The rich employ me, and if you tax them more they may have to lay off me or one of my co workers. Would you really take away a job and a stream of income away from a hard worker such as those that I work with so that you can sit on your lazy ass all day living off of welfare. YOU are the greedy ones, now fuck you and please leave, thank you.
the rich have lower tax rates than their secretaries, as they keep saying, right now, and that's not a good policy, the rich are hoarders the middle class and poor are spenders
@YOYOdaMOOSE Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They have more than me.take it all away and gove it to Losers like you.Get over it Asshole.The world owes you NOTHING and thats all you deserve
lol if you have more you give more this is not complicated, tax rates are the lowest they've been in a long time so obviously the job creator theory isn't panning out, all anyone is suggesting is that they return the tax rates to what they were in the 90's, no need to resort to being a dick when the facts are against you you can join us in the logical world anytime
What I don't hear is "Millionaires shouldn't draw Medicare, Social Security, VA nor any other government assistance." It wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes so much if millionaires were cut off.
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money, and put their leaders in prison, we must reduce workers salaries, and take away their right to strike."
Unions protect the lazy, uneducated and otherwise incapable. When these kids start demanding more and more they need to be reined in like the kids they are.
Every union member i have ever met has an entitlement attitude and treats their union like it's a religion. maybe these cowards should grow a pair and start their own business if they want to dictate their pay and benefits. Pathetic
Surprising how ignorant union members are. I'll bet there isn't one who could say what the Constitution says or even know the difference in Democracy and our Constitutional Republic. This administration is purposely using union member thugs to disrupt this country. No surprise since ovomit is supported by unions.
@ArizonaSean Which is it, are they workers in a union, or on welfare? And calling them "thugs" is a bit extreme, don't you think? Things got a little heated, there was some name calling, but nobody became violent. And before you respond that it was the police that prevented any violence, let me just say that you have no proof there would have been any violence, anyway, without the cops.
Wow these goons are saying tax the rich as if it's against the law to achieve the American Dream...If one becomes rich in this country, it show others that others can be rich too! It's a free flippin' country!!!
@nitagirl614 Is it a free country? For most Americans the 40+ hours they spend at work can feel an awful lot like a dictatorship. Sure, they could find a new job, with the same authoritarian structure. Or, they could start their own business, with all of the $7.50 an hour they have been making and putting into savings. Maybe being rich shouldn't be something we all aspire to, maybe being rich cuts off resources from those that need them more. Maybe being rich should be against the law.
The top 1% of wage earners in this country currently pay 40% of all individual federal income taxes. The bottom 40% of wage earners have a net-zero federal tax liability. Amazing how the supposedly educated & enlightened have no idea what they are talking about. Worse they indoctrinate children with their idiotic rhetoric five days a week, 9 months a year. Oh, wait...thats when they are not attending a rally & encouraging class warfare on our dime.
@Zapppo The idea that most rich people pay no taxes is rediculous. The term 'wage earners' is typically applied in this sense to people who file a 1040. Most millionaires & billionaires are filing as an s-corp, c-corp, llc, partnerships, or other leagal constructs. If they take salary or distrubutions, it will indeed be taxed as personal income. If you think that anyone is putting a million a month in their personal bank account, and paying no tax on it, I'd like to sell you some carbon credits.
Wow...just looked into your sources, took all of 10 minutes to figure out that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and Robert Kiyosaki was an absolute failure until marketing his book in amway (LOL) mostly inside the amway pyrimid to the saps at the bottom. Kiyosaki is a motivational speaker and got lucky in MLM, but he is no economist.
Well, good for you. You can use Google and spent all of 10 minutes researching this. Yeah. That makes you informed. FYI the FBI believes ins conspiracy theories, they prosecute people for them even as we speak. Kiyosaki owns gold mines in Africa, Silver mines in South America, owns %'s of output on oil wells, & 4,000 units in apartment buildings & co-wrote a book with Donald Trump titled; "Why We Want You To Be Rich" that predicted the financial crisis you see before you now.
