Over 59540

Corporate Politics

WALMART - Corporate America's contribution to Communist China's Military Might.

WELFARE FRAUD - Acceptable if you're a big corporation?

TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 3/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

StoneTools - June 7, 2013, 8:58 am
her non-existent farm and the solar industry need the money to help pay for their bankruptcies, and the IRS needs its subidies for lavish conferences, and the obamas need subsidies for their multi-million dollar vacations
StoneTools - June 7, 2013, 8:55 am
why concentrate on oil companies when you have agriculture subsidies, energy subsidies, export subsidies, education subsidies, and many others. I understand that a woman living in an apartment overlooking central park in new york needs the money for
Rudedog - February 14, 2013, 10:00 pm
Absolutely correct! The lobbyist influence in Washington has turned a capitalist democracy into a corporatist theocracy.
Renza - February 14, 2013, 8:06 am
Makes sense until you don't think about it.

CORPORATE GREED - Much uglier than it seems.

Don't like Entitlements? -

SCREW CORPORATE AMERICA - "Oh, wait, I'm getting a text message on my 4G phone!"


TAGS: goldman sachs corporate personhood
Rating: 2.7/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 19, 2012, 7:11 pm
Seriously, I made this a year ago. What're the odds?
crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?



TAGS: general electric corporate personhood
Rating: 3.11/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:16 pm
Seriously, I made this a year ago. What're the odds?
crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:14 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?


TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 3/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

terroraustralis - April 3, 2013, 3:56 am


TAGS: valero energy corporate personhood
Rating: 2.71/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:44 pm
Seriously, I made this a year ago. What're the odds?
crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:16 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?


TAGS: chevron corporate personhood
Rating: 2.54/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:49 pm
Seriously, I made this a year ago. What're the odds?
crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?


TAGS: exxonmobil corporate personhood
Rating: 2.45/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 8:47 pm

Obviously I haven't considered every angle, but why not?...we sponsor kids that are good enough to play in our league, but it's the exposure that draws them, not the money.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 8:45 pm
I dunno, say he wanted to come for the exposure.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 8:36 pm

I guess so, But why would a 15 year old come here to play junior hockey? Remember (in my imaginary hockey utopia) the money isn't worth coming here for. I guess we could sponsor kids from other countries.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 8:27 pm
Subsidy: a financial aid supplied by a government, as to industry, for reasons of public welfare, the balance of payments, etc. So obviously, only those tax remittances that go back to the company in the form of a**istance, are called subsidies, Groucho.
GrouchoMarxist - October 8, 2012, 7:19 pm
This a cranky "Punked Alert" Expect more strawmen, non answers and loads of "What ifs"
GrouchoMarxist - October 8, 2012, 7:17 pm
So any tax for doing business is a subsidy if you're an oil company... s****** the koolaide
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 7:16 pm
So a 15 year old Finnish kid, say, would have to apply for dual citizenship, before he could play in your league?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 7:14 pm
Your mom said; "As soon as you start finishing your vegetables." =)
GrouchoMarxist - October 8, 2012, 6:55 pm
I wonder when I'll get my subsidy?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:35 pm

As long as you're a citizen.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 6:32 pm
So, are there no foreign born players in your league, or did I read that wrong?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:32 pm

Hockey should be about hockey and playing with the Americans has made hockey about money.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:28 pm

I could have worded that better. I want out of the NHL, I want big Canadian cities to have teams and one western and one eastern junior leagues to feed the CHL (Canadian hockey league) players.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 6:23 pm
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:18 pm

I want Provincial teams with $150,000 a year salary caps......That would be promoting Canadian culture.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 6:16 pm
Yes. The NHL is a mess. 3 lockouts in 17 years. Ugh. The fans need a union. =)
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:14 pm

Don't get me wrong. I love the sport, just not the mess that the NHL has become. I still cheer for team Canada.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:10 pm

Kind of of like what Toronto does to Northern Ontario.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:09 pm

