Anti gun protester David Hogg protected by armed guards

[P@triot]

I have given the proof that revenue was growing faster prior to every tax cut than after.

You have done no such thing, snowflake. I proved that revenues are higher after the tax cuts.

You’re so afraid that your government gravy-train is going to dry up. God forbid you actually have to support yourself.

 

[P@triot]

Hardly worth jailing 2 year olds over.

Your idiocy is “hardly” worth accepting. Your hypocrisy is “hardly” worth tolerating.

Obama Administration Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson hit back at critics of the Trump Administration, who contend that any detention — of children alone, or children and families together — is unnecessary, saying that even the Obama White House believed the detentions were necessary.

You couldn’t give a shit about Mexican 2 year olds. What you care about is taking down President Trump and the U.S.

Obama's DHS Secretary Freely Admits 'We Detained Children,' We 'Believed It Was Necessary'

 

[RealDave]

Hardly worth jailing 2 year olds over.

Your idiocy is “hardly” worth accepting. Your hypocrisy is “hardly” worth tolerating.

Obama Administration Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson hit back at critics of the Trump Administration, who contend that any detention — of children alone, or children and families together — is unnecessary, saying that even the Obama White House believed the detentions were necessary.

You couldn’t give a shit about Mexican 2 year olds. What you care about is taking down President Trump and the U.S.

Obama's DHS Secretary Freely Admits 'We Detained Children,' We 'Believed It Was Necessary'

Actually, Mr Lying POS, he said they only separated families if they felt it was necessary for safety of the children.

You know you have no argument when all you do is lie, lie, lie.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is just stupid, revenue goes up 95% of the time, tax cuts or not.

Bwahahaha!!! They sure didn’t go “up” under Barack Insane Obama when he and the Dumbocrats took unemployment to over 10%.

And you are wrong once again. Revenue went up 7 of the 8 years that Obama was in office. The only year it did not go up was the year the recession that started before his election ended.

So far you have been right about not a single thing dealing with taxes and revenue.

But, considering you didn't know that some people made enough money they had to send a check to the Govt to cover the remainder of their tax burden, i'm not surprised at all

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have given the proof that revenue was growing faster prior to every tax cut than after.

You have done no such thing, snowflake. I proved that revenues are higher after the tax cuts.

You’re so afraid that your government gravy-train is going to dry up. God forbid you actually have to support yourself.

I have given you the cold hard facts and you keep ignoring them.

10 years prior to Reagan tax cuts revenue increased at a rate of 12.41%, the 10 years after it increased at a rate of 5.68%. Revenue growth was slowed by the tax cuts.

10 years prior to Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at a rate of 6.61%, the 10 years after it increased at a rate of 1.87%. Revenue growth was slowed by the tax cuts.

These are called facts and you cannot refute them, so instead you just make up dumb shit about me.

Considering only one of us makes enough money to have to send the government extra money in April, I would say I do a much better job of supporting myself than you do.

Considering only you think it is a good idea to send the government extra money every paycheck so they will send you a refund check when you file your taxes, I would say again I do a much better job of supporting myself than you do.

 

[P@triot]

Hardly worth jailing 2 year olds over.

Your idiocy is “hardly” worth accepting. Your hypocrisy is “hardly” worth tolerating.

Obama Administration Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson hit back at critics of the Trump Administration, who contend that any detention — of children alone, or children and families together — is unnecessary, saying that even the Obama White House believed the detentions were necessary.

You couldn’t give a shit about Mexican 2 year olds. What you care about is taking down President Trump and the U.S.

Obama's DHS Secretary Freely Admits 'We Detained Children,' We 'Believed It Was Necessary'

Actually, Mr Lying POS, he said they only separated families if they felt it was necessary for safety of the children.

You know you have no argument when all you do is lie, lie, lie.

The Obama Administration was doing it for almost a decade. And you didn’t say a word. Because you’re a pice of shit who is attempting to exploit these children in hopes of taking down your own nation and your own president.