@tungstencarbide100 The top 1% of wage earners in this country only pay 40% of all individual income taxes?! Sounds to me like they should be paying 99% of taxes! Why should the bottom 40% pay a dime? Let the rich pay for it! By the way, who the hell has called for class warfare?! Last time I checked, it was the TEA party ilk carrying guns at rallies during the health-care debate.
@DrGonzo358 The reason it would be unwise to attempt to force 'the rich' to pay more than they already do is that incentives matter. Eventyally you will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Why would anyone work for the next dollar if they only get to keep 20 cents? As to why the bottom 40% should pay a dime, is so they have some 'skin in the game' as obmama would say. Once 60% of the country can vote themselves a free ride from the other 40%, the entire economy will collapse. Even if you
@tungstencarbide100 Incentives do matter. That's why it is important to keep the rich from getting too rich, otherwise, it becomes a question of "what's another million dollars added to billions?" Let's make the rich have to actually earn a living. I say, let's kill the goose that lays the golden egg, boil it, and feed it to the poor. And I'm saying that as a vegetarian. The bottom 40% have all their skin in the game, already. Forcibly redistributing the wealth will certainly cause them to make
@DrGonzo358 more money. As 1 well runs dry, 50 others can be dug based on the new-found wealth of everyone who isn't a 1%er. If small businesses are the economic engines of this country, then let's break up the big business monopolies and use their detritus to build more small businesses. Carrying a gun at a political rally, where things can get very heated very quickly, is certainly threatening, and unwise. I'm not placing blame on the TEA party or the right for what happened in the following
@DrGonzo358 example, but just ask Gabby Giffords why bringing guns to political events is dangerous. Or ask JFK, MLK, or RFK, for that matter. Nobody wants to see a TEA party event turn into a Boston massacre. As to the question of the second amendment, I'm going to have to disagree with the supreme court and say that the phrasing only protects the right of a "well regulated militia" (the state National Guards, not Uncle Bob's backwoods bandits) to "keep and bear arms," not the individual.
@DrGonzo358 Incentives matter & your a vegitarian, on this we can agree. The bottom 40% of income earners have all their skin in the game, redistributing wealth will cause more to money to be made, and carying guns in public is unwise & threatening, are merely empty assertions. Controll the rich, break up big buisness, kill the means of growth & proffit, redistribution. Do you want to install an oligarchy, or just the economic dimension of fascism? As to the the honerable dead & injured you
@DrGonzo358 have refrenced, I imagine thier response to your query a little hard to determine, certainly you don't know anymore than I. Are you saying that violent people that commit illegal acts wouldn't do so without a gun? Or that honerable citizens who carry a gun legally will suddenly turn crazed killer because they carry one?
Sorry, carrying a gun just dosent = promoting class warefare.
@tungstencarbide100 1. For the bottom 40%, their income is often a matter of life and death. You don't get much more into the game than that. 2. It is a fact that those with less money spend more that they do bring in, because they often need every dollar to go toward essentials of living, thus circulating the money through the economy. Those with significant assets will often freeze large portions of their wealth in non-circulating investments, thus freezing the money. Ergo, giving more to less
@DrGonzo358 will free up money into circulation, compared to the rich, who will tend to sock it away. And if you give more money to the middle class, they will be more likely to invest their money in a small business of their own. 3. A man who carries an AR-15, an ASSAULT RIFLE, to a political rally is certainly threatening (they are called assault rifles for a reason. Besides, why carry a gun if you don't plan on using it? Even if he expected trouble, why the AR-15? Did he expect the rally to
@DrGonzo358 turn into street warfare)? I don't think that the response of the individuals would be that hard to imagine. I think they would all admit that guns at political events are dangerous, because they were all shot! I haven't even argued that they would all necessarily agree to ban guns at future political events, but they would concede the danger. Violent people who commit illegal acts could certainly still do so without a gun, they just wouldn't be as efficient at it. I don't think the
@DrGonzo358 Giffords gunman could have hurt as many people as he did with a knife. Besides, knifes have other uses. Guns are weapons only, they have no other functions. Your reasoning is specious: Even if the Constitution did grant individuals the right to bear arms, it didn't specify what kind of arms. How about we preserve the right of everyone to bear nuclear weapons? Surface to air missiles? Where do we draw the line? And to be fair, I never said that I thought the right or those with guns
@DrGonzo358 were inciting class warfare. These are my assertions, but they aren't empty; they are supported by logic. Finally, as to the question of if I want to install an oligarchy or "just the economic dimension of fascism," I say to you that oligarchy is power in the hands of the few (not dissimilar to those now with tons of money that they can use to pollute our political process). By desiring to "spread the money around," my aim is by nature anti-oligarchical. And for the economics of
Most Americans can't afford several hundred $ for a gun, much less any type of ballistic missile. Several guns & a lot of ammunition is a more effective & economically viable way to defend one's family against an oppressive dictator or anarchy, robbers & looters during a natural disaster when it takes a week for the gov to react.