I do hate hockey, And I'm not a big fan of Winnipeg. They make decisions that affect the entire province, but they've forgotten that there are people outside the perimeter highway.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 6:05 pm
LOL! As if you didn't want the WPGJets back. I know you don't like hockey, but come on man.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 6:04 pm
On this issue, I'm confident with the word 'never'.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:03 pm

I also didn't want the WPG Jets back. (:
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:02 pm

That was in response to the jets. I'd have to read up about the crime bill. But I know we could use a few new prisons in Manitoba.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 6:00 pm

Never say never, But you're probably right. Of course it's a waste of money.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:59 pm
Or the Omnibus crime bill expenses? Building jails we don't need to house criminals that don't exist, wouldn't we be saving more money there?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:57 pm
What's your position on that new fleet of F-35's that Harper wants to buy? Isn't that a bit more frivolous a pricetag than the CBC, considering we'll never have to use them?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:56 pm

You know I don't back a party. I refuse to chose between 2 groups of morons. I take every issue as a solitary entity and make my decision.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:49 pm
That last sentence was sarcasm. =)
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:49 pm
I know, right? Remember back when the Liberal party of Canada posted 10 straight years (1998-2008) of budget surpluses under Chretien and Martin? Those were the days, huh? Good thing we've gone back in the red with the Conservative Harper. =)
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:39 pm

Or it's a billion dollars a year off the top of a $591,344,594,012.45 debt (as of Sept 21st) It all depends on what you see as more important. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:32 pm
That's a 9 cent a day per capita investment, to not have our culture a**imilated. I'm fine with it.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:31 pm

Like I said, Try watching CBC TV.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:31 pm

I don't think that the CBC provides $1,000,000,000 a year worth of culture.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:27 pm
This brings us back to the 'Kardashian' argument. The CBC promotes Canadian culture. That's a service, as a Canadian, that I enjoy.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:26 pm

I said it was OK to hold them to different standards because one is a necessary evil the other is just evil. I'm just being practical.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:25 pm

we don't need the CBC.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:24 pm

And I already told you I don't agree with subsidizing oil companies...In fact, they should be paying us for the privilege. But the CBC does nothing for us, and oil companies are used to getting handouts. The difference is that we need oil companies.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:22 pm
...and another way for those guys.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:22 pm
Otherwise, we're making these judgements based on favoring one product or service over another. Either companies can sustain themselves, or they can't. We either pick socialism, or we pick free market capitalism. It can't be one way for these guys...
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:22 pm

They definitely wouldn't get away with spending public money on p***ography.http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/02/cbc-doubles-down-on-p***ography
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:19 pm
I totally understand your point Moo. Yes, 5 is half of 10. What I'm driving at here is that if we're going to argue that one company should get 5, because it is half of 10, than this should apply to all companies, big oil included.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:19 pm

I'd be OK with keeping the Radio stations. But do me a favour, Go home tonight and watch CBC television. Come back tomorrow and tell me if we need that.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:18 pm
The CBC is a by product of the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Act, is it not? SunMedia, as a private entity, aren't held to the same content criteria as the CBC, are they?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:17 pm

And 5 is still half of 10. I said I didn't agree with giving them anything. But I'm not even going to hope for that....too many bleeding hearts in our country.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:15 pm
Fair enough, but SunMedia is owned by a much larger corporate entity, and the protection of that corporate umbrella gives SunMedia access to capital that is being subsidized by other sectors. The CBC isn't in the wireless telephone market, for example.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:12 pm
You can call it whatever you want to, but a tax break, is a subsidy, is a handout.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:12 pm

But it's better than nothing.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:11 pm

Everyone needs entertainment that doesn't include the Kardashians, Privatize the CBC and give them the same breaks as Sunmedia. Bingo!, we just saved %500 million dollars a year. I don't even like that solution.....
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 5:09 pm

Yes, which is why I mentioned my distaste for them. and they have received help from the government, but not the 500 million that the CBC claimed. They got breaks, not handouts.I don't agree with that either.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:03 pm
The CBC provides Canadian content to the public airwaves. There needs to be at least a couple of stations up here that aren't addicted to the Kardashian sisters, no? =)
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 5:02 pm
Isn't SunMedia owned by Quebecor?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:43 pm

And yes, I understand that the sun network is disgusting and right wing. but at least we're not giving the a billion dollars for stale entertainment.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:42 pm

What is the CBC providing?...........This is an old article, but it's a good example of the cbc's entitled attitude.http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/19/cbc-lashes-out-over-scrutiny-of-spending
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:41 pm

Correction, We just slashed %10 from their budget. Good job conservative government. (I'll never say good Job Steve)
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:38 pm
Cheers moo, I'd appreciate reading that.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:38 pm
Companies provide goods and services to the market place. That's the comparison. Just because they provide different goods and services, doesn't mean they should operate by a different set of rules. It's the same argument.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:37 pm

I'll find the Sun article about french vs english channel spending by the CBC....It doesn't seem to be on their website anymore.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:36 pm

Why do you have to make any comparison to oil companies? It's a simple question, Is the CBC worth a billion dollars in tax money every year?......NO. Is PBS worth 500 million to the Americans? ..No. Oil subsidies are a different argument.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:29 pm
...sets of rules for different sectors, than why are you angry about there being different sets of rules for different sectors? Is it that you just don't like the goods and services offered by french language television? Because that's not an excuse.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:28 pm
If you're saying that you can hold different sectors to different rules, but at the same time, you're complaining about a perceived 'french programming bias' on the CBC, I'm not sure I understand your argument. If you're not angry about different sets...
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:26 pm
So, it's your opinion, that public broadcasting is COMPLETELY irrelevant?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:25 pm
I listen to CBC radio more than I watch CBCTV, to be honest. Can you cite a source that shows the budgetary bias in the CBC towards french language programming? I'd be interested to see it.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:25 pm

No, I don't want my taxes subsidizing oil companies. and yes, you can hold different sectors to different rules. If one sector is COMPLETELY irrelevant.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:23 pm
Either every company gets to benefit from tax incentives/credits/subsidies, or none of them do. It's either socialism or it's free market enterprise. It can't be one way for some, and the other way for others. You see what I mean?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:23 pm

Do you watch the cbc?....We spend as much on french programming as we do on English, Is the country %50 French? Last year we paid for the french to buy softcore p*** from France and put it on a public network.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:21 pm
This is the disconnect I'm trying to illustrate. You can't hold one sector accountable to a different set of rules, simply because you don't like what goods and services that sector is offering.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:19 pm
Fine. You don't want your taces supporting the CBC. Great. How do you feel about your tax dollars supporting Petro Canada? Or worse, how do you feel about foreign oil companies getting tax subsidies in Canada?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 4:17 pm
A bias towards the french? What are you talking about?
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:16 pm

The only thing I hate more is Manitoba public insurance....Be glad you live in a province with private insurance. Because we're getting f***ed hard.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:14 pm

We spend more than a billion dollars a year to watch reruns of crap that were made in the 70's. Add a bias toward the french, and it's a God d*** national tragedy.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 4:09 pm

Personally, I don't want my tax dollars supporting the CBC, and If I were American I think I'd feel the same about PBS. If these shows are so great, then they'd do just fine on a privately owned and funded network.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 3:46 pm
If both companies are receiving federal aid in order to survive, then both should be subject to the same criticism about receiving that aid, no? Or is big oil just simply too big to be criticized?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 3:44 pm
... excuse me, people.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 3:43 pm
Of course I support the CBC. I'm trying to illustrate the disconnect that exists in the conservative mindset, when they jump up and down and stamp their feet in anger over one company being subsidized, but remain eerily silent for other corporations,...
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 8, 2012, 2:09 pm

