What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

As a REAL (Eisenhower) Conservative, I'm not interested in "respect" from a bunch of Reaganist screwballs. Keyword here is RESPONSE (to Post # 817), not respect. So if you think you have a response to 817, good. Let's hear it.

Son, if you want to be a Fakey Jake clone, at least learn the terminology. It's "Eisenhower Republican." There was nothing "Conservative" about Ike, and leftist like you are supposed to used the term to urge the GOP left.

Post 817 is complete idiocy that fails to make any sort of point. There is no substance - not that anything you post has substance, but that one less than usual.

Now, don't you have a police car to shit on, or something?

HA HA HA. Oh, a good laugh from that pitiful dodging act. MAybe you could get a lucrative pitching contract from the LA Dodgers. Pheeeeeww!

1. The reason why you say there was nothing "Conservative" about Ike is because your use of the word conservative isn't conservative. It is Reaganist. I've explained all this a dozen times already. You think anyone who doesn't match up with Reaganist low, tax, low spend policies is not conservative. You're simply wrong. Those Reaganist policies have nothing to do with conservatism.

For th 10th (or 20th) time, Conservatism is CONSERVING the principles and values and culture of the USA. Number one, that means keeping a strong national defense, strong military, stopping immigration (which is a 21st century style of invasion), stopping Islamization, stopping terrorisn, supporting law enforcement. etc) Your low tax, low spend ideas do just the opposite. The ultra-liberals, Muslim loonies, criminals, et all love your policies.

Amazing how ou can have the combination of audacity ans stupidity to come in here and say Post # 817 "fails to make any sort of point". You couldn't be tat dumb. YOU KNOW the point it makes, and you just don't want to acknowledge it because you know that it preoves you wrong. The liberals love your low spend policies. It lets them do all the anti-national security things they want. REAL Conservatives hate you and your policies.

Of course I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge of post # 817, but I didn't think you'd respond to it so stupidly.

 

[dcraelin]

[MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION], have you been a coward your whole life, or just since you became a dumb ass old fart? Theft is theft. You may have some excuse and desire to justify your criminal acts, but redistribution is nothing more than larceny.

There is no "redistribution" other than to restore America's tax system back to normal as it has been for most of the past 97 years, and for 90% of the time before the movie star taxation took over, and hoodwinked American conservatives into thinking the way you do now (that this is some kind of economic principle, other than pure GREED)

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

I hope you acknowledge that some government spending goes to the country as a whole, Defense and debt repayment for example , it doesnt all go out as welfare to the needy. quite a chunk goes out to retirees, I dont know where you place them. If it was agreed that any raise in taxes on the wealthy would go to pay down the debt, can I assume you would then be ok with it?

your language is a bit hard to follow, hard to believe you make $250K a year.

No one cares what you believe, nor is what I earn relevant to the discussion.
My point is that the "rich" that you democrats target to savage, are not the couple of dozen billionaires, but instead those making a couple hundred thousand. The class warfare that your party wages is aimed at the middle - it always has been.

I agree Soros and wealthy "leftists", movie stars, actors, internet tycoons can avoid big chunks of income tax, thats part of why i've advocated eliminating the tax-exemption of municipal bonds. Obama did have a partially taxable build-america bonds program which should have been continued (without some of its provisions)
I dont think a national sales tax is realistic even if I was convinced it wasn't regressive.

My other points were worth addressing.

Not in my opinion.

If you dont care what I believe dont respond. YOU initially brought up how much you make. I dont feel sorry for those making $200,000 a year either, tho when I give you an option that would hit mainly the very wealthy you just shrug.

 

[Contumacious]

You did not present any historical facts that refuted anything I said. Not one iota. Here is my post again, 100% INTACT

You have a very thick skull or too much pride.

WHAT FUCKING PROBLEMS WERE THE MEXICANS CAUSING THE US AT THAT TIME?

1-

2-

3-



Eisenhower was merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT , IT was the one who requested it.

And don't tell me that their ilegality or their brown skin was the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

No, amazing one. Eisenhower was NOT merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT. He worked for the US govt, not the Mexican one. And lucky you, to have me here now, (who lived through that period) to explain to you why Operation Wetback occured. It occured for the same reason why we need to have another Operation Wetback right now. Because of all the HARMS to to the American people that getting too many too immigrants causes >>>


Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

And you don't have to tell me what to tell you or what not to tell you. I just told you the problem (16 of them)

Finally, an admission that Mexicans were causing the US no problems. Was that so hard? the mere fact that you are a cons....er......neo-nazi, the Grand Wizard, does not mean that you can prevent those folks from settling here.