The constitution specifically grants us the individual right to protect ourselves from a government that has become corrupt by a rich oligarchy of any sort.
personally, I don't see that as much as a threat as our own government: US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STD's, Obama giving the ok to assassinate American citizens without a trial, Americans dependent on banks to simply live in America, Obama sending warships, possible getting us involved in & borrowing more money from banksters to support a war in Libya. I'd say those are more imminent threats right now. Only country using high-powered weaponry to kill is the US Gov.
@DrGonzo358 believe that the rich got rich on the backs of the poor, forcibly redistrubuting their wealth will not cause them to make more money....the well will run dry. Your point about class warefare makes no sense. Has the second ammendment been repealed? Are you suggesting that carrying a gun somehow incites unrest between people in different income brackets? Or does it attempt to cast blame on, or demonisze some other group of people? Explain.
So what if Tea Party Citizens exercise their Constitutional Right to bear arms? Have you seen one shoot up school board meetings in Florida & Congresswomen in AZ like the liberals did? Both guns in those instances were hidden, not in plain sight. There are hidden guns all around you, everywhere you go & you're gonna pee your pants when law abiding citizens open carry?
You live in an 'out of sight, out of your mind' fantasy world.
@Zapppo First, the shooters in Tucson and Florida weren't liberal or conservative, they were insane. Secondly, I never said the TEA party would or wanted to commit acts of violence (not that I'm saying they don't want to. It's a broad movement, and it shouldn't be pigeonholed). Thirdly, I wasn't arguing that individuals should carry concealed weapons instead of open carry, I was arguing that it's threatening to be brandishing a weapon like that at a heated political rally. I wouldn't be
@DrGonzo358 comfortable with that weapon around, open or concealed. I don't think that weapon belongs in that environment at all (or any environment, for that matter). Your argument is illogical: Because some carry concealed weapons, I'm supposed to feel better about the ones carrying guns openly?
@DrGonzo358 As to the question of the second amendment, I'm going to have to disagree with the supreme court and say that the phrasing only protects the right of a "well regulated militia" (the state National Guards, not Uncle Bob's backwoods bandits) to "keep and bear arms," not the individual.
@DrGonzo358 Even if the Constitution did grant individuals the right to bear arms, it didn't specify what kind of arms. How about we preserve the right of everyone to bear nuclear weapons? Surface to air missiles? Where do we draw the line? Finally, you'll excuse me if I don't trust your analysis of my grip on reality.
@tungstencarbide100 Oh, & I correct myself: Kiyosaki claims to pocket 2 million per month, income tax free, not 1 million per month as I previously stated.
Funny now a communist class warfare slogan is uttered in USA so proudly by these socialists. So proud of the Tea Party, this is the home front battle against communism after Reagan defeated the soviet reds.
Notice how the cops faced the union crowd? They didn't have to worry about the Tea Party crowd, very telling. I was at the last Tea Party Rally at the Capital and would have been there for this, but I'm working out of state. Thanks to all the Tea Party members and friends that showed up, I was there in spirit.