So, Do you agree with the money our government spends on the CBC?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 12:42 pm
...is only what, 40 years old? Longer, maybe?
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 12:40 pm
A week ago, not one single one of you had an issue with PBS. Today, because Dr. Oz decreed it from the pulpit, every last one of you hates PBS. But you're right, it must be the left who's brainwashed. I mean, the whole 'end big oil subsidy' argument...
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 12:39 pm
...wilfully disconnect the oil companies from having to do the same thing. You're simply shilling for these companies to keep stealing your tax dollars, while b***** the war drum, looking for big bird's head. Respectfully, you remind me of a sheep.
crankyhead - October 8, 2012, 12:37 pm
Actually, your definition is based entirely on your own interpretation of fact. What is dishonest is that you're arguing that PBS should be able to compete in the free market against ABC, CBS, etc..., without recieving taxpayer subsidies, but then you...
WTFO - October 8, 2012, 3:00 am
BTW, I looked and found that PBS gets about $450M annually. Here's the difference tax breaks are not the same as handouts. The govt can't claim that not taking peoples money is the same as spending our taxes. It's a dishonest argument from the start.
WTFO - October 8, 2012, 2:54 am
more to the story. These tax breaks are not specifically for oil companies. They are the same tax breaks EVERY business gets. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html. Another liberal myth blown up with facts.
WTFO - October 8, 2012, 2:53 am
Being the only one to comment on your poster is sad. Here, let me help your misguided attacks on Exxon. I did some research. The 'subsidies' everyone is talking about are not tax dollars being sent to oil (or Exxon), they are tax breaks. However, there is
crankyhead - October 7, 2012, 10:59 pm
Like Exxon. They get way more money from the taxpayer than PBS does. Not only that, Exxon is a corporation. And 'Corporations are people, my friend.', aren't they? Where's the ire and outrage for Exxon the welfare queen?
crankyhead - September 19, 2012, 12:28 am
Seriously, I made this a year ago. What're the odds?
crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?


TAGS: conoco phillips corporate personhood
Rating: 2.43/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:40 pm
Seriously, I made this a year ago. What're the odds?
crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:16 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?


TAGS: bank of america corporate personhood
Rating: 2/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?


TAGS: citigroup corporate personhood
Rating: 1.67/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?

BUT OUR LEADERS CAN'T - Can't or won't? It's because money speaks louder than people

End Corporate Tax Evasion -

TAGS: corporate tax evasion
Rating: 3.86/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

PapaFox - May 3, 2013, 11:35 am
Your rant about honesty or integrity is irrelevant. Corporations will take advantage of every tax loophole that is legally available, which (again) is the overall point -- close the loopholes.
Renza - May 3, 2013, 10:57 am
It's probably not the honesty or integrity of fellow humans, but rather specifically of corporate executives and politicians who are (generally) widely known for being self serving, greedy, and entirely willing to break laws (hence "white collar crime")
StoneTools - May 3, 2013, 10:16 am
your fellow humans? That does, however, explain why you often times call people liars on this site.
StoneTools - May 3, 2013, 10:15 am
bull****, a consumption tax would not allow tax evasion and would be much more evenhanded. Why is it that you trust lefty politicians without fail and defend even the most ridiculous statements from them, but have no faith in the honesty or integrity of
PapaFox - May 3, 2013, 10:07 am
Which would do nothing to stop the current corporate tax evasion, which is the overall point.
StoneTools - May 3, 2013, 9:15 am
wrong. It's time to do away with the current tax code and put something sensible in place. Like a flat tax or a consumption tax instead.
PapaFox - May 3, 2013, 9:11 am
Exactly. Hence the need to amend the tax code to put a stop to tax evasion.
StoneTools - May 3, 2013, 8:58 am
anything illegal about that? If you had the opportunity to squirrel away your money and not pay taxes on it, would you?


CORPORATE WELFARE - We should hold them to the same standards, yes?

CORPORATE WELFARE - Is this what America needs?

TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 3.69/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

PapaFox - February 20, 2013, 11:06 am
I promise not to tell anyone. :)
BALLS - February 20, 2013, 9:52 am
Holy hell, I actually agree with papafox on something.