Was there one SINGLE MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGISLATOR who voted for LBJ's "War on Poverty".

It amazes me that you claim to be a "conservative" but complain about American losing jobs to the Mexicans .....its called free market which once upon a time conservatives approved.

.

 

[protectionist]

My point is that the "rich" that you democrats target to savage, are not the couple of dozen billionaires, but instead those making a couple hundred thousand. The class warfare that your party wages is aimed at the middle - it always has been.

Typical Reaganist talking point. Trying to put words in peoples' mouths that tax the rich policies are really tax the middle class policies. HA HA. People would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new ? Pheeeeww!!

 

[protectionist]

You have a very thick skull or too much pride.

WHAT FUCKING PROBLEMS WERE THE MEXICANS CAUSING THE US AT THAT TIME?

1-

2-

3-



Eisenhower was merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT , IT was the one who requested it.

And don't tell me that their ilegality or their brown skin was the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

No, amazing one. Eisenhower was NOT merely assisting the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT. He worked for the US govt, not the Mexican one. And lucky you, to have me here now, (who lived through that period) to explain to you why Operation Wetback occured. It occured for the same reason why we need to have another Operation Wetback right now. Because of all the HARMS to to the American people that getting too many too immigrants causes >>>


Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

And you don't have to tell me what to tell you or what not to tell you. I just told you the problem (16 of them)

Finally, an admission that Mexicans were causing the US no problems. Was that so hard? the mere fact that you are a cons....er......neo-nazi, the Grand Wizard, does not mean that you can prevent those folks from settling here.

Was there one SINGLE MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGISLATOR who voted for LBJ's "War on Poverty".

It amazes me that you claim to be a "conservative" but complain about American losing jobs to the Mexicans .....its called free market which once upon a time conservatives approved.

.

Are you some kind of wierdo ? I list 16 important problems that Mexicans were causing, and that you say I admit they were not causing any problems ? HA HA HA.

EARTH TO CONTUMACIOUS: None and 16 are not the same thing. Pheeeww!!

And what gives you the idea that the Mexican invaders can't be prevented from settling here ? Of course they can. Read the bold, blue print in Post # 828. They only thing stopping us from stopping them are your low tax, low spend policies.

It amazes me that you claim to be a "conservative" but complain about taxes on the rich to go to stopping immigration, and all its HARMS to America....its called NATIONAL SECURITY which once upon a time conservatives approved. And NO, the free market is not a conservative concept. It is a Reaganist concept, and a very destructive one to US Conservatism (ie. national security), as the immigration fiasco clearly shows.

Maybe this will put it in perspective for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

 

[Uncensored2008]

HA HA HA. Oh, a good laugh from that pitiful dodging act. MAybe you could get a lucrative pitching contract from the LA Dodgers. Pheeeeeww!

1. The reason why you say there was nothing "Conservative" about Ike is because your use of the word conservative isn't conservative. It is Reaganist. I've explained all this a dozen times already. You think anyone who doesn't match up with Reaganist low, tax, low spend policies is not conservative. You're simply wrong. Those Reaganist policies have nothing to do with conservatism.

I see, so to you, "conservative" means a large, expansionist government with high and increasing social spending funded by debt?

Say sporky, how do you differ from Obama?

For th 10th (or 20th) time, Conservatism is CONSERVING the principles and values and culture of the USA. Number one, that means keeping a strong national defense, strong military, stopping immigration (which is a 21st century style of invasion), stopping Islamization, stopping terrorisn, supporting law enforcement. etc) Your low tax, low spend ideas do just the opposite. The ultra-liberals, Muslim loonies, criminals, et all love your policies.

While you have never heard of them, there were a group of men some years back who wrote the foundational principles of the nation.

Oddly, xenophobia was absent from the writings of Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Franklin, et al.

Amazing how ou can have the combination of audacity ans stupidity to come in here and say Post # 817 "fails to make any sort of point". You couldn't be tat dumb. YOU KNOW the point it makes, and you just don't want to acknowledge it because you know that it preoves you wrong. The liberals love your low spend policies. It lets them do all the anti-national security things they want. REAL Conservatives hate you and your policies.

Of course I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge of post # 817, but I didn't think you'd respond to it so stupidly.

It could be simply a matter of the fact that I don't smoke dope - thus I see your incoherent rambling as mere stupidity, rather than the precious jewels of wisdom you imagine them to be...

