bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,322
- 2,180
You obviously don't understand how wrong you are. Of course it won't do any good to explain it to you because you aren't willing to listen, but let's try anyway.Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.
Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?
Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.
Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.
Great plan.
When the richest 1% of the population reap 95% of financial gains:
https://www.google.com/search?q=1%25+95%25+financial+gains&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
then how are 99% of people supposed to make a living for their selves and their families? When corporate 1% "job creators" create all of the jobs in China so they don't have to pay Americans (or Chinese) a real living wage, then how are 99% of people supposed to earn a living?
No one is suggesting to "take" anything from rich people. We simply want the laws of our nation enforced on the wealthy as they are on the rest of us. No one on this board is "too big to fail", so why would anyone defend these rich criminals?
HSBC directly funded terrorism against our soldiers, and Teabaggers are still claiming that "Liberals just hate success."
Since your claims are pure fabrications, there's no point in discussing them. This entire thread is based on a bogus quote. Almost every liberal argument is based on false premises.