intentionally obtuse), or if you don't know, should actually go do some lernin' on the subject, that
NO ONE is suggesting we just "do away" with SS and leave people reliant on the ponzi scheme to hit the road and fend for themselves.

Any reforms, and there need to be reforms lest the entire schithouse goes up in flames, would be incremental. Pushing back retirement age 2 months a year for the next 20 years or something along those lines.

Which, for most people not out back hand-hoeing the North Forty for 40 years, wouldn't be much of a burden at all. Who is, or actually wants to, retire at 58? 60, 65? Unless you're already wealthy or set, HATE what you do, or by simple math it just makes sense?

Most "retirees" I know have done 20 yrs. in that job, took a little time off, draw a monthly check, and went back to work making golf clubs, teaching young uns, "consulting" the BIG one, or whatever else.

So, yea. Maxi-P's hysterical notion of ANY changes to SS will mean it's demise instead of to ensure it's solvency and make stable for the next generation of retirees (the boomers, this BIG 'UN) is just that- Hysterical.

if you try to retire before you are 65 these days, you get crushed in healthcare costs until you are medicare eligible.

(09-22-2016 03:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

This is exactly my point.

So you don't think that people who advocate the positions outlined above are evil?

1. I believe that's a highly partisan slant on what democrats are advocating for or have done.
2. I absolutely do not think the people that disagree with you on various government programs and the role of government are evil.
3. Stole is such a ridiculous characterization. You live in a high functioning, western democracy that provides security, infrastructure and many services you have used. The idea that there is not a cost to that is insane. We can debate where there shouldn't be costs, we can debate where tax dollars should be spent and how much the government should be doing, but the very idea that this is theft is just insane.
4. No democrat is out there supporting criminal behavior. I have heard Trump advocating some violence at his rallies though if you're really going there.
5. Strips away rights is such a vague thing. If anything this country has seen an expansion of rights over the years...with more people being able to enjoy equal protection under the law. I get to hear about people losing their rights from people who live great lives and are able to do so much day after day. I lose patience with people not even acknowledging the advantages they enjoy by getting to live in America.

(09-22-2016 03:38 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Several if them were salivating at throwing seniors out on the street in another thread. They're selfish and evil and will get the ass kicking they so richly deserve in a month and a half. I hear internal polling shows he's going to lose FL and the election handily. You don't even have to wait that long though because Hillary will lay the wood to him in this upcoming debate. Their rationalizations should be quite humorous.

Go ahead and provide a link to that claim.

SS was called a "racket", a "ponzi scheme", unconstitutional and an attack on "freedom."

Fact is, SS lifts 22 million Americans out of poverty. Without SS, elderly poverty would skyrocket from 9% to 45%. You might not like being told this, and you might live in some fantasy land where SS isn't actually helping people, but if you want to dismantle SS you're sentencing 22 million people, mostly seniors, to poverty, which means many will be living on the streets.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-secu...e-analysis
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-older-a/

no one wants to cut off social security payments. But how much better off would grandma have been if she had been allowed to invest the ungodly amount of money she has paid into social security.

Could have fooled me. One guy suggested it was unconstitutional, another guy that it was a "racket", and another that it was a threat to his freedom. Doesn't sound to me they were okay with it.

If they were allowed to invest the money, some would win. Great! But some would also lose. And in the wake of a crash like in 2007, millions would have lost the shirts off their backs. So maybe you don't want all the seniors to die on the streets-- just the bad investors. Privatizing SS is a racket pushed by corporations hoping to inflate their stock prices.

No, that would be zerO with the faux "stimulus", Bernanke and Yellen.

So your buddies pushing paper and pencils with the other 1%'ers have done VERY well, of late.

(09-22-2016 04:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:30 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 03:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I can only read so much of this board so I pick my spots. Rational posts are too much to expect. If you are Dem, support a Dem or support anything about a Dem you're basically the worst thing on the planet. Liberal politicians can't just be people conservatives on this board disagree with, they have to be evil.

Dunno where you come from but where I'm from someone that steals your hard earned money, strips away your rights, not only condones but supports criminal behavior, and weakens the security of this nation is the epitome of evil.

This is exactly my point.

So you don't think that people who advocate the positions outlined above are evil?

1. I believe that's a highly partisan slant on what democrats are advocating for or have done.
2. I absolutely do not think the people that disagree with you on various government programs and the role of government are evil.
3. Stole is such a ridiculous characterization. You live in a high functioning, western democracy that provides security, infrastructure and many services you have used. The idea that there is not a cost to that is insane. We can debate where there shouldn't be costs, we can debate where tax dollars should be spent and how much the government should be doing, but the very idea that this is theft is just insane.
4. No democrat is out there supporting criminal behavior. I have heard Trump advocating some violence at his rallies though if you're really going there.
5. Strips away rights is such a vague thing. If anything this country has seen an expansion of rights over the years...with more people being able to enjoy equal protection under the law. I get to hear about people losing their rights from people who live great lives and are able to do so much day after day. I lose patience with people not even acknowledging the advantages they enjoy by getting to live in America.

1. Of course you do because you are highly partisan.

2. OK, maybe not evil but accomplices to evil. You might not be implementing the policies but you enabled them.

3. No stole is a perfect characterization. If I came up to you on the street with a gun and took your money to give to someone else it would be armed robbery. That's exactly what taxation is. And if it were only the programs you mentioned there probably wouldn't be as much heartburn over taxes but when our hard earned money is going to fund non-essential garbage like the art grant for a dude who's idea of art is an ant covered crucifix, a mime troop from San Francisco, or sending Pakistani children to Space Camp, or any number of things that can be found with a simple Google search. Why is it whenever we bring up opposition to taxes you leftists immediately run to the "Muh roads!" defense?

4. The left's war on law enforcement supports criminal behavior. Failing to enforce our borders and trying to legitimize those who have already broken our laws through amnesty is supporting criminal behavior.

5. So the left isn't trying to erode my Second Amendment rights? Or my First Amendment rights?





http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...e-deniers/

Quote:The US Department of Justice has been considering whether people should be prosecuted for the offense of climate change denial.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Whitehouse said:

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.”

“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-pa...-skeptics/

Be quiet Kap, you're making too much sense. Librturds don't understand reason they only understand EVIL. Everything they support has evil written all over it. They support criminal thugs, aborted fetuses, allowing possible terrorists in without being vetted, taxing the crap out of you to give to lazy people (I know firsthand of this), sexual immorality. ETC. ETC. You can add to the list.