Facts? Liberals Don't Need Them!

It's amazing how allergic to facts liberals can be. They come on your comment section, probably never even having read a word you wrote other than the headline, and off they go without offering a shred of evidence other than "they said it."

Then mysteriously they scurry away after being told to maybe post a link or two. Recently one actually came back later and posted one from Vanity Fair. Now if that isn't an authoritative source I don't know what one would be. Why not just post a link to MSNBC so we can watch comedy? When that didn't word he scurried back with another just as absurd. Next up was probably going to be Wikipedia.

Lets watch an enjoyable video before moving on.

Lets look at some facts again why the use of facts mean nothing to a liberal. There motto is to do anything within their means in an attempt to justify the end result they want. Lately it has centered around Obamacare. Let me suggest to a liberal to turn off MSNBC, or for that matter any of the major Lame Stream Media news stations, to get their news straight up. I suspect that the hospital emergency rooms would be packed with liberal heart attack victims if they had to swallow the truth.

Back to Obamacare and Obama's "little white lie" about people being able to keep there doctor and existing insurance policies if they liked their coverage. The lie was told to ease the passage of Obamacare. If he told it any other way it wasn't going to happen. Now even a liberal should understand that fact.

Well now, the liberal media soon enough found out that actually reporting the facts is hazardous to their careers. This is Chicago type politics in action and anything goes to get to the goal, even moving the goal posts. there was a very subtle shift in the language they started using. He "over sold" the program. He didn't lie at all. They totally went back to ignoring the facts. President Obama has never lied to the American people before. Right? He wouldn't do that. right?

Lets watch another video.

How Can Anyone Now Believe This Man?

I know. He just said those things to get elected the first time. That's how old those lies are. More subtleties from the left. Losing the insurance policy you like at the price you prefer is good for you. Nanny state knows best is so unrefreshing at this point. Lets ignore the fact that the federal government is mandating to insurance companies what has to be covered whether you like it or not. Little things like maternity care for people who don't need ti. One size fits all in Liberalville. So suck it up because it's a better insurance policy and costs more whether you want it or not.

They moved through two distance shifts trying to sell the first two lies. Interesting how things shape shift in Liberalville. Ben mentions Al Gore in the first video. We were discussing "global warming" at one point during dinner last night. Global warming was book cooking at its best and al got rich on his hysteria. When there was no evidence that it exists the language changed. That's the liberal way you see. It is now called "Climate Change."

Somehow in Liberalville they don't realize that climates have been changing since the beginning of creation. It's Mother Natures way of taking care of the planet. Using that disproved theory further means that any changes in climate are attributed to human beings. Liberals pass that off as fact.

Being a conservative myself of long standing it took me a while to understand that I can't just objective truth. Liberals deny its existence. Here I was being foolish thinking that if the actual facts are laid out logic would kick in and the truth would be accepted as the truth. That isn't how things work in Liberalville I assure you. To them they hang onto their falsehoods for dear life even while being slapped around by facts.

Another thing that concerns me is that even when confronted with the facts you probably aren't going to get it through as liberal's thick head that they are wrong. You see, liberals never admit they are out there in left field. I could mention a few names here on Hub pages that definitely applies to but they might show up and deny that too. In Liberalville their whole political existence is in jeopardy if they are wrong which is normally the case.

Obama is another example of pushing forward known failed policies that don't fit capitalism. Now I realize that word is a skin crawler to a liberal but this nation works that way. Obama has surrounded himself with Keynesian economists and it doesn't work. it works fine until you run out of others people's money. But other people's money is no object to a liberal. Spend like a drunken sailor and hope something sticks.

This article is a companion piece to my The Stupid People Theory and the link can be found below if you missed it. The bottom line that liberals don't want to be confused by facts and they get testy when you try it. To those residing in Liberalville facts just confound their belief that you don[t need such things to progress with any of their sacred cow policies and procedures that they want the rest of us to live by.

If you really want to confuse a liberal then just use facts and logic. I do it all the time and watch them as their panties get in a twist.