 

[Uncensored2008]

The policies of the left (support immigration, support Islamization, support affirmative action, etc) are being enhanced by your Reaganistic policies, depriving the American people of ICE agents, CBP officers, Mexican border fence, immigration courts & jails, military funding, Law enforcement, legal teams to oppose NAACP, ACLU, etc

What an incredibly stupid and juvenile opinion.

The Muslim Brotherhood thanks you, al Qaeda thanks you, the Taliban thanks you, La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, and MECHA thank you, the ACLU thanks you, the NAACP thanks you, the SPLC thanks you, the SIEU thanks you, and above all, the Democratic Party thanks you.

What would someone respond to the above rant? That you're a fucking retard? We all knew that already.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sales taxes can be elluded especially on private sales

Private sales will by their nature be of second hand, smaller items. 46 states have sales tax, all of them rake in huge sums.



Direct tax is corrupt 100% of the time, none so much as "income tax." We have volumes running into hundreds of thousands of pages to deal with income taxe. Why? To cover the thousands of exemptions that have been sold over the years.

sales & use taxes are regressive. Sales taxes can and often do violate the principle of "no taxation without representation"

Bullshit.

Sales and use taxes are blind, thus completely fair. You buy, you pay - end of story.

FALSE! I agree with dcraelin. Generally, sales taxes tend to be regressive. They hit the poor hardest when they are pulling themselves up by their bootstrings and just starting to gain some momentum. This is when they finally are able to buy some new furniture, a TV set, a computer, a guitar, etc. The rich already have all these things. If I was the owner of a home electronics store, who would I rather see get a big tax break ? The rich or the (working) poor ? I'd rather see the working poor get it. They are the ones most likely to come into my store and buy (and pay sales tax)

Also, for what ever spending the rich do engage in, they tend to do a relatively high % of it OUTSIDE THE USA (mostly Europe & the Caribbean). The Poorer class does their spending inside their own local community. In fact, many poor and working class people have never been outside the USA, in their whole lives.

I have never been rich, but I have visited 4 of the 7 continents, and most of the poor people I grew up around spent their money in a foreign country.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, he ignored my post, and pretended he refuted it by issuing this non-question (disguised as an answer (but YOU KNEW that)

Thank you for proving my point

You didn't have one.

Then how did you prove it?

 

[Whig_Out]

In other words, even CBO statistics (which both the Republicans and the Dumbocrats are on record as stating are very accurate and unbiased) are "fake" in your mind. In fact, everything in your mind are lies and somehow you are the lone "enlightened" one who we should all follow.

Tell us junior, if "stats" are all "derived" from "the same govt of rich people" who you "critiqued in the OP" - where do you get your information that taxes are too low on the wealthy?

Do you realize what a tool you are now? You've literally painted yourself into a corner with this ignorant post. If we can't trust "stats", then whatever you say is irrelevant if you back it up with anything. And if you have nothing to back up what you say, then whatever you say is even more irrelevant and is not formed from any basis in reality. So either way, you just made your own opinion uninformed and worthless (because if your opinion is informed, whatever sources you used were "derived" from evil people who can't be trusted).

1. Reported for Age discrimination/harassment

Uh, what? What the hell are you talking about? To discriminate against you, I have to hold some power over you. What power do I hold over you, junior? And clearly, site mods are laughing at you because I was not notified of any violations!



You're not an "independent" junior - you're a fuck'n greedy marxist parasite. You're so far left you make Clinton look like a Tea Party conservative.

3. "where do you get your information that taxes are too low on the wealthy?" >>> Here's one place (among others) >> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html]National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates[/SIZE]

You can toss out all the stats you like junior, but from whom are they derived? Answer? The same government parasites that I critiqued in my OP. So you're referring to a group of parasites to ask a question about parasites. Cool. That's about like asking the honchos of General Motors which is better > a Cadillac or a Lincoln?

4. HA HA. Nice try, if only it made sense. We can trust stats if/whenever they conform to reality that we see all around us. I already explained that in my Soviet Union example, in a recent post. Try to keep up.

So first junior ignorantly states that information, links, articles, and statics cannot be trusted because they are "made" by "wealthy" people - and wealthy people are apparently untrustworthy in his mind. When I point out then that this absurd statement means he is either ignorant (because he avoids information) or he can't back up his position (because whatever source he uses for information cannot be trusted) - he suddenly changes his narrative and states "we can trust stats if they conform" (interesting choice of words - sounds like a communist propagandist to me) "to reality that we see all around us".