@123karismith I agree with you that it is telling which way the cops are facing. It is almost invariably the 'tolerent, peaceful' left that engages in violence. The cops know where it comes from...
@tungstencarbide100 "Almost invariably the...left that engages in violence?" Tell that to the civil rights marchers of the '60s, or the kids at Kent State.
Taxing the rich sounds like a good idea to me considering they make their money off the backs of workers and pay less taxes. The idea of being rich was always incentive enough they don't need tax breaks. As for your idea about the direction that the cops where standing I completely agree with you but you should look at all the other videos of this rally because they faced the tea party the majority of the time and most of the arguments started when tea partiers crossed the line.
Tax the rich? That's it? that will fix the bloated pensions and corrupt unions? I don't think so, Go Governor Walker! Lead this country back to liberty!
Dear unionists,
The rich employ me, and if you tax them more they may have to lay off me or one of my co workers. Would you really take away a job and a stream of income away from a hard worker such as those that I work with so that you can sit on your lazy ass all day living off of welfare. YOU are the greedy ones, now fuck you and please leave, thank you.
d3ltadrive 2 weeks ago
The trade unionists say, "Tax the rich," and the middle class tea partiers respond, "Don't tread on me!" lol
8erfromdec 3 months ago
the rich have lower tax rates than their secretaries, as they keep saying, right now, and that's not a good policy, the rich are hoarders the middle class and poor are spenders
YOYOdaMOOSE 5 months ago
@YOYOdaMOOSE Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They have more than me.take it all away and gove it to Losers like you.Get over it Asshole.The world owes you NOTHING and thats all you deserve
dane1848 5 months ago
@dane1848
lol if you have more you give more this is not complicated, tax rates are the lowest they've been in a long time so obviously the job creator theory isn't panning out, all anyone is suggesting is that they return the tax rates to what they were in the 90's, no need to resort to being a dick when the facts are against you you can join us in the logical world anytime
YOYOdaMOOSE 5 months ago
these stupid seiiu members dont realise there 401ks are tied into wallstreet who they mainly protest as the "RICH".
sparky24w 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What I don't hear is "Millionaires shouldn't draw Medicare, Social Security, VA nor any other government assistance." It wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes so much if millionaires were cut off.
vechorik 6 months ago
TAX THE RICH!!! PUNISH THE SUCCESSFUL!!! DONT THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
BabcockdaSolution 7 months ago
This translates to: I'M A LAZY IDIOT! I'M A LAZY IDIOT! I CAN'T DO SHIT FOR MYSELF! I'M A LAZY IDIOT!
What IDIOTS - if they were rich, they wouldn't be singing the same song. hypocritical faggots.
YoItsMePalmer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money, and put their leaders in prison, we must reduce workers salaries, and take away their right to strike."
-- Adolph Hitler May 2, 1933
melvin6767 8 months ago
NEW SLOGAN:
Don't Tread on Any of Us
nottinmatterz2day 9 months ago 2
"tax the rich" What bunch of lazy morons.
Maxwedge12000 10 months ago
Hmmm... Useful idiots.
Unions protect the lazy, uneducated and otherwise incapable. When these kids start demanding more and more they need to be reined in like the kids they are.
Every union member i have ever met has an entitlement attitude and treats their union like it's a religion. maybe these cowards should grow a pair and start their own business if they want to dictate their pay and benefits. Pathetic
iwearwhite 10 months ago
yes god bless the tea party movement
plotiaonrocha8596 10 months ago
God bless the Tea Party!
psychodelicmess 11 months ago
Surprising how ignorant union members are. I'll bet there isn't one who could say what the Constitution says or even know the difference in Democracy and our Constitutional Republic. This administration is purposely using union member thugs to disrupt this country. No surprise since ovomit is supported by unions.
jke2897118 1 year ago
Well, this convinced me that these union members are a bunch welfare thugs.