Vote It," "Like" It, "Tweet" It, "Pin " It, "Share It" With Your Followers. Time to let em read it and keep reading it.

As Always,

The Frog Prince

Crap Talking Is Just What It Is!

More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word
    18

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...


Comments 29 comments

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

Jim, I sometimes wish we could have two separate governments and a citizen could choose the one they liked best. The rule would be that once that choice is made, there is no going back.

With all the conflict over voter ID requirements, I doubt they would want to hear about a required voter IQ test before they could hand us the ballot. Heck, that would require knowing the name of the Vice President and things like that.

I find it amazing that we will not be allowed to see how many have enrolled for Obamacare before the middle of the month. Either the results are so poor they are ashamed, or their monster website is not capable of keeping count?

But you are very correct, stupid people should not be allowed to cast a ballot for any office higher than dog catcher.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Mike - The results will be one of two things - 1) atrocious or 2) an outright lie. Most of the enrollments it turns out are for Medicaid. Now talk about substandard insurance!


Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 3 years ago from Tazeland Islands

LOL Sooooo true, all of your hub. I've noticed on Hub Pages when confronted with facts they cannot refute they simply change the subject or go on as if you never dispelled anything they said. I don't know anyone personally who is like that and I can't imagine having a personal relationship of any kind with someone who is like that.


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 3 years ago

Everything one needs to know about O-man can be found in the song Nowhere Man by the Beatles. They were obviously ahead of their time.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 3 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

That may be but here is the song that tells you all you need to know about his supporters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMZKNYaIdvs


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 3 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

A required voter IQ test would never work. it would get twisted into meaning rolling your eyes at a political conservative.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 3 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

This one's for you ground squirrel, now that he is a confirmed LAME DUCK:

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8481382_f520.jpg


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 3 years ago from Northern Germany

What is this rant about liberals ignoring facts good for? Doesn´t get you anywhere.

Looking from the outside at the political situation in the US, it is becoming clearer every day that the political party who stands for conservative values is loosing contact to the people. There is a change in demography, the so called middle class is vanishing and all that conservatives do is insist on their values and reflect to glorious past 200 years. This will not be enough.

May be Mr. Obama and his administration do many things wrong. But they do one thing right, the do understand that the people of the US are changing.

No matter of how much liberals ignore facts, if things continue this way then the next administration after Mr. O. will also be not conservative. And this will happen not because Mr. O. did a good job but because conservatives ignore demographic facts.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

CHRIS57 - You said "that the people of the US are changing." That is true, but are they changing because they want to change or because they have to change? Not all change is good change.

Yes, our middle class is disappearing but unfortunately the majority are moving from middle class to lower class. Very few are able to rise to the so called upper class in our current economy.

Good jobs are rapidly disappearing, and many former full-time employees now find themselves working part-time due to employer rules under Obamacare.

The abundant opportunities that once existed in this country have all but disappeared. I feel badly that my children and grandchildren will not enjoy the freedom and incredible opportunities that existed in my youth.


