or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by giant

FYI, the OP is obviously spam.
It's very common for news stories not to mention party affiliation, and even more with mayors.If you look through stories about the cunningham scandal you'll see how party affiliation is only mentioned sometimes even though it's far more common to mention party affiliation (eg, R-CA) when discussing congressmen.There's no conspiracy here, just apparently years of careless reading on your part.You can just use google. I usually use google+wikipedia since often the party...
Ah, yes: "utopian," "in the tank" for obama, social security is a "ponzi scheme." Obvious parrots are obvious.
For all of those who cry "ad hominem," trumptman has kindly provided a great full-post example.
We clearly don't. You apparently believe rhetorical games are actually substantive arguments, which is the mark of an ideological consumer.No, it's just a rhetorical tactic that's clearly going over your head.No, it really doesn't.
Well, of course it seems like an empty statement since you clearly have no clue what the terms you use actually mean. That's cool, though. Maybe you can go outsource some more of your thinking to mises.org articles so you can come back and parrot more nonsense. After all, unlike in the real world, pretending terms mean things they don't won't actually harm anyone in appleinsider.Or, if you do actually want to have a big boy conversation, you could man up about the...
No, social security is not a ponzi scheme because it's not a ponzi scheme.
Ah, "in the tank." The great thing about that phrase is how it puts such a bright spotlight on the complete lack of original thought in the losers who parrot it. It's the kind of phrase that makes you wonder if PR firms use it just for analytics.
Apparently only when your cookie-cutter, regurgitated libertarian arguments rely on it.
you are, even for a spammer.
New Posts  All Forums: