|
Post by rebelliousscot on Mar 13, 2009 8:37:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 13, 2009 11:22:53 GMT -5
This actually happened? She was a SNLer and she has these sorts of views, I thought it was a giant charade.
Of course I did a quick google search and found out she is indeed a nutter.
EDIT:
Check out this poem from her site
It's utter shit of course.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 13, 2009 11:45:40 GMT -5
She's as airheaded as she sounds.
Ironbite-Rush, Palin, and Hannity would take away all her rights in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 13, 2009 11:54:31 GMT -5
And she would be there arguing why it's a good thing.
Along with about 30% of the population.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 13, 2009 12:02:18 GMT -5
She's as airheaded as she sounds. Or she is brilliant, showing that it is the stupid people who follow and agree with the likes of Boss Limbaugh.
|
|
|
Post by Pasta on Mar 13, 2009 12:08:03 GMT -5
That poem was wicked... Really, what did I do to deserve tha- Oh yeah, the canary incident.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Mar 13, 2009 12:42:15 GMT -5
Obama will punish her for being successful, so her motivation is gone? Well, that explains a couple months of her post-SNL career, but what about the rest of it?
Also, she writes poetry like a Vogon. (I do, too, but I'm not dumb enough to show everybody.)
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Mar 13, 2009 12:58:02 GMT -5
She's as airheaded as she sounds. Ironbite-Rush, Palin, and Hannity would take away all her rights in a heartbeat. Yes....yes she is.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Mar 13, 2009 13:58:08 GMT -5
Obama will punish her for being successful, so her motivation is gone? Well, that explains a couple months of her post-SNL career, but what about the rest of it? Also, she writes poetry like a Vogon. (I do, too, but I'm not dumb enough to show everybody.) Wow...that is torture on the purest level. I had to listen to a Vogon's poetry once, and I am sure it was less painful than her stupidity. I am just stunned by the level of stupidity of this. I am sure I wouldn't want a bunch of talking heads running this country.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 14, 2009 1:46:28 GMT -5
Silly Republicunts, a 3% tax increase on those making over $250,000 annually is NOT socialism or Communism. Adam Smith was a capitalist and wrote this in his book "The Wealth of Nations":
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
In other words, these guys are clowns...
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 14, 2009 4:30:22 GMT -5
Adam Smith actually believed none of the things modern neo-liberals have assigned to him. He thought that social wefare programs (like cumpulsory government funded education) were good ideas, along with progressive taxation, and he considered the working class the bedrock of society. He also thought that tarrifs, ect, were necessary for development of an infant economy. His position was that Britain's economy was developed at the time of writing, at which point they would be best off allowing the market to naturally create optimum pricing. His economic theory has always reminded me of Darwin's. They're both 'blind watchmakers' if you will.
In fact, when the University of Chicago reprinted his 'Wealth' they had to severely cut it down in order for it to concur with their party line.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 14, 2009 12:55:13 GMT -5
Adam Smith actually believed none of the things modern neo-liberals have assigned to him. He thought that social wefare programs (like cumpulsory government funded education) were good ideas, along with progressive taxation, and he considered the working class the bedrock of society. He also thought that tarrifs, ect, were necessary for development of an infant economy. His position was that Britain's economy was developed at the time of writing, at which point they would be best off allowing the market to naturally create optimum pricing. His economic theory has always reminded me of Darwin's. They're both 'blind watchmakers' if you will. In fact, when the University of Chicago reprinted his 'Wealth' they had to severely cut it down in order for it to concur with their party line. Ah, the Chicago School.....because their economic policies worked so well in Chile, right?
|
|