Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: A Tax Dollar Funded Conspiracy

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default A Tax Dollar Funded Conspiracy

    There is no greater conspiracy than using income tax dollars to advance Communism. Here are a few of the overpaid conspirators. Tax dollar subsidies made every one of Hollywood parasites quoted in the enclosed article very wealthy. Sadly, they are only the tip of the iceberg:

    “A national reparations policy is a moral, democratic, and economic imperative.” (Danny Glover before a House Judiciary panel, June 19.)

    The tax collector’s morality also funds the democracy movement.

    So apparently “morality” and “democracy” are issues of enormous concern for Danny Glover, no? Well:

    “My heart beat faster!–This is one of the most important moments in my life!” said a hyperventilating Danny Glover while visiting the Che Guevara memorial in Santa Clara, Cuba during one of his frequent red-carpet visits to Stalinist, terror-sponsoring Cuba where he renders honor and tribute to the mass-murdering terrorist whose lifelong craving was to NUKE Glover’s homeland–and whose regime jailed and tortured the most and longest-suffering BLACK political prisoners in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere.

    “I watched the evisceration of the city and people’s lives because of crack cocaine and mass incarceration…I think we have to kind of look at racism and all of its manifestations…This country is trapped in not telling the truth.” (Danny Glover before a House Judiciary panel, June 19.)

    So apparently Danny Glover is not indifferent to “mass-incarceration,” “racism” and governmental lying. But he seems a bit topsy-turvy about identifying the top practitioners of these injustices. To hear Glover tell it, the worst malefactors, run—not the Stalinist dictatorship that often welcomes him—but the homeland that made him a multi-millionaire and welcomes him as a congressional witness and commentator.

    In fact, even by Hollywood standards Danny Glover’s fondness for Stalinist Cuba seems overwrought, which is really saying something, considering that:

    "Fidel Castro is a genius! We spoke about everything. Castro is a humanist like President Clinton. Cuba is simply a paradise!" -Jack Nicholson

    "Socialism works. I think Cuba might prove that." -Chevy Chase

    "Castro is very selfless and moral, one of the world's wisest men" -Oliver Stone

    "If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!" -Harry Belafonte

    "It was an experience of a lifetime to sit only a few feet away from Fidel Castro." -Kevin Costner

    "The eight most important hours of my life," said Stephen Spielberg, describing his dinner with Castro.

    “My biggest regret is I never got to go to bed with Che Guevara,” lamented Jane Fonda, who according to her biographer Patricia Bosworth, actually used the “f” word in describing her lifelong lament.


    So how come Hanoi Jane never emigrated to Vietnam after the war?


    “The Cuban people are among the happiest people I have ever met…. And the vast majority love Fidel Castro.” -PETA member Woody Harrelson —who recently petitioned Texas Gov. Abbot to ban “the cruelty” of Texas barbecues, but who warmly-- and literally-- bear-hugs Fidel Castro.

    (All quotes, etc. above painstakingly documented here.)

    So clearly Danny Glover has some pretty stiff competition in the Castro-heraldry sweepstakes. But his competition with Jane Fonda, as mentioned in this article’s title, doesn’t boil down to some off-the-cuff utterances. No, instead they consist of actual acts, and ones (which surely seem to) give aid and comfort to the enemy. To wit:

    On the same visit where the ecstatic Danny Glover honored the shrine of Che Guevara, he also honored and yukked it up with a KGB–trained Cuban spy who was once serving two life terms after a conviction for conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens. His name is Gerardo Hernandez and if my phrase “yukking it up” strikes you as a bit hyperbolic, I invite you to study Glover’s face and form your own opinion.

    On September 14, 1998, the FBI uncovered a Castro spy ring in Miami and arrested 10 of them. Five were convicted including Gerardo Hernandez and they became known as “The Cuban Five” in Castroite parlance.

    According to the FBI's affidavit, these Castro agents were engaged in, among other acts:

    • Gathering intelligence against the Boca Chica Air Naval Station in Key West, the McDill Air Force Base in Tampa and the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Homestead, Fla.

    • Compiling the names, home addresses and medical files of the U.S. Southern Command's top officers, along with those of hundreds of officers stationed at Boca Chica.

    • Infiltrating the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command.

    • Sending letter bombs to Cuban-Americans.

    • Spying on McDill Air Force Base, the U.S. armed forces' worldwide headquarters for fighting "low-intensity" conflicts.

    • Locating entry points into Florida for smuggling explosive material.

    Apparently everything above made Danny Glover’s heart sing. But there was more. Glover’s yukking-up buddy Gerardo Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to murder three American citizens. In 2014 Obama released this convicted communist spy/murderer as part of his sniveling surrender (“opening”, according to the Democrat/media complex) to the Castro-Crime-and-Terror-Sponsoring-Syndicate (“Cuba” according to the Democrat/media complex).

    The yukking-up ceremony in Cuba also included Glover being awarded the coveted “Medal of Friendship” by the Castro regime. No doubt Glover’s mimicry of many Democrat luminaries (and Jeff Flake) by heartily condemning (from foreign enemy shores) Trump’s recently announced Cuba policy played a key role in his earning of the mass-murdering, terror-sponsoring Castro regime’s coveted “Medal of Friendship.”

    Is Danny Glover (Who Demands Reparations) a Worse Traitor than Jane Fonda?
    Humberto Fontova
    |Posted: Jun 22, 2019 12:01 AM

    https://townhall.com/columnists/humb...fonda-n2548737

    p.s. I assume Glover is also in favor of involuntary servitude:

    The actor and his lawyer said they planned to meet with officials from the taxi commission to help develop a training video and to discuss having new drivers meet with ordinary black New Yorkers as part of their training.

    ''I think it's a positive way to go,'' Mr. Glover said. ''It would not be in my best interest to just file a simple complaint. My interest is to change something.''

    Danny Glover Says Cabbies Discriminated Against Him
    By MONTE WILLIAMS
    NOV. 4, 1999

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/n...ainst-him.html

    Glover’s next step is forcing everybody to watch his movies!

    See these threads for an in-depth look at involuntary servitude:


    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...41#post2782041

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...01#post2879701

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...43#post2905043

    p.p.s. The worst kind of involuntary servitude is paying tax dollars to support despicable parasites, and being forced to fund causes you do not believe in.
    Last edited by Flanders; 06-22-2019 at 04:40 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    AMERICANS PLEASE READ THIS UPDATE

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    There is no greater conspiracy than using income tax dollars to advance Communism.

    Every now and again, you’ll hear someone argue that a fundamental transformation of the American economy is necessary because we are in the throes of something called “late-stage capitalism.” Wealth inequality has reached an unacceptable tipping point, they typically argue, so the only logical solution to this “problem” is to allow the government to disproportionately seize wealth and income from the wealthiest and highest-earning Americans, and then redistribute that wealth to other Americans who need it more. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” as the policy prescription popularized by Karl Marx goes.

    But what I find most curious about this is that Karl Marx might not necessarily see it this way. Given what we’ve seen in America for the last hundred years or so, he might more aptly suggest that we are in “early-stage communism,” simply waiting for a revolutionary event to secure “full communism” as America’s “mode of production.”

    In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1956), Ludwig von Mises observes that:


    When Marx and Engels advocated interventionist measures, they did not mean to suggest a compromise between socialism and capitalism. They considered these measures – incidentally, the same measures which are the essence of the New Deal and Fair Deal policies – as first steps on the way to full communism. They themselves described these measures as “economically insufficient and untenable,” and they asked for them only because they “in the course of the movement outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the social order, and are unavoidable as a means of revolutionizing the mode of production.”

    Marx knew that the struggle between socialism and capitalism was a duel to the death, not a negotiation. An economic system where individuals have fundamental property rights cannot coexist with an economic system which is predicated upon perpetually infringing upon certain individuals’ right to property in order to provide for others. Only one of these systems could practically, morally, and politically exist in the end.

    What Americans don’t seem to recognize, when we speak of our nation as a “capitalist” nation, is that American socialists began cobbling such “inroads upon the social order” a hundred years ago.

    These impositions on the free market began modestly, with a progressive income tax.

    Legally, income tax was always a tricky subject to defend for proponents of Marx’s “heavy and graduated income tax,” which was one of the primary bulwarks, or “planks,” needed for communism to exist, as described in The Communist Manifesto. The Constitution, on the other hand, had only very few and explicitly defined allowances for the government to levy any “direct” taxes.