Well junior, the facts I posted come from the CBO and completely match "the reality" I see all around me. I've seen my tax bill and it is outrageous. Meanwhile, parasites like you pay little or no taxes. So you're first narrative painted you into a corner and humiliated you. You're second narrative - which reversed course completely on your first narrative - simply proves that I was right to begin with.

So now that you've admitted your ignorant (and you try to justify your ignorance by claiming all information and statistics are falsified), and you've admitted to being a hypocrite by contradicting yourself when posting a link after claiming links can't be trusted, what else do you have for us junior?

The facts are, the wealthy are taxed to death while parasites like you enjoy a free ride. It's time you parasites have your taxes increased significantly to pay for all the benefits and perks that are used by parasites like you and not used by the wealthy.

I can't tell if with all of the use of junior that either this person is a wrestler from the 1980s or a pervert or both.

 

[protectionist]

HA HA HA. Oh, a good laugh from that pitiful dodging act. MAybe you could get a lucrative pitching contract from the LA Dodgers. Pheeeeeww!

1. The reason why you say there was nothing "Conservative" about Ike is because your use of the word conservative isn't conservative. It is Reaganist. I've explained all this a dozen times already. You think anyone who doesn't match up with Reaganist low, tax, low spend policies is not conservative. You're simply wrong. Those Reaganist policies have nothing to do with conservatism.

I see, so to you, "conservative" means a large, expansionist government with high and increasing social spending funded by debt?

Say sporky, how do you differ from Obama?

For th 10th (or 20th) time, Conservatism is CONSERVING the principles and values and culture of the USA. Number one, that means keeping a strong national defense, strong military, stopping immigration (which is a 21st century style of invasion), stopping Islamization, stopping terrorisn, supporting law enforcement. etc) Your low tax, low spend ideas do just the opposite. The ultra-liberals, Muslim loonies, criminals, et all love your policies.

While you have never heard of them, there were a group of men some years back who wrote the foundational principles of the nation.

Oddly, xenophobia was absent from the writings of Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Franklin, et al.

Amazing how ou can have the combination of audacity ans stupidity to come in here and say Post # 817 "fails to make any sort of point". You couldn't be tat dumb. YOU KNOW the point it makes, and you just don't want to acknowledge it because you know that it proves you wrong. The liberals love your low spend policies. It lets them do all the anti-national security things they want. REAL Conservatives hate you and your policies.

Of course I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge of post # 817, but I didn't think you'd respond to it so stupidly.

It could be simply a matter of the fact that I don't smoke dope - thus I see your incoherent rambling as mere stupidity, rather than the precious jewels of wisdom you imagine them to be...

1. Funny how what you "see" is different from what I've been saying. You come in here blabbing about "expansionist govt" (I didn't say that), and "increasing social spending" (I spoke about increasing National Security spending), and "funded by debt" (I spoke about funding by increasing taxes on the rich). Strike 1. Strike 2. Strike 3.

2. Well, let's just say Obama would not be too likely to write these OPs, now would he ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...ns-using-the-irs-to-scam-the-us-taxpayer.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...n-from-the-last-time-egypt-did-democracy.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/europ...r-britain-to-reinstate-the-death-penalty.html


3. What is "incoherent" to you is very coherent. You just simply are too ignorant to even understand what I'm talking about, or you pretend and play dumb, because you're unable to meet the challenge. Reaganism - it's a disease, and I am your doctor, and you could be made well, if only you would take your medicine.

 

[Avatar4321]

You are too ignorant to even understand what I'm talking about. Reaganism - it's a disease, and I am your doctor, and you could be made well if only you would take your medicine.

I don't go to snake oils salesman for medical advice.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Liberals, that's what's wrong with this country

 

[protectionist]

The policies of the left (support immigration, support Islamization, support affirmative action, etc) are being enhanced by your Reaganistic policies, depriving the American people of ICE agents, CBP officers, Mexican border fence, immigration courts & jails, military funding, Law enforcement, legal teams to oppose NAACP, ACLU, etc

What an incredibly stupid and juvenile opinion.

The Muslim Brotherhood thanks you, al Qaeda thanks you, the Taliban thanks you, La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, and MECHA thank you, the ACLU thanks you, the NAACP thanks you, the SPLC thanks you, the SIEU thanks you, and above all, the Democratic Party thanks you.

What would someone respond to the above rant? That you're a fucking retard? We all knew that already.

Obviously, you have no answer (with insults used to distract from your inability to respond) Exactly what I expected.

PS - are you going to say YOU'RE WELCOME to the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, the Democrats, the immigration lobby, and all the rest of them who've been thanking you ?