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 3 years ago

Hey Chris' ... wilkommen to the asylum. You have rightly observed that no visible signs of progress will result from the aforementioned diatribe. Allow me to expand the discussion to a concept. I call it "standing before the ugly rock". Imagine, if you will, a large open expanse of cottony soft grass. The kind of grass you could go barefoot on forever. In the distance you see a bump in the horizon. Well now, if such a thing can be seen from this distance, it must surely be of insurmountable size. So, being a right thinking individual, you would make a tiny, almost meaningless from an energy expenditure perspective, course correction to avoid that "bump". The lazy individual ignores it. Choosing instead to deal with it later because, it's way over yonder or something like that. As you get closer, you start to notice details about that "bump" in the landscape. It is a rock. A huuuuuuuuuuuuuge rock. And it is an ugly rock. So ugly it makes your brains burn to look at it. The right thinking guy will certainly be gratified that he avoided that nightmare. The lazy guy is going to walk right up to it, not too worried, thinking he can find a way around it, over it or under it because he's a really smart guy and no obstacle is too difficult. By golly, he's got university in him! But this is no ordinary rock. It's the dugong from hell. A person would spend the rest of his days in a vain attempt to go around it. It's precipice is far too high and too challenging to scale. By George, it's the ugly rock, damnit. That's the whole point. You can't beat it, you can only avoid it if you have eyes that see. Throw away all your preconceptions of conservative and liberal, right and left, up and down. Life is not two dimensional. Don't victimize yourself. Stop standing before the ugly rock. There is a solution. Turn around, walk in a new direction. The only catch is, nobody can see your ugly rock but you. Nobody can see my ugly rock but me. It's that personal. You see, I am a mechanic. I tend to strip away emotions from my reasoning. I prefer a macro solution like .... oh, say .... maybe .... annex Mexico. Yeah, that's it. Annex Mexico.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Chris - An article such as this points out some things you deny. That's the main purpose because maybe just a part of it will get through to one person who remains in denial that Obama and his minions are as corrupt as corrupt can be. I don't accept being lied to Chris by anyone, especially the President of this country. I am talking about being knowingly lied to and then seeing the person who did it have the audacity to step before the cameras and compound the first lie with more lies. That is what we are witnessing. We see either that or the man supposedly in charge is so disconnected that he gets his information from the news channels. That is as far fetched as one can get.

It has been pointed out here first that all change isn't necessarily good change. The man told us he was going to "fundamentally" change this nation. He failed to define that and the low info voters fell for it. This nation didn't need the fundamental change Obama, a stone cold Progressive, is talking about.

You see Chris I have the right to express my thoughts about what I see here. That's my right and I sure don't care to lose it by being a sheeple following an idiot.

I have known TheGroundSquirrel for years and know him to be a wise man who has a way with words. I suggest you read his reply several times if need be so that you can grasp exactly what he was pointing out to you if you failed at that. Then maybe go back up and read what I wrote about it and remove those blinders and actually think about it and the course our country is on. Obama thinks there is such a thing as a free lunch Chris. I know that there never is and changing the subject, when the subject is as serious as what we are now facing, is not a sound idea.

The Frog


Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 3 years ago from Tazeland Islands

Who is Annex Mexico? Is that another weird name like Barack Obama. just kidding guys...I thought I'd provide an uninformed, low information voter perspective on GS's "soliloquy" - try as you will, Frog and GS to enlighten I fear we have hit the point of diminishing returns...GREAT hub and comments though (from you guys).


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 3 years ago from Northern Germany

Hey TheGroundSquirrel, may i borrow your bump in the landscape for a minute?

There are 2 groups/parties of people standing in our landscape. The leader of one group shows his group where to go. It is an ultimate goal, let me call it: "Let us and future generations be better off than past generations". That goal is universal and so the other group without a leader also wants to thrive for it.

But here comes our bump into play. While the one group with the leader showing the way can see the goal cleary in the distance, the other group can also see the goal, but they see it in direct line with our favourite ugly rock, our bump in the landscape, the goal is behind that rock. So the second group may choose to go directly for the goal, but .. you already described what will happen, that group will run into problems.

The first group is also not necessarily on direct track, but they can afford to squander , because there is no ugly rock in their way.

Eventually the second group finds out that going direct way was not the best idea. They start to scream at the infamous leader of the first group who had dared to show the goal.

The rock is the change in society, in demography, in you name it. To me the recent crazy action of the T.P. was nothing else but running straight into that rock.

Normally in a landscape there are only few bizarre rocks but many hills and mountains. In this landscape we have a flock of sheep that has to go home for food, shelter, water. Home is behind a hill. Which path will this innocent flock of sheep choose? A: Around the hill, long way but low effort? B: Straight over the hill, shortest way but high effort? C: A gently slope may be half way up the hill but shortcutting the long way around the hill and also reducing the climbing effort?

This stupid flock of sheep will most certainly choose C: the optimum path. This is very much common sense i would say. How can plain stupid mammals display so much common sense?

I understand that expressions like "low information voters", "stupid people shouldn´t vote" are sarcastic overstatements. People are not ignorant, people are not stupid. For individuals, well that is another story.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Bad news Chris. I'm getting the feeling you are very young. My children and all after are being handed crap on a silver platter and you want to call that good? $17 trillion in debt and counting. Including unfunded liabilities it is astronomical. Don't believe me? Google "National Debt Clock" and take a hard look. Your pie in the sky view of what is going on is laughable but pathetic at the same time.

Every economist worth his salt right now is telling the nation that this excessive spending is unsustainable. So instead of beating your gums tell us how we are going to unsaddle future generations rather than continue to pile debt on them?

I hope you're not inferring that Obama is a leader son. He knows nothing about it and from your comments he has you totally duped. So write us a Hub about getting the nation out of this mess and electing HONEST politicians rather than fraudulent teleprompter readers.

If you'd devote your time to actually doing some study of history, politics and what is really going on rather than listening to a pack of lies a political party keeps feeding you then you might finally GET IT. Our nation is in dire straits and heading over a fiscal cliff. Not sure where you think we can get any currency that is worth much once the world cuts off our credit limit for being fiscally irresponsible. Or maybe you're going to tell me, "THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN?" Guess what?

We're staring right at it. All those corrupt azzhats in both parties know that. They are the same people who created this mess and now they are running scared. That's as it should be.

Your Chris are in denial and that is exactly what this Hub addresses. People in this country like you who continue to believe lie, after lie, after lie with some weird form of rationalization.


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 3 years ago from Northern Germany

Frog - 17 Trillion debt is certainly not much to be proud of. But looking at this little gadget "debt clock", well that same collection of figures also displays some 105 Trillion in national assets. So debt vs assets - something to worry about? I don´t think so. By the way: Unfunded liabilities are future. Has nothing to do with past and present debt and assets. Or would you include in your household debt and asset balance sheet any future electricity bills, gasoline checks or whatever will have to be payed in the coming years? In accountants words this means denomination to present values.

The US as a whole has piled up some 300% of GDP in total debt. And every year some 5% adds to the pile. You ask me how to "unsaddle future generations"? First understand the nature of the public debt explosion during the Obama administration (Change of household and corporate debt into public debt). Second understand where said 5% annual increase in total debt come from (annual current account deficit). Third correlate the current account deficit with the vanished industrial sector (you need 15% producing sector to maintain economic status quo but the US only has 10% industrial basis, rest is outsourced, has to be imported). Forth create an economic environment to promote production in the US, not baking Pizzas (priority education for industrial sciences, technology, not law schools and Paul Krugman breeders). Fifth get back to making things, not just consuming.

When your grandchildren and my grandchildren were to discuss their grandpas, they would probably find out that they were not much apart. However i don´t get a headache from bumping against Groundsquirrels ugly rock, while you...


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Chris - Look at the unfunded liabilities and see if the light comes on for you. I understand the debt clock and the mechanics of the debt. The only thing that gives me a headache are people who are in denial that excessive spending is now over the cliff and has to be reversed. The rock is there so recognize what was said or deny it. I believe you are right there beating your head against it thinking it will just be wished away. That isn't going to happen and economic pain is coming whether you like it or not.


Stu 3 years ago

Frog - Great post as usual.

Chris57 - The "fact that liberals ignore facts" is definitely something to focus on. The plurality of US voters are centrists, and thus in most cases decide who gets elected to what. The more effectively conservatives can discredit progressive policies in the minds of centrists, the faster we can purge Congress of Democrats and RINO's (GOP statists in conservative disguise). A return to our "glorious past" of 200 years ago is what most Americans will be begging for when foreign sovereign wealth funds wake up and realize we can't pay our bills without inflating the money supply, and they begin to refuse to roll over their maturing US treasuries. At that point the game is up, and if the federal government doesn't cut spending drastically to pay the maturing debt in real money, we'll have to pay off these obligations in "fake cash" - trillions of fresh new greenbacks printed by the Federal Reserve that will lead to Wiemar Republic style price hyperinflation, crushing American savings, destroying businesses en masse, and igniting massive unemployment as a result the obvious dollar collapse that will accompany the money supply inflation. Who cares if the American People are "changing?" Last I read, changing US Constitutional law still requires supermajority approval of both the federal Congress and the State legislatures. The only reason Americans are changing is because the moonbat progressive brainwashers in DC are successfully convincing too many US voters that socialist central planning of everything is better than freedom (clearly, some jerkweed left-wing academic-turned-bureaucrat in Camelot-On-Potomac knows what's better for me than I do). And federal government implements this socialist agenda via conventional federal code that rapaciously and unlawfully violates the US Constitution. Demographic facts only determine who gets elected, not who should get elected. US society is becoming more lazy, unethical, and greedy by the day. This is reflected in the worthless flotsam we elect as Presidents and members of Congress. I know little about German politics, and I don't know how much you know about American politics, but if you are familiar with Nigel Farrage of Great Britain's UKIP, this is the model of the type of statesman we need to saturate US government with in all three federal branches, especially at the top echelons. Put simply, we need to (1) get the federal government out of the "business of business" and put it back in the hands of the private sector where our Founders intended it, (2) get the States to enact laws that put an end to family-destroying social policies like abortion, deviant marriage, LGBT "special rights," etc. that are forcing our society to devolve into moral anarchy, and (3) strike a middle course in geopolitics that eschews our idiotic perpetual pendulum of radical isolationism followed by petro-focused imperialism and back again (i.e., go back to the US Founder goal of avoiding unnecessary entanglements, while at the same time defending our rightful interests when they are threatened, or as President Teddy Roosevelt put it over 100 years ago, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick").


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stu - The Fed has been monetizing our debt for quite some time. The percentage gets larger all the time. Eventually the economic wheels fall off from that fatal economic policy. When we start delving into the problems the federal reserve has caused it will be alarming. Why does anyone not wonder why any of those pick pockets we have sitting in Washington DC DO NOT want the fed audited. It would result in an economic calamity of proportions the world has never seen. Those are the same groups of people we are now asking to fix what they themselves created in the first place. Without a wholesale changing of the guard, and I mean the majority of them, sitting there warming those seat cushions we're going to keep witnessing the same bad policies (warmed over) that we know won't work.

The Frog


Stu 3 years ago

CHRIS57 - We don't have "$105 trillion in national assets;" we have $105 trillion in national LIABILITIES (investor owned federal debt, intragovernmental federal debt, and federal off balance sheet liabilities (mainly accrued but not yet due entitlement system obligations)). Our federal "assets" consist of $350 billion in gold bullion, and $650 billion of unused federal office space (which could be sold or rented). In other words, the US federal government owes $105 trillion (700% of GNP), and has $1 trillion in liquid and semi-liquid assets. If you can't see we are already dead meat, I can't explain it to you.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stu - Chris is maybe confused about what assets belong to whom. It's easy to do if you don't understand the numbers on that clock.


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 3 years ago from Northern Germany

Sure i am confused with this debt clock gadget. Kind of difficult to understand how the current budget item Medicaid/Medicare is 861 Billion and the (supposedly associated) Medicare liability is 87 Trillion. At current rate it would 100 years to get there. Ah - we could easily make it 870 Trillion. Then we look 1000 years ahead.

Stu: what are you talking about national assets being liabilities? 28 Trillion corporate and 77 Trillion household assets make up the 105 Trillion. I consider the corporate assets a little low because i am not sure that financial business is included. But what has this to do with "off balance sheet liabilities"?