 

[P@triot]

These are called facts and you cannot refute them, so instead you just make up dumb shit about me.

I’ve owned you with facts. You hilariously stated that it wasn’t possible to know the results of the Trump tax cuts because the tax filings in April were for 2017. That’s when I had to explain to your ignorant ass that all of us had been paying weekly or bi-weekly taxes under the new tax rates for months and that the data for those months were already in. Because you haven’t paid taxes in your entire life, your dumb ass had no clue that taxes are taken directly out of each pay check. You actually believed that a running tally was kept and that everyone just squared up in April.

As if that wasn’t humiliating enough for you, then your dumb ass claimed that the “Trump tax cuts” were “adding” to the national debt (that’s what all progressives are trained to believe). I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased after the tax cuts.

You’re raging hatred for President Trump and conservatism has blinded you to facts and reality. When I set the record straight on your ignorance - you had a meltdown. And you’ve been whining ever since.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

These are called facts and you cannot refute them, so instead you just make up dumb shit about me.

As if that wasn’t humiliating enough for you, then your dumb ass claimed that the “Trump tax cuts” were “adding” to the national debt (that’s what all progressives are trained to believe). I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased after the tax cuts.
.

I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased at a slower rate after the tax cuts than before, meaning that there was less revenue than if there had been no tax cuts.

That is a FACT and you cannot refute it so you keep ignoring it.

You have been owned and are just too stupid to know...that is why they say ignorance is bliss.

 

[hazlnut]

The 18-year-old attended the Parkland, Florida school where a student murdered 17 people in February, then made himself famous with relentless calls for gun control in the wake of the tragedy.

Anti-gun protester David Hogg — protected by armed guards?
--------------------------------------------------------------

This is a whiny little bitch who hasn't even lived half of his life yet, send this little whiny bitch to a war watch how fast this stupid sob shuts the hell up.

These armed guards have permits, training, background checks, yes?

Apples and oranges.

Try again.

 

[hadit]

Okay, what defense do you have when you encounter a criminal who is armed and you are not?

Is this about defense?

No, this is about statistics. Why?

Alaska, heavily armed state. It's the second most armed state after Wyoming.

It also has the highest rape rate in the US. So, all those guns, are they PROTECTING people or are they ENDANGERING people?

The US has more guns than any other first world western nation and it also has more murders than any other first world western nation.

As much as you can defend yourself with a gun, you're more likely to be killed by a gun.

Freedom is messy and chaotic, sometimes dangerous. It's still preferable to giving up freedom for the illusion of safety.

Ah, freedom.

Like the freedom of Mexicans to enter the US? Wait, all of a sudden the right prefers safety over freedom. Same with Muslims in the US.

Same with a lot of things.

I get it, people use whatever arguments they think will win them the argument, even if they're contradictory as hell to what they wrote for a previous topic.

It's called compartmentalization. But don't let this get in the way of a crap story.

And this is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. American citizens have freedom. Those who come here legally have freedom. See where I'm going with this?

Just in case you don't, I'll spell it out for you. If you are not an American citizen and do not live legally in the United States, you don't have the freedom American citizens have. If you come here illegally, you do not have the freedom American citizens have. Heck, if you're an American citizen living abroad, you have to obey the laws of the country you're in or you lose your freedom.

Please, do tell us how and why a Mexican living in Mexico has and should have the freedom to come here illegally. Tell us how and why an Iranian living in Iran has and should have the freedom to come here illegally.

See, this is why it's very hard to take lefties seriously on immigration. They cannot, despite being educated on the subject many times, distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.

No, I don't think you're looking at the right tricycle.

My argument isn't that illegal Mexicans should be afforded the same privileges as Americans.

My argument is that there's a contradiction.

The right will come out with the freedom card when it suits them. Then they'll come out with the security card when it suits them.

We need guns because we need our freedom, even if 10,000+ die a year. Freedom is paramount.

We need to limit immigrants from Muslim countries that have never done anything because there's a chance 10 people might down. Security is paramount.

