Ryan Collected $500,000 From Koch After House Passed Tax Law

Oh I did.

Please explain the corruption.

 

Quid Pro Quo

 

Oh I see.

The corruption is: break economic records going back to 1973, revitalize the economy, let americans keep their money, and we'll reward you.

 

You asked, I answered and now you exhibit confused OFF TOPIC thought.......totally understandable.

 

Um, isn't that what the OP says?

I'd say liberals should stop tipping for good service, but then I remembered liberals don't tip.

 

You sure spend a lot of time worrying about other people’s jobs, money, and investments. Here’s an idea, if you become involved in society, you too can have all of that of your own to worry about. Money is like the wind. If you get up and go out, you might get some of it on you, and it’s a blowin a gale right now. Watching the wind blow on the Internet isn’t going to cut it.

 

You were previously destroyed when you walked this walk, no need for me to do it to you again, it was too easy. The tRUmp Admin is corrupt and a national security risk, read the article and comment.

 

It was a plutocratic socialist state.....now you are getting it. Congrats.

 

Sorry bud, you didn’t destroy anything. You were just dishonest is all.

 

That can never be now, the SCOTUS has spoken that money is speech, protected speech.

 

You mean a politician is in the pocket of an oligarch? Who knew?

 

Let me put it this way. If you can spend 10 hours a day walking in work boots, Carry and repeatedly climb a 6’ ladder, climb 5-6 stories of stairs all day, learn to operate a balometer, tachometer, and a DVOM, print in legible English, follow simple instructions, and get yourself to eastern Los Angeles county, I will pay you $70 an hour sight unseen.

 

If you're common as an old shoe, or an old mud cat like me, elections are to vote for the oligarchically controlled candidate who gives you the most crumbs from and table, and who hurts you the least.

You know damn well that candidate ain't like you, and you ain't like them, that you ain't got a good enough jacket to get in the club, and that's the way it is.

 

You assumptions are based on your need to project an image of success over the net. You are out of your league and are trying to convince yourself not I. Think about it, you are trying to reinforce you lack of self worth over the internet....for an audience of one, yourself. Now, care to deal with the topic or do you need to project more puffery to make up for your sub par self worth?

 

That why the corporate prostitutes on the Supreme Court need to go. Governmental created entities known as corporations are not people and do not have free speech rights under the Constitution.

 

No, I don’t need to project anything. You can continue to live your life as an internet addict. It doesn’t bother me. I’m just trying to enlighten you to the flowing river of cash that PF isn’t providing you. It’s your bed to sleep in but I can give you $140,000 yr income.

 

Here a tip for you: Anytime you enslave people as a means of socializing your business or governmental costs, that is a form of socialism.
Welcome to reality.

There are articles from a plutocratic socialist's viewpoint about the Roman Empire....
Socialism, Roman Style
https://dailyreckoning.com/socialism-roman-style/

How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome - Cato Institute
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-7.pdf

 

Ahhh so like the Trump draft thread you get to make things up and then argue them as fact.

Let's see your evidence Mueller is investigating the Koch brothers.

 

Maybe some can be voted off in 2018.

 

Socialism, Roman Style? Aside from the catchy but erroneous title I don't see anywhere where socialism is explicitly tied to Rome.
You certainly can't tell me either. You also can't tell me how "socializing" through enslavement works except to claim twice in once sentence that concept, which is nonsense.
Would you like to claim the slaveholders in the south were socialists also?

Keep on diggin' though.

 

What is it with cons and their denial of the obvious?

Hello down there.....can you hear me?

Once Again: What is it with cons and their denial of the obvious?

One would have to be born-again stupid not to understand that slaveholders in the south, just like the Roman Empire, was based upon
supply-side socialism: The privatization of capital and the socialization of costs.

 

Your glib and erroneous misuse of the term "socialism" strikes again.
You have yet to understand it even remotely. Please demonstrate, for instance, how the costs of slaves in Rome were socialized (whatever that means in the context in which you misuse it).

I truly think you have started from a position of ignorance of the subject matter and confused yourself even more because you jump from claim to claim because you have to keep the target moving until you have lost even yourself you've made such a tangled mess of it all.

 

Let's cut to the chase, rather than dealing with your incoherent ramblings, just tell me your definition of socialism.

so·cial·ism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

supply-side-socialism
costs and risks to be socialized to the greatest extent possible by taxpayers, consumers, workers, and smaller businesses.

 

Congratulations on the all the gall it took to claim my "ramblings" were incoherent, in the context that this comes from someone who said slavery was socialistic and public services (fire department, post office, military, etc.) were too.
You clearly think you know more than you do insofar as what you do "know" is wrong.

Socialism is a pale offshoot of communism and it is a means by which wealth is redistributed and controlled for mostly political and social
reasons. The state does not own the means of production, unlike communism, but it does control them to varying degrees and in varying ways for varying reasons.

For instance when a municipality refuses to let a builder put up new homes unless a percentage of them are reserved for low income buyers that is socialism, in my view.
And when government mandates higher insurance premiums (for purposes of the Supreme Court the mandate became a tax) so others can can be subsidized that is socialism too.

Clearly the state takes from the rich to give to the poor, like Robin Hood.
Unlike Robin Hood it also takes from the not so rich and the barely keeping afloat too.
And the state clearly decides who deserves your tax money you worked for
whether you like it or not but that is another matter that illustrates the authoritarian nature of socialism.

Social democrats don't want the term socialist attached to them but that is precisely what they are their policies are....socialist.

 

Actually it didn't any gall at all to state the obvious: Your ramblings are incoherent.

* Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.
Post Office, police and fire departments, and the military are examples of social ownership.

* Trickle-down economics is a form of supply-side socialism, ie the redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich.
Here is where right-wing socialists, such as yourself, go into denial. In the alternate universal of the conservative mindset, governmental
services, including subsidizes to the rich and corporations, are not a form of socialism, but governmental services to the poor and the middle
class are a form of socialism.