I don´t trust this gadget very much. Some figures can be cross-checked easily, others don´t make any sense. Example: US debt held by foreign countries is going down. How? As long as there is a trade deficit, this figure will go up. Simple as it is, but apparently not according to the gadget.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 3 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Chris, let me understand you - you think that 105 trillion in assets owned by private corporations and private households now belongs to the government thus giving the government a good debt to asset ratio? I didn't realize the government had already made us a totally socialist state - did Obama do that? Was I napping when this happened? Well that solves everything - they own everything so we should't even have to pay taxes anymore - it's all theirs?


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Chris - Those assets don't belong to the federal government. Is it that you think that everything we own belongs to who? That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I'm beginning to get a fairly good picture about your not using logic, reasoning and common sense in your thought process.

The unfunded liabilities are those which are outside of the federal budget. In many cases they spent the money that was supposed to fund them. Get the picture now a bit clearer? They are a fairly accurate representation of the IOU's owed by the federal government. I really do suggest that you expand any knowledge you have by researching what we are discussing here.

The Frog


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 3 years ago from US

I am past wanting Obama impeached, I want him arrested! I cannot bear to look at this man citizens have helped to destroy this country and stashing away millions for when it is time to get the hell out. That cheating wife right along with him! There are no words for what I feel.


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 3 years ago from Northern Germany

Didn´t say that this figure in the debt clock gagdet are federal government assets. From my understanding of macroeconomics the real figure of importance is the total sum of all debt (household, corporate, financial and public) and all assets. If you add all up with debt being negative and assets being positive, then every economy on this planet will end up with a positive value. It only depends on how high the percentage of debt is compared to the assets.

For fairly well managed, developed, rich economies on this planet, total assets should be in the range of 700 to 900% of GDP. The US being more on the 900% side. And that is why the mentioned number 105 Trillion makes sense. It fits well within the range of rich developed countries even though it appears to be too low. Well, that is what i call a positive cross-check.

While trying to understand what unfunded liabilities are, i ran over this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/w...

Well, this Sen. Tom Coburn apparently refered to exactly the gadget that we are discussing right here. That kind of shocks me. How can someone go public with this undocumented and partially contradictory Java script? Please try to understand what those "Unfunded liabilities" really are, an attempt to sum up all money to be payed in the future with infinite horizon.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Chris - Your use of the definition here doesn't really apply. I do fully understand what those unfunded liabilities are. Please actually KNOW that the federal government has all those UNFUNDED IOU's that have to be funded or the citizens lose the money that many of them have put into systems that were pillaged. That includes most of us Chris. So you may want to wake up to the level of theft that has occurred. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of the debt clock. Senator Coburn may not either. Senator Coburn is not on my GOD list Chris. I am a true conservative and Constitutionalist.

FYI I am also neither a Democrat or Republican. I am an Independent and have been for decades now.


Stu 3 years ago

CHRIS57 - Re your comment "what are you talking about national assets being liabilities? 28 Trillion corporate and 77 Trillion household assets make up the 105 Trillion. I consider the corporate assets a little low because i am not sure that financial business is included. But what has this to do with 'off balance sheet liabilities'?"

You are confusing PRIVATE ASSETS with FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT.

The federal government OWES:

(1) Investor Owned Treasury Securities - $11 trillion

(2) General Fund Liabilities to Federal Agencies - $6 trillion

(3) Accrued Liabilities of Federal Social Programs - $60 trillion (at minimum, if you trust government actuarial projections)

(4) Bailout Liabilities for Federal Housing Agency Obligations - $30 trillion

(5) Accrued Federal Retirement Benefits - $ 5 trillion

The federal government OWNS:

(1) $350 billion in gold bullion.

(2) $650 billion in unused office space (the rest is in use so can't be sold or leased).

Get it? The US government OWES over $100 trillion, but OWNS only $1 trillion of salable assets. Follow?


Stu 3 years ago

Frog - "The unfunded liabilities are those which are outside of the federal budget. In many cases they spent the money that was supposed to fund them." Can anyone say "Ponzi?" Uncle Sam makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.


teaches12345 profile image

teaches12345 3 years ago

I can't add anything to what has already been said above. All true!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working