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm only offering one example. I could fill the page with examples, but you won't read them, so what's the point? I've given my example, you have two choices, understand my point, or go off on one thinking I'm only talking about the issue of immigrants, which I'm not. This isn't about immigrants, it's about freedom v. security.

Freedom vs security is a valid discussion to have, but immigration is a flawed place to have it, because the freedom I'm talking about is freedom internal to the country, freedom for Americans to live their lives how they choose. Illegal immigration falls under international relations and national security. Give a different example.

 

[longknife]

Diversion after diversion.

 

[P@triot]

Once again a woman and her children are safe thanks to our 2nd Amendment right...

Dallas Mom of 2 Shoots Man in Head After He Attempts to Steal Her Car with Toddlers Inside: 'I Had to Do What I Had to Do'

 

[Rustic]

Hardly worth jailing 2 year olds over.

Your idiocy is “hardly” worth accepting. Your hypocrisy is “hardly” worth tolerating.

Obama Administration Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson hit back at critics of the Trump Administration, who contend that any detention — of children alone, or children and families together — is unnecessary, saying that even the Obama White House believed the detentions were necessary.

You couldn’t give a shit about Mexican 2 year olds. What you care about is taking down President Trump and the U.S.

Obama's DHS Secretary Freely Admits 'We Detained Children,' We 'Believed It Was Necessary'

Actually, Mr Lying POS, he said they only separated families if they felt it was necessary for safety of the children.

You know you have no argument when all you do is lie, lie, lie.

Illegal aliens are illegal aliens, they have no right to be here. They should stop them at the border and let them fucking rot in Mexico

 

[P@triot]

You couldn’t give a shit about Mexican 2 year olds. What you care about is taking down President Trump and the U.S.

Obama Administration Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson hit back at critics of the Trump Administration, who contend that any detention — of children alone, or children and families together — is unnecessary, saying that even the Obama White House believed the detentions were necessary.

Obama's DHS Secretary Freely Admits 'We Detained Children,' We 'Believed It Was Necessary'

Actually, Mr Lying POS, he said they only separated families if they felt it was necessary for safety of the children.

And you believed that shit?!?

 

[P@triot]

These are called facts and you cannot refute them, so instead you just make up dumb shit about me.

As if that wasn’t humiliating enough for you, then your dumb ass claimed that the “Trump tax cuts” were “adding” to the national debt (that’s what all progressives are trained to believe). I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased after the tax cuts.
.

I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased at a slower rate after the tax cuts than before, meaning that there was less revenue than if there had been no tax cuts.

You did no such thing. That would literally be impossible since there was no increase before the tax cuts. The increase only occurred more after the tax cuts. So how could you “prove” that the increase was at a “slower rate” than before when there wasn’t even an increase before?

You continue to illustrate to everyone why you live off of welfare in a trailer park. Funny shit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

These are called facts and you cannot refute them, so instead you just make up dumb shit about me.

As if that wasn’t humiliating enough for you, then your dumb ass claimed that the “Trump tax cuts” were “adding” to the national debt (that’s what all progressives are trained to believe). I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased after the tax cuts.
.

I then provided indisputable data which proved that revenues to the federal government actually increased at a slower rate after the tax cuts than before, meaning that there was less revenue than if there had been no tax cuts.

You did no such thing. That would literally be impossible since there was no increase before the tax cuts. The increase only occurred more after the tax cuts. So how could you “prove” that the increase was at a “slower rate” than before when there wasn’t even an increase before?

You continue to illustrate to everyone why you live off of welfare in a trailer park. Funny shit.

Holy shit, are you fucking stupid?

One more time for the mentally challenged...

In the 10 years prior to the Reagan tax cuts revenue increased at a rate of 12.41% per year. In the 10 years after the Reagan tax cuts, revenue increased at a rate of 5.68%. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 12.41% is larger than 5.68%.

In the 10 years prior to the Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at a rate of 6.61% per year. In the 10 years after the Bush II tax cuts, revenue increased at a rate of 1.87%. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 6.61% is larger than 1.87%.