ArizonaSean 1 year ago
@ArizonaSean Which is it, are they workers in a union, or on welfare? And calling them "thugs" is a bit extreme, don't you think? Things got a little heated, there was some name calling, but nobody became violent. And before you respond that it was the police that prevented any violence, let me just say that you have no proof there would have been any violence, anyway, without the cops.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
Wow these goons are saying tax the rich as if it's against the law to achieve the American Dream...If one becomes rich in this country, it show others that others can be rich too! It's a free flippin' country!!!
nitagirl614 1 year ago
@nitagirl614 Is it a free country? For most Americans the 40+ hours they spend at work can feel an awful lot like a dictatorship. Sure, they could find a new job, with the same authoritarian structure. Or, they could start their own business, with all of the $7.50 an hour they have been making and putting into savings. Maybe being rich shouldn't be something we all aspire to, maybe being rich cuts off resources from those that need them more. Maybe being rich should be against the law.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
The top 1% of wage earners in this country currently pay 40% of all individual federal income taxes. The bottom 40% of wage earners have a net-zero federal tax liability. Amazing how the supposedly educated & enlightened have no idea what they are talking about. Worse they indoctrinate children with their idiotic rhetoric five days a week, 9 months a year. Oh, wait...thats when they are not attending a rally & encouraging class warfare on our dime.
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100
so taking your comment at face value (I've heard it regurgitated verbatim many times) Most people overlook the keyword "wage-earners"
Wage earners are not rich, they earn wages.
Wage earners are not millionaires or billionaires, they are wage-earners.
Most millionaires & billionaires pay NO income tax.
Interviewed on a recent Alex Jones Radio show, Rich Dad Poor Dad, author Robert Kiyosaki said he makes one million per month & pays no income taxes.
So enough about wageEarners
Zapppo 1 year ago
@Zapppo The idea that most rich people pay no taxes is rediculous. The term 'wage earners' is typically applied in this sense to people who file a 1040. Most millionaires & billionaires are filing as an s-corp, c-corp, llc, partnerships, or other leagal constructs. If they take salary or distrubutions, it will indeed be taxed as personal income. If you think that anyone is putting a million a month in their personal bank account, and paying no tax on it, I'd like to sell you some carbon credits.
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100
Ever hear of a schedule A and tax credits & investment incentives moron, or is it too 'rediculous' to be 'leagal' (your spellings)
Zapppo 1 year ago
@Zapppo
Wow...just looked into your sources, took all of 10 minutes to figure out that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and Robert Kiyosaki was an absolute failure until marketing his book in amway (LOL) mostly inside the amway pyrimid to the saps at the bottom. Kiyosaki is a motivational speaker and got lucky in MLM, but he is no economist.
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100
Well, good for you. You can use Google and spent all of 10 minutes researching this. Yeah. That makes you informed. FYI the FBI believes ins conspiracy theories, they prosecute people for them even as we speak. Kiyosaki owns gold mines in Africa, Silver mines in South America, owns %'s of output on oil wells, & 4,000 units in apartment buildings & co-wrote a book with Donald Trump titled; "Why We Want You To Be Rich" that predicted the financial crisis you see before you now.