    But by 1913, American socialists had successfully argued that free markets had allowed the “robber barons” to earn too much wealth, so the government needed to have the power to equalize economic outcomes. In February of 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was born. And with it, America had opened the door to the “heavy and graduated income tax” that Marx prescribed.

    The first tax law wasn’t incredibly “heavy,” to say the least. The Revenue Act of 1913, arguably America’s first constitutional federal income tax, included seven marginal tax brackets, beginning at 1% for all dollars earned up to $20K annually (or $517K, adjusted for inflation), and capping at 7% for individuals earning $500K (and inflation adjusted $13 million). Factor in that this law also included the first “standard deduction” of up to $4K ($103K in today’s dollars), along with myriad other deductions, and the end result was that roughly 1% of Americans actually paid any federal income tax at all.

    That sounds incredible by today’s standards, right? A nice compromise for the times, maybe?

    Remember, socialism does not seek to coexist with capitalism, but to replace it. By 1918, the final year of World War I, there were 55 marginal tax brackets. If 1913 introduced an American tax law which was “low and narrow,” 1918 introduced a law which was “heavy and broad.” By 1918, the lowest marginal tax bracket of 6% for incomes up to $4K, while capping out at a whopping 76% at a marginal threshold of $1 million.

    There aren’t considerations for any payroll taxes for Social Security in those previously mentioned data, because that socialistic and redistributive government instrument wasn’t instituted until 1935.

    Payroll taxes for Social Security also began small, but they’ve always been more political than practical, and a means to grow the government’s power to redistribute wealth. “They are politics, all the way through,” FDR said of his “old age insurance” “premiums,” as he initially pitched them, which ultimately became known as “payroll taxes” when it was discerned that forcing Americans to purchase insurance contracts runs afoul of the government’s limitations as set by the Constitution. But the government could tax income, thanks to the Sixteenth Amendment, so “payroll taxes” is what we know them as today.

    Some other socialists emerged with ideas about growing government in the 1960s. A redistributive government program to pay for seniors’ healthcare called Medicare was born, and along with it, myriad expansions of the American welfare state, which is nothing more or less than a transfer of wealth from one to provide for another. It is socialism, in action, and however bad the prospects of the future for Social Security may seem, Medicare (and Medicaid, its offspring) is far more unsustainable in terms of pure accounting.

    But we still have the free market, right? Even with all of those socialistic impositions in the American economy over the last hundred years?

    Here’s the truth. Elements of the free market in America do remain intact because we retain an appreciation of private property rights, and it is only for this reason that the American economy has thrived, in spite of our mild romance with socialism.

    But the story is not over yet.

    Over the years, taxes have risen and fallen, but have only become more progressively applied through the years. Federal revenue has continued growing, and with it, government spending has continued growing with reckless abandon, financed ever more heavily by the highest earners among us. To put this in perspective, consider that nearly 50% of Americans pay virtually no federal income tax (with most of them actually collecting from the coffers), while the top 20% of income earners provide 87% of federal income tax revenue.

    How can any Democrat, with a straight face, suggest that our system is not already designed to uniquely benefit the poor at the expense of higher income earners, whose wealth is already sluiced by the government in such a massively disproportionate manner?

    And even this growing federal revenue hasn’t been enough to satiate our voracious leviathan of a federal government that socialistic policies have created. So, the federal debt has continually climbed.

    Over 60% of federal expenditures in 2015 went to finance redistributive social programs, like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, food stamps, etc., all of which are the primary drivers of our debt. None of that federal spending existed 100 years ago. Yet in the last 100 years of our over 200-year national experiment, which was fundamentally predicated upon the value of individual economic liberty and a reliance upon free markets, such programs have led to ever-increasing financial liability which have brought us frighteningly near to its potential end.

    I can’t help imagining that Karl Marx would smile at that outcome, were he alive today. Especially since these problems which his socialistic prescriptions created are now being blamed on capitalism!

    Reared in the hallowed breeding grounds for socialism that we call academia, millions of young people were enabled by the government to take on loans to get an education which seems to have largely taught them only that someone else, via coerced extraction of wealth by the federal government, should be paying for their education, their home, their healthcare, their food, and all other promises that the socialists currently leading the Democratic Party are only too happy to make.

