And it's still not enough.

Heh.

The last four years.

Who's the morons.

(10-22-2012 09:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The last four years.

Who's the morons.

The people who vote against their own economic interests. At least the Obamaphone lady knows who has her back. But you have millions of dumb rural whites, many of whom are on food stamps or some form of government aid, who will vote for the guy who wants to cut them off and give tax breaks to the rich.

(10-22-2012 09:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The last four years.

Who's the morons.

The people who vote against their own economic interests. At least the Obamaphone lady knows who has her back.

George W. Bush?

Actually that would be Reagan.

She's right but for the wrong reason.

(10-22-2012 09:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The last four years.

Who's the morons.

The people who vote against their own economic interests. At least the Obamaphone lady knows who has her back. But you have millions of dumb rural whites, many of whom are on food stamps or some form of government aid, who will vote for the guy who wants to cut them off and give tax breaks to the rich.

So you're OK with people voting themselves freebies. Is that how you want elections decided?

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Thomas Jefferson

(10-22-2012 09:13 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:04 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The last four years.

Who's the morons.

The people who vote against their own economic interests. At least the Obamaphone lady knows who has her back. But you have millions of dumb rural whites, many of whom are on food stamps or some form of government aid, who will vote for the guy who wants to cut them off and give tax breaks to the rich.

So you're OK with people voting themselves freebies. Is that how you want elections decided?

I think Maxxy's just conceded he wantst to turn John Kennedy's words on their head. "Ask not" indeed.

I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

This thread is certainly meant to spark intelligent discussion.

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Can we all neg rep Max for this thread?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(10-22-2012 09:25 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can we all neg rep Max for this thread?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

What about that warning level thing? That should be used for something.

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

Lazy moocher does not = vulnerable.

This thread is a riff on the "Mormons overwhelmingly support Romney" thread. Lighten up, Francis.

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal. If we could transport you to the 18th century, you'd buy slaves then?

(10-22-2012 09:43 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

How many slaves did Jefferson own again? Maybe he should have asked that of himself.

Yeah, an 18th century rich guy doing something legal.

The dirty bastard and his worthless opinions.

Well, as long as it's legal.

Aren't you the "We're a nation of laws" guy?

So you were jesting when you said you were fine with sanctioned theft to buy votes with trinkets.

(10-22-2012 09:34 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 09:17 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm OK with the government giving necessities to the vulnerable.

Lazy moocher does not = vulnerable.

Some lazy moochers are vulnerable. Along with some non-lazy moochers.

See it's talk like this that will get Obama reelected.