Lol

[VaYank5150]

The direct question where you pretended to not know what "OBAMACARE" is? The one which I answered in the very POST WHICH YOU JUST REFERENCED?

There are no fewer than 5 proposals floating around currently in the healthcare debate, with a new one from Max Baucus due by the end of the week. WHICH were you referring to again?

 

[VaYank5150]

Sis, let me suggest that you consider the lessons of King