 

[protectionist]

Private sales will by their nature be of second hand, smaller items. 46 states have sales tax, all of them rake in huge sums.



Direct tax is corrupt 100% of the time, none so much as "income tax." We have volumes running into hundreds of thousands of pages to deal with income taxe. Why? To cover the thousands of exemptions that have been sold over the years.

Bullshit.

Sales and use taxes are blind, thus completely fair. You buy, you pay - end of story.

FALSE! I agree with dcraelin. Generally, sales taxes tend to be regressive. They hit the poor hardest when they are pulling themselves up by their bootstrings and just starting to gain some momentum. This is when they finally are able to buy some new furniture, a TV set, a computer, a guitar, etc. The rich already have all these things. If I was the owner of a home electronics store, who would I rather see get a big tax break ? The rich or the (working) poor ? I'd rather see the working poor get it. They are the ones most likely to come into my store and buy (and pay sales tax)

Also, for what ever spending the rich do engage in, they tend to do a relatively high % of it OUTSIDE THE USA (mostly Europe & the Caribbean). The Poorer class does their spending inside their own local community. In fact, many poor and working class people have never been outside the USA, in their whole lives.

I have never been rich, but I have visited 4 of the 7 continents, and most of the poor people I grew up around spent their money in a foreign country.

Are you tuned in ? Did those poor people spend their money in a country which was foreign TO THEM ? (or in their own country)

 

[protectionist]

You are too ignorant to even understand what I'm talking about. Reaganism - it's a disease, and I am your doctor, and you could be made well if only you would take your medicine.

I don't go to snake oils salesman for medical advice.

No you just wallow in Reaganism, and assume it's incurable.

 

[protectionist]

Liberals, that's what's wrong with this country

Yes, partially. And also Reaganists (like those in this thread - whose policies promote the policies of liberals, whether they know it or not)

 

[Avatar4321]

You are too ignorant to even understand what I'm talking about. Reaganism - it's a disease, and I am your doctor, and you could be made well if only you would take your medicine.

I don't go to snake oils salesman for medical advice.

No you just wallow in Reaganism, and assume it's incurable.

I don't think liberty is a disease.

 

[Avatar4321]

Liberals, that's what's wrong with this country

Yes, partially. And also Reaganists (like those in this thread - whose policies promote the policies of liberals, whether they know it or not)

You realize he was talking about people like you, right?

 

[protectionist]

1. Reported for Age discrimination/harassment

Uh, what? What the hell are you talking about? To discriminate against you, I have to hold some power over you. What power do I hold over you, junior? And clearly, site mods are laughing at you because I was not notified of any violations!



You're not an "independent" junior - you're a fuck'n greedy marxist parasite. You're so far left you make Clinton look like a Tea Party conservative.



You can toss out all the stats you like junior, but from whom are they derived? Answer? The same government parasites that I critiqued in my OP. So you're referring to a group of parasites to ask a question about parasites. Cool. That's about like asking the honchos of General Motors which is better > a Cadillac or a Lincoln?

4. HA HA. Nice try, if only it made sense. We can trust stats if/whenever they conform to reality that we see all around us. I already explained that in my Soviet Union example, in a recent post. Try to keep up.

So first junior ignorantly states that information, links, articles, and statics cannot be trusted because they are "made" by "wealthy" people - and wealthy people are apparently untrustworthy in his mind. When I point out then that this absurd statement means he is either ignorant (because he avoids information) or he can't back up his position (because whatever source he uses for information cannot be trusted) - he suddenly changes his narrative and states "we can trust stats if they conform" (interesting choice of words - sounds like a communist propagandist to me) "to reality that we see all around us".

Well junior, the facts I posted come from the CBO and completely match "the reality" I see all around me. I've seen my tax bill and it is outrageous. Meanwhile, parasites like you pay little or no taxes. So you're first narrative painted you into a corner and humiliated you. You're second narrative - which reversed course completely on your first narrative - simply proves that I was right to begin with.

So now that you've admitted your ignorant (and you try to justify your ignorance by claiming all information and statistics are falsified), and you've admitted to being a hypocrite by contradicting yourself when posting a link after claiming links can't be trusted, what else do you have for us junior?

The facts are, the wealthy are taxed to death while parasites like you enjoy a free ride. It's time you parasites have your taxes increased significantly to pay for all the benefits and perks that are used by parasites like you and not used by the wealthy.

I can't tell if with all of the use of junior that either this person is a wrestler from the 1980s or a pervert or both.

Nah! He's just another pathetic, lost in the woods Reaganist.