well i guess we know how seriously to take her

2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
michelle bachmann.

government aid recipient.

sooner or later, i really hope the "conservative" voters out there begin to realize they are they are being fed pabulum by people that don't live up to their own bullshit.

"i was for it, before i was against it."
 
No Cato we don't need another Negro

ike_tina+turner2.jpg
 
This reminds me of the founding fathers were slave owners argument. They were trying to get rid of it but had to compromise in order to get the south to sign on. Since it was legal, fashionable & in custom, they kept slaves. Looking back on it, using 21st century morality, it was wrong. Living back then, it wasn't.

Why shouldn't the Bachman family use the same resources as are available? Granted, they need to be removed, but until they are, why martyr yourself?
 
Gonz said:
This reminds me of the founding fathers were slave owners argument. They were trying to get rid of it but had to compromise in order to get the south to sign on. Since it was legal, fashionable & in custom, they kept slaves. Looking back on it, using 21st century morality, it was wrong. Living back then, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

oh, so those were different times than these?
 
we don't need to replace a Negro with a chick

"If you want to talk about the debt and deficit and reigning in wasteful spending, you have to look in the mirror and make sure you're living a fiscally pure life as well,"
Click to expand...

Well Fuckin' A


None of those criminals are fit for office,
storm the Bastille off with their heads!
 
If I'm spending someone else's money....You can believe I look after it as
good or better than my own, because it may be, if I screw up.
I understand the 'responsibility of liability'.
These screw-ups in DC (most of um) don't really understand what responsibility means.
 
they aren't telling the whole story there, so it's a dishonest account.
It's not their farm. It's not in their name. It's her dad's.

Which part of "on the dole" are you referring to?
 
who does "their" refer to? is "dad" part of "their."

it's not their farm? she doesn't still own significant shares? how is the account dishonest?
 
it refers to her, her husband.
Those are the only people they are responsible for at this point, no?
 
dammit you're lazy.

from the original article i referenced.

"A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies."

now you tell me how that simple fact is "dishonest."

and get off your ass, will ya?
 
I would get off my ass, but I'm not in the mood.
My doc appointment isn't until July 20something, and I'm having to substitute
year old darvocet(already off the market) for my ultram, so I'm extra-unmotivated.

So...
'partner'?
That could mean a lot of things.
It could mean it's taking the subsidies, and more of her money to help them,
so it can stay floating.
It in no way implies she is pocketing that money.
 
Well then clearly this bitch isn't the right person to be President
there is ONLY one solution:

sagdrgae.jpg

kerz.jpg
 
catocom said:
I would get off my ass, but I'm not in the mood.
My doc appointment isn't until July 20something, and I'm having to substitute
year old darvocet(already off the market) for my ultram, so I'm extra-unmotivated.

So...
'partner'?
That could mean a lot of things.
It could mean it's taking the subsidies, and more of her money to help them,
so it can stay floating.
It in no way implies she is pocketing that money.
Click to expand...

well, we can look to you for our future then. :crap:

partner means she owns part of the business. a business that takes government subsidies. end of fucking story. *handonhip

you're just weaseling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top