Yet one more example. In Jan 2018, after the tax cut took place, revenue went up 5.2% as compared to Jan 2017. But, Jan 2017 had gone up more than 9% as compared to Jan 1016. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 9% is larger than 5.2%

 

[P@triot]

Yet one more example. In Jan 2018, after the tax cut took place, revenue went up 5.2% as compared to Jan 2017. But, Jan 2017 had gone up more than 9% as compared to Jan 1016. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 9% is larger than 5.2%

Let me assure you that revenues to the federal government have gone up after the tax cut. Without the tax cuts, that would not have happened. We know this because we were operating without the tax cuts and revenues to the federal government were lower.

Move along now, you little left-wing lunatic. Your desperate attempts to convince people that high taxes and government control are failing as miserably as your life.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yet one more example. In Jan 2018, after the tax cut took place, revenue went up 5.2% as compared to Jan 2017. But, Jan 2017 had gone up more than 9% as compared to Jan 1016. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 9% is larger than 5.2%

Let me assure you that revenues to the federal government have gone up after the tax cut. Without the tax cuts, that would not have happened. We know this because we were operating without the tax cuts and revenues to the federal government were lower.

Move along now, you little left-wing lunatic. Your desperate attempts to convince people that high taxes and government control are failing as miserably as your life.

One more time...

In the 10 years prior to the Reagan tax cuts revenue increased at a rate of 12.41% per year. In the 10 years after the Reagan tax cuts, revenue increased at a rate of 5.68%. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 12.41% is larger than 5.68%. Revenue growth was cut in half after the Reagan tax cuts. This is a cold hard fact that you have not yet been able to dispute.

In the 10 years prior to the Bush II tax cuts revenue increased at a rate of 6.61% per year. In the 10 years after the Bush II tax cuts, revenue increased at a rate of 1.87%. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 6.61% is larger than 1.87%. Revenue growth was cut by 70% after the Bush II tax cuts. This is a cold hard fact that you have not yet been able to dispute.

Yet one more example. In Jan 2018, after the tax cut took place, revenue went up 5.2% as compared to Jan 2017. But, Jan 2017 had gone up more than 9% as compared to Jan 1016. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 9% is larger than 5.2%

All you have is your stupid name calling and no facts...zero..zilch..and nada

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yet one more example. In Jan 2018, after the tax cut took place, revenue went up 5.2% as compared to Jan 2017. But, Jan 2017 had gone up more than 9% as compared to Jan 1016. Since you suck at math, let me assure you that 9% is larger than 5.2%

Let me assure you that revenues to the federal government have gone up after the tax cut. Without the tax cuts, that would not have happened. We know this because we were operating without the tax cuts and revenues to the federal government were lower.

Move along now, you little left-wing lunatic. Your desperate attempts to convince people that high taxes and government control are failing as miserably as your life.

Also...the Bush II tax cuts were signed into law in June of 2001. Tax revenue in 2002, and 2003 and 2004 was LESS than it was in 2001 before the tax cuts took effect.

2001 tax revenue (in millions)

2001 $1,991,082

2002 $1,853,136
2003 $1,782,314
2004 $1,880,114

 

[P@triot]

Also...the Bush II tax cuts were signed into law in June of 2001. Tax revenue in 2002, and 2003 and 2004 was LESS than it was in 2001 before the tax cuts took effect.

If you want people to take you seriously, you cannot continue to speak your high school dropout, trailer park lingo.

Also...the Bush II tax cuts were signed into law in June of 2001. Tax revenue in 2002, and 2003 and 2004 was were LESS than it they was were in 2001 before the tax cuts took effect.

That aside - congrats on getting something accurate for once (though it certainly wasn’t your grammar). The Bush tax cuts weren’t nearly as much as the Trump tax cuts, now were they? Nope! And that’s why they didn’t increase revenue to the federal government. It wasn’t enough for businesses to be able to invest in their businesses and expand. When that happens, jobs are created.