Austerity Hypocrisy -

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING - GE's latest acquisition

WHY? - Because there's more corporate profit in war, that's why

TAGS: corporate greed
Rating: 3.42/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Renza - June 26, 2013, 10:04 am
yeah, it's not like we've ever done anything over in the middle east before that...
StoneTools - June 23, 2013, 9:18 am
and just what did we do to cause the terrorists to blow up our embassies and do the 911 thing? Prosper?
KaBoom - June 21, 2013, 4:53 pm
You can't lump me into that category. My point was that we HAVE to spend to be on top technologically, but I agree that a lot of trimming is due and we should stop fighting other people's wars. I think the military calls it the "qualitative edge."
Curlyrocks - June 21, 2013, 4:44 pm
Well not all conservatives, but with the neo-cons and those who support them it's because their the kind of A-holes that get the rest of the world so pi$$ed off at America that it needs a ridiculous budget to defend its self.
Renza - June 21, 2013, 4:21 pm
it's pretty hard to justify the size of our defense budget. why is it that conservatives as a whole always want to talk about cutting spending... up until the defense budget is brought up?
KaBoom - June 21, 2013, 1:13 pm
The liberal idea that if you throw money at a problem it will be fixed drives me nuts. Defense costs a lot because we always strive to be at the forefront of technology so that less of our guys get hurt in combat.
Renza - June 21, 2013, 8:23 am
You may have an idea there, you should lead by example chad
ChadAllen - June 20, 2013, 11:20 pm
Given the degenerative state of our public education system as well as colleges & universities, they're better off in the poor house.

The best congress money can buy -

TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 3.4/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Rudedog - May 2, 2013, 3:50 pm
The corruption of our elected officials.

And you wonder how these things happen? -


TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 3.4/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

thatmfguy - April 9, 2013, 8:44 pm
Stop corporatism, period. 5L

THE REAL WELFARE QUEENS OF MANHATTAN - Producing nothing. Sitting back and collecting money.

TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 3.29/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Rudedog - April 1, 2013, 10:31 pm
But without the help of the congress giving government ( tax payer) insurance, corporations would never take the greedy route of big profits vs risk.
Rudedog - April 1, 2013, 10:26 pm
Yeah, pretty much true. Good insight.

TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS - A cruel joke on the American people.


Prosecute the real criminals -

WALMART - The High Cost of Low Prices

Responsible Change -

CORPORATE GREED - Not to worry, the Republicans will protect their rich friends.

CORPORATE GREED - We could use some help dealing with that.

TAGS: corporate greed
Rating: 3/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Renza - February 26, 2013, 8:02 am
But corporations are people too! they have the same rights to exist and buy off politicians as the rest of us... well, except for the whole legal responsibility thing... Guess they're more like criminals with diplomatic immunity really...

End Corporate Welfare -

TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 2.9/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

SizzleChest - May 7, 2013, 2:48 pm
Here's how: When a business (college) knows the givamint is going to heavily subsidize (forgiven college loans and free granst) their customers (students, including illegals), do I LOWER or RAISE my prices? Rhetorical....
JGalt - May 7, 2013, 8:14 am
your hero did that- changed interest to accrue the day the money was borrowed, instead of graduation day and upped the interest rate to 6%. spreading the wealth!



CORPORATE GREED - Screwing the REAL workers for decades.

JUSTICE - A rare commodity at times.

Workers getting the shaft -

Stop Corporate Welfare -

Priorities -

Corporate Welfare -

Double Standards -

CORPORATE WELFARE - It's time to put a stop to it.

CORPORATE WELFARE - It's time to put a stop to it.

TAGS: corporate welfare
Rating: 2.33/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

ipaprime - February 19, 2013, 8:31 am
hey democrats need to contribute to by cutting spending

CORPORATE WELFARE - How much does the country really need it?

TAGS: corporate welfare sequester
Rating: 2.14/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Renza - March 5, 2013, 7:47 am
O.o I've just seen what you did there... that must have been a bit mind numbing...
crankyhead - March 4, 2013, 9:21 pm
Ritalin, Waldo, Ritalin.
foxrecon19d - March 4, 2013, 8:45 pm
REMIND US AGIAN WHO WON? The only thing that needs to be said to these whining, sniveling, lying, pathetic Obama worshippers every time they open their mouths to make excuses for their lame duck God, Barack Obama.


TAGS: boeing corporate personhood
Rating: 2/5

More politifakes by crankyhead

crankyhead - September 18, 2012, 10:17 pm
Hey Willard... is this the type of 47% you were talking about? Corporations are people, right?