Zapppo 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100 The top 1% of wage earners in this country only pay 40% of all individual income taxes?! Sounds to me like they should be paying 99% of taxes! Why should the bottom 40% pay a dime? Let the rich pay for it! By the way, who the hell has called for class warfare?! Last time I checked, it was the TEA party ilk carrying guns at rallies during the health-care debate.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 The reason it would be unwise to attempt to force 'the rich' to pay more than they already do is that incentives matter. Eventyally you will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Why would anyone work for the next dollar if they only get to keep 20 cents? As to why the bottom 40% should pay a dime, is so they have some 'skin in the game' as obmama would say. Once 60% of the country can vote themselves a free ride from the other 40%, the entire economy will collapse. Even if you
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100 Incentives do matter. That's why it is important to keep the rich from getting too rich, otherwise, it becomes a question of "what's another million dollars added to billions?" Let's make the rich have to actually earn a living. I say, let's kill the goose that lays the golden egg, boil it, and feed it to the poor. And I'm saying that as a vegetarian. The bottom 40% have all their skin in the game, already. Forcibly redistributing the wealth will certainly cause them to make
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 more money. As 1 well runs dry, 50 others can be dug based on the new-found wealth of everyone who isn't a 1%er. If small businesses are the economic engines of this country, then let's break up the big business monopolies and use their detritus to build more small businesses. Carrying a gun at a political rally, where things can get very heated very quickly, is certainly threatening, and unwise. I'm not placing blame on the TEA party or the right for what happened in the following
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 example, but just ask Gabby Giffords why bringing guns to political events is dangerous. Or ask JFK, MLK, or RFK, for that matter. Nobody wants to see a TEA party event turn into a Boston massacre. As to the question of the second amendment, I'm going to have to disagree with the supreme court and say that the phrasing only protects the right of a "well regulated militia" (the state National Guards, not Uncle Bob's backwoods bandits) to "keep and bear arms," not the individual.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 Incentives matter & your a vegitarian, on this we can agree. The bottom 40% of income earners have all their skin in the game, redistributing wealth will cause more to money to be made, and carying guns in public is unwise & threatening, are merely empty assertions. Controll the rich, break up big buisness, kill the means of growth & proffit, redistribution. Do you want to install an oligarchy, or just the economic dimension of fascism? As to the the honerable dead & injured you
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 have refrenced, I imagine thier response to your query a little hard to determine, certainly you don't know anymore than I. Are you saying that violent people that commit illegal acts wouldn't do so without a gun? Or that honerable citizens who carry a gun legally will suddenly turn crazed killer because they carry one?
Sorry, carrying a gun just dosent = promoting class warefare.
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100 1. For the bottom 40%, their income is often a matter of life and death. You don't get much more into the game than that. 2. It is a fact that those with less money spend more that they do bring in, because they often need every dollar to go toward essentials of living, thus circulating the money through the economy. Those with significant assets will often freeze large portions of their wealth in non-circulating investments, thus freezing the money. Ergo, giving more to less
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 will free up money into circulation, compared to the rich, who will tend to sock it away. And if you give more money to the middle class, they will be more likely to invest their money in a small business of their own. 3. A man who carries an AR-15, an ASSAULT RIFLE, to a political rally is certainly threatening (they are called assault rifles for a reason. Besides, why carry a gun if you don't plan on using it? Even if he expected trouble, why the AR-15? Did he expect the rally to
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 turn into street warfare)? I don't think that the response of the individuals would be that hard to imagine. I think they would all admit that guns at political events are dangerous, because they were all shot! I haven't even argued that they would all necessarily agree to ban guns at future political events, but they would concede the danger. Violent people who commit illegal acts could certainly still do so without a gun, they just wouldn't be as efficient at it. I don't think the
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 Giffords gunman could have hurt as many people as he did with a knife. Besides, knifes have other uses. Guns are weapons only, they have no other functions. Your reasoning is specious: Even if the Constitution did grant individuals the right to bear arms, it didn't specify what kind of arms. How about we preserve the right of everyone to bear nuclear weapons? Surface to air missiles? Where do we draw the line? And to be fair, I never said that I thought the right or those with guns
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 were inciting class warfare. These are my assertions, but they aren't empty; they are supported by logic. Finally, as to the question of if I want to install an oligarchy or "just the economic dimension of fascism," I say to you that oligarchy is power in the hands of the few (not dissimilar to those now with tons of money that they can use to pollute our political process). By desiring to "spread the money around," my aim is by nature anti-oligarchical. And for the economics of
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 fascism, the fascists were anti-union.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358
Most Americans can't afford several hundred $ for a gun, much less any type of ballistic missile. Several guns & a lot of ammunition is a more effective & economically viable way to defend one's family against an oppressive dictator or anarchy, robbers & looters during a natural disaster when it takes a week for the gov to react.
The constitution specifically grants us the individual right to protect ourselves from a government that has become corrupt by a rich oligarchy of any sort.
Zapppo 1 year ago
@Zapppo Because most people can't afford them, are you saying we don't need to worry about anyone getting their hands on high-powered weaponry?