    These Democrats’ only goal is to grow government. Growing government requires increasing impositions upon individual liberty and the free market. And impositions on individual liberty and the free market have led to all of the most prominent and crippling debt drivers that seem to be rapidly bringing the American experiment nearer to its end.

    We would do well to remember this anytime a self-described “democratic socialist” suggests that government must be granted new powers to sluice wealth from some Americans to grow the government’s role in providing for other Americans. However much you may want a compromise between the ideas of socialism and free market capitalism, it’s important to know that “compromise” is not their goal.

    Socialism is their goal. And, as Marx knew, socialism cannot coexist alongside capitalism. It exists only to destroy the free markets and individual liberty that are so crucial to the American idea.

    Listening to the Democrat presidential candidates continually running to their opponents’ left, one can’t help but wonder how near we are to the end of the American experiment.


    July 5, 2019
    America’s Road to Socialism Has Been Cobbled by Taxation and Debt
    By William Sullivan

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._and_debt.html
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    So how come Hanoi Jane never emigrated to Vietnam after the war?
    Disagreeing with Hollywood parasites is criminal to Jane:

    Jane Fonda: What Trump’s ‘Doing to the world … Is Criminal’
    by Jerome Hudson
    24 Nov 2019

    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...d-is-criminal/

    It is about tax dollars. It is not about defending Communism as Henry’s baby girl did in Vietnam. Basically, every Hollywood freakazoid is defending show biz tax dollar subsidies; i.e., defending their tax dollar incomes. Without those federal subsidies actors would be reduced to performing on street corners hustling a few donations.

    Tom Hayden, Activist and Jane Fonda's Ex-Husband, Dies at 76
    7:34 AM PDT 10/24/2016 by the Associated Press

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...st-jane-940790

    Parenthetically. Fonda is still living in her glory years when she and Tom Hayden were Socialist darlings. Shortly after Jane divorced Hayden she went after the big bucks by marrying Ted Turner. After she divorced Turner she converted to a born-again Christian. Question: What was she before she converted? That conversion had to be criminal in canon law since she is, and always has been, a Communist.

    Bottom line: Nothing is more pathetic than Jane’s belief that she is politically astute. In truth, she never was a political hotshot, nor is she one now simply because her fame made her the grande dame of Hollywood parasites.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,532
    Thanks
    3,066
    Thanked 9,766 Times in 7,268 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    I never lost a minute's worth of sleep over domestic communists. All of them advance the cause of moving left through legitimate means and honest elections. None preached violent revolution.

    Republicans, on the other hand, are felons as well as traitors. My hatred for them is easily the easiest justifiable opinion that I hold.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    All of them advance the cause of moving left through legitimate means and honest elections.
    To NiftyNiblick: Either you believe that vacuous comment, or you are putting me on.

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    None preached violent revolution.
    To NiftyNiblick: Make an effort to grasp a fundamental truth about Communist violence:

    Finally, Democrats will try to get away with debating Socialist programs rather than debate the form of government they are demanding for everybody else. Media is on the side of Democrats; so it is up to opponents doing the debating who must not let Democrats get away blending the tax collector’s morality and Socialism’s form of government into a single debating topic. Starting here is essential:


    While Democrats must say Socialism, their opponents must always say Communism. In short: Democrats will be forced to doublespeak non-existent differences between the two.

    Trump could have, and should have, said “AMERICA WILL NEVER BE A COMMUNIST COUNTRY.”

    Trump saying “Socialist” sounded good but it was a mistake because the public separates Socialism from Communism when there is only one difference between the two. Early Socialist planners planted the misconception in the late 19th century when they set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution.

    The intelligentsia knew the public would accept the word SOCIALISM, but never COMMUNISM because of the Soviet Union’s documented brutality; so the press and the teachers took the misconception to new heights in the 1930s when they laid down their most efficient lie to date —— Communism is good because Fascism is so bad. (Socialism is good because Fascism is so bad)

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...78#post2981478
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    ZILCHMONGER (11-29-2019)

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,532
    Thanks
    3,066
    Thanked 9,766 Times in 7,268 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Either you believe that vacuous comment, or you are putting me on.
    Flanders, there will be public and private sectors no matter who wins elections.