THE GUN INDUSTRY - We don’t care who we sell to, as long as we make a killing.

TAGS: corporate slime
Rating: 1.8/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 3:33 pm
Your fact based retort says it all.
PapaFox - April 23, 2013, 3:28 pm
Your determination to remain ignorant is noted.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 3:08 pm
OMG, this is just too good, i can't leave it alone. Washington DC was in yearly competition to be the murder capital of the US every year. Since the gun ban lifted, they've posted the lowest homicide rate in 25 years.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 1:07 pm
History attests haha. Good lord man. I can't get over that. It's scary how uninformed some people are. Want history? Google the Heller case-2008, and go from there.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 12:57 pm
What color is the sky in your world??? Feinstein/Obama originally proposed a complete gun ban list and new limited magazine capacities. That was in January of 2013 dude. That got slammed down thanks in part to the NRA. Do you seriously not know this?
PapaFox - April 23, 2013, 12:53 pm
The aim of the NRA-ILA is to ensure the industry makes as much profit as possible to whoever will buy their guns. Their actions over the years haven't helped law-abiding citizens one bit, but they definitely have made sure that criminals can get guns.
PapaFox - April 23, 2013, 12:52 pm
Your a**umption would be wrong, as history attests. Their political arm, NRA-ILA, was formed in the 1970's. The 2nd Amendment was safe without them for almost 200 years.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 12:38 pm
and yet, without the NRA, it can be safely a**umed that my 2nd amendment rights would now be a shadow of what they are today. Would you dispute this? They get the results I want, which are to successfully defend my 2nd amendment rights.
PapaFox - April 23, 2013, 12:24 pm
The NRA doesn't give a d*** about your gun rights. It's an industry mouthpiece that responds to anything that threatens guns sales.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 9:07 am
Um.. the NRA battles for gun rights, sure. That's not in dispute. What is, is your argument that the NRA responds to shootings unprovoked. That's not what the NRA responds to. The NRA responds to attempts by congress to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
PapaFox - April 23, 2013, 9:00 am
The ignorance is strong with this one. The NRA has been battling against gun control for decades, well before Feinstein showed up. Face it, you've been played like a 2 dollar banjo, and you don't have the sense to realize it.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 8:38 am
It's simple supply and demand. The threat of supply dropping to zero amplified demand. The fact that you don't get this shows which one of us is being played here. Unless gullibility is ***y where your from, i'd rethink your argument.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 8:36 am
When liberals threatened to outlaw AR15's, the shelves emptied with people looking to get their arms grandfathered in. It's as simple as that. Obama himself preached the prohibition of 'assault rifles.' That's all the motivation perspective buyers need
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 8:32 am
Your chronology of the facts is misplaced, we'll a**ume based on ignorance as opposed to the willful intent to deceive. It goes like this: Liberals like Feinstein threaten legislation, THEN the NRA responds.
falconfan00 - April 23, 2013, 8:29 am
Are you suggesting Feinstein didn't say this? Let me link it for you... http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50139648n
Renza - April 22, 2013, 5:35 pm
So now you want to force people to do things your way? what happened to being for freedom and liberty, or does that only apply when the things you like or enjoy are in question?
PapaFox - April 22, 2013, 5:20 pm
Congratulations. You've been played by the gun industry.
falconfan00 - April 22, 2013, 5:01 pm
So when Dianne Feinstein says things like, "the intent is to dry up the availability of these types of firearms' that doesn't have an effect on the sales of said firearms, but when the NRA repeats what she says, it does. Mmmm. Ok.
OTC - April 22, 2013, 3:15 pm
Seeing how your hands can be a weapon that you can a**ault someone with, we should ban (assault weapon) hands?
OTC - April 22, 2013, 3:10 pm
Prevent life by wearing your gubmint issued con dom. (You do know its a one time use, right?)
PapaFox - April 22, 2013, 2:47 pm
Hence this poster.
PapaFox - April 22, 2013, 2:47 pm
Of course. Every time there's a major shooting the NRA goes batsh*t screaming that the gov is gonna take your guns ANY DAY NOW, and the gullible fall for it very time. Mass murders are the best thing that ever happened to the NRA and the gun industry.
Renza - April 22, 2013, 1:18 pm
So, preventing life, is bad, killing something that's been living for a few years is ok though? sounds legit.
falconfan00 - April 22, 2013, 12:21 pm
LOL. Feinstein and Obama have done more for gun sales in the past 5 years than LaPierre could do in a lifetime, and that's a fact. LaPierre has been CEO of the NRA since '91, and i've never seen shelves empty like they have in the last 5 years.
PapaFox - April 22, 2013, 12:13 pm
You misspelled Wayne LaPierre
falconfan00 - April 22, 2013, 11:22 am
Yes. You are correct. I am referring to a fear monger who preaches paranoia and emotion rather than logic. Specifically, Diane Feinstein.
PapaFox - April 22, 2013, 11:20 am
I take it you refer to the paranoia mongers who scream that the government is going to take their guns away?
falconfan00 - April 22, 2013, 11:01 am
THis is so true. It's actually a huge pain in the rear these days to find ammo of ANY kind, thanks to these gun control nuts driving moderate consumers to the gun stores in droves.
falconfan00 - April 22, 2013, 11:00 am
Not scared of the NRA... Scared of the constituency represented by the NRA, and scared of the NRA's ability to mobilize that constituency come election time.
PapaFox - December 24, 2012, 9:30 am
The Brady Act didn't outlaw a**ault weapons. The a**ault Weapons Ban *would* have prevented it, but it expired under Bush's administration, and he was too scared of the NRA to extend it. FFS, try using your brain once in a while. :-D
foxrecon19d - December 24, 2012, 8:33 am
Ahhhhh...so the Brady Gun Control Act stopped Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook! They never happened because of the Brady Gun Act. Good job killing your own arguement, idiot.
foxrecon19d - December 24, 2012, 8:31 am
Interesting how these anti-gun idiots, in their fanatical efforts to take guns away from law abiding citizens are actually the ones who have forced gun sale profits through the roof! Good job, anti-2nd amendment lunatics!
foxrecon19d - December 24, 2012, 8:29 am
Interesting that crankyhead and the rest of the Obama worshipping sycophants define law-abiding citizens as "crazy people"...just as their God Obama told them to think. BTW, crankyhead, tell us again how you support ABORTION. Hypocrite much?
PapaFox - December 23, 2012, 2:47 pm
Say that to people like Ronald Reagan, who supported the Brady Gun Control Act.
crankyhead - December 23, 2012, 2:46 pm
Interesting that Foxrecon and the rest of the pro life crowd, think that it's more imprtant for crazy people to have access to firearms, than it is for toddlers to have access to a future.
50cal - December 23, 2012, 2:24 pm
Agreed, also find it funny that many of the people who are pro gun control don't understand it does nothing in terms of keeping weapons out of criminals reach. Its would be like smack, weed, etc today. Only deviants who are breaking the laws would have it
foxrecon19d - December 23, 2012, 11:52 am
foxrecon19d - December 23, 2012, 11:52 am
Interesting that, for political purposes ONLY, PapaFox and the rest of the pro-bay murdering liberal Democrats are now screaming about a child's right to life. Hypocrite much?

REPRESSION & GREED - Who's learning from whom?

TAGS: corporate greed
Rating: 1.67/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Renza - February 25, 2013, 11:20 am
Yes, of course americans vastly disapprove of obama, why else would the majority of voters vote him into office... I see no flaw in this logic.
PapaFox - February 24, 2013, 5:06 am
You're having delusions again Vicky.
vbattaile - February 23, 2013, 9:58 pm
I find it fascinating that you didn't run a similar story 2 weeks ago from Gallop that showed the majority of Americans diagree with Obama on EVERY major issue except the job he has done on terrorism. We get it.....you slept in that day.

Senile Socialist Sanders -

Hollyweird Hypocrite -

The Export-Import Bank: Corporate Welfare on the Backs of American Taxpayers -

Fast Tracking the End of U.S. Sovereignty -

Liberal Hypocrisy -