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358
personally, I don't see that as much as a threat as our own government: US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STD's, Obama giving the ok to assassinate American citizens without a trial, Americans dependent on banks to simply live in America, Obama sending warships, possible getting us involved in & borrowing more money from banksters to support a war in Libya. I'd say those are more imminent threats right now. Only country using high-powered weaponry to kill is the US Gov.
Zapppo 1 year ago
Comment removed
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 believe that the rich got rich on the backs of the poor, forcibly redistrubuting their wealth will not cause them to make more money....the well will run dry. Your point about class warefare makes no sense. Has the second ammendment been repealed? Are you suggesting that carrying a gun somehow incites unrest between people in different income brackets? Or does it attempt to cast blame on, or demonisze some other group of people? Explain.
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358
So what if Tea Party Citizens exercise their Constitutional Right to bear arms? Have you seen one shoot up school board meetings in Florida & Congresswomen in AZ like the liberals did? Both guns in those instances were hidden, not in plain sight. There are hidden guns all around you, everywhere you go & you're gonna pee your pants when law abiding citizens open carry?
You live in an 'out of sight, out of your mind' fantasy world.
Zapppo 1 year ago
@Zapppo First, the shooters in Tucson and Florida weren't liberal or conservative, they were insane. Secondly, I never said the TEA party would or wanted to commit acts of violence (not that I'm saying they don't want to. It's a broad movement, and it shouldn't be pigeonholed). Thirdly, I wasn't arguing that individuals should carry concealed weapons instead of open carry, I was arguing that it's threatening to be brandishing a weapon like that at a heated political rally. I wouldn't be
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 comfortable with that weapon around, open or concealed. I don't think that weapon belongs in that environment at all (or any environment, for that matter). Your argument is illogical: Because some carry concealed weapons, I'm supposed to feel better about the ones carrying guns openly?
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@DrGonzo358 As to the question of the second amendment, I'm going to have to disagree with the supreme court and say that the phrasing only protects the right of a "well regulated militia" (the state National Guards, not Uncle Bob's backwoods bandits) to "keep and bear arms," not the individual.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrGonzo358 Even if the Constitution did grant individuals the right to bear arms, it didn't specify what kind of arms. How about we preserve the right of everyone to bear nuclear weapons? Surface to air missiles? Where do we draw the line? Finally, you'll excuse me if I don't trust your analysis of my grip on reality.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100 Oh, & I correct myself: Kiyosaki claims to pocket 2 million per month, income tax free, not 1 million per month as I previously stated.
Zapppo 1 year ago
Tax the Rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
getgot1 1 year ago
Funny now a communist class warfare slogan is uttered in USA so proudly by these socialists. So proud of the Tea Party, this is the home front battle against communism after Reagan defeated the soviet reds.
newyorkairsoft 1 year ago
Notice how the cops faced the union crowd? They didn't have to worry about the Tea Party crowd, very telling. I was at the last Tea Party Rally at the Capital and would have been there for this, but I'm working out of state. Thanks to all the Tea Party members and friends that showed up, I was there in spirit.
123karismith 1 year ago
@123karismith I wouldn't read too much into which way the cops were facing.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@123karismith I agree with you that it is telling which way the cops are facing. It is almost invariably the 'tolerent, peaceful' left that engages in violence. The cops know where it comes from...
tungstencarbide100 1 year ago
@tungstencarbide100 "Almost invariably the...left that engages in violence?" Tell that to the civil rights marchers of the '60s, or the kids at Kent State.
DrGonzo358 1 year ago
@123karismith
Taxing the rich sounds like a good idea to me considering they make their money off the backs of workers and pay less taxes. The idea of being rich was always incentive enough they don't need tax breaks. As for your idea about the direction that the cops where standing I completely agree with you but you should look at all the other videos of this rally because they faced the tea party the majority of the time and most of the arguments started when tea partiers crossed the line.
NatureScout 1 year ago
Tax the rich? That's it? that will fix the bloated pensions and corrupt unions? I don't think so, Go Governor Walker! Lead this country back to liberty!
123karismith 1 year ago