    If one can't work with capitalism and socialism both, then one simply cannot govern.

    The discussion is where to draw the lines.

    To demonize the word "socialism" is to either be staggeringly disingenuous or staggeringly stupid.

    Most JPP righties are the latter. Which are you?

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    Flanders, there will be public and private sectors no matter who wins elections.
    To NiftyNiblick: There is only one sector whenever parasites combine the two as they have been working toward since 1913. Note that television mouths and elected officials are very careful not to distinguish between a shrinking productive private sector and a maturing public sector Parasite Class absorbing the nation’s wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Remember, socialism does not seek to coexist with capitalism, but to replace it.

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    If one can't work with capitalism and socialism both, then one simply cannot govern.

    To NiftyNiblick:
    That is like saying the Founding Fathers did not know how to govern!

    Parenthetically, capitalists do not govern in a limited form of government —— parasites cannot govern without the income tax.

    For your edification Socialism is a theocratic form of government. Socialists go so far as to say that Socialism is an economic system. After 19 years of debating Socialists, I am too tired to repeat the countless ways Socialism is a theocracy.

    In short: Capitalism is an economic system that works to perfection for the most people in a limited form of government. Socialism is a form of government that works for the least number of people. The two are, and always will be, incompatible.

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    Most JPP righties are the latter. Which are you?
    To NiftyNiblick: Howard Roark:



    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    ZILCHMONGER (11-29-2019)

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    In a well insulated tent
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 65 Times in 49 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    I never lost a minute's worth of sleep over domestic communists. All of them advance the cause of moving left through legitimate means and honest elections. None preached violent revolution.

    Republicans, on the other hand, are felons as well as traitors. My hatred for them is easily the easiest justifiable opinion that I hold.
    You are joking right? Being returned to slavery is ok since we voted for it? Is that what you think?

    Adolph Hitler was a legitimately elected leader of Germany. All of the laws he instituted were legitimately established by the duly elected National Socialist Party (AKA NAZI). Adolph Hitler did not take over Germany via a revolution.

    So please get your head out of your ass before you sell us all into concentration camps.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to ZILCHMONGER For This Post:

    Flanders (11-29-2019)

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZILCHMONGER View Post
    Adolph Hitler was a legitimately elected leader of Germany. All of the laws he instituted were legitimately established by the duly elected National Socialist Party (AKA NAZI). Adolph Hitler did not take over Germany via a revolution.
    To ZILCHMONGER: Exactly so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZILCHMONGER View Post
    So please get your head out of your ass before you sell us all into concentration camps.
    To ZILCHMONGER: Unfortunately for the rest of us NiftyNiblick & Company long to be governed by an American Hitler who promises to take care of them.







    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    So how come Hanoi Jane never emigrated to Vietnam after the war?
    She still has time now that Vietnam is a Communist paradise. She can take Todd Diacon with her:



    Jane Fonda, visits anti-aircraft gun position near Hanoi, Vietnam, July 1, 1972. (AP Photo)
    https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/...9x1734x934.jpg


    In a move that surprised many in the Northeast Ohio area and beyond, Kent State President Todd Diacon announced that actress, activist, and (former?) communist sympathizer Jane Fonda will be one of the speakers at an anniversary commemoration of the shooting on May 3—and she'll be paid a whopping $83,000 to ostensibly reminisce about her anti-war activism.


    Kent State to Pay Hanoi Jane $83k for May 4 Commemoration Speech; Ohio SOS Wants Her Yanked, Calls It a 'Disgrace'
    By Paula Bolyard
    February 19, 2020

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/kent-st...it-a-disgrace/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Why does "flounder" think anyone is going to read his endless propaganda?

    If the guy is actually getting paid to shovel this shit they are definitely overpaying him cause it is easily recognized for what it is

Similar Threads

  1. State Funded Travel Ban
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-2018, 07:57 PM
  2. The Woman In The Tax Funded Bubble.
    By philly rabbit in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2016, 11:25 AM
  3. Conspiracy theorists dismiss Alex Jones as government conspiracy to make conspiracy..
    By Timshel in forum Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 01:56 PM
  4. Soros-Funded Group
    By Canceled2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-10-2011, 10:01 AM
  5. US dollar now worth less than Canadian dollar....
    By uscitizen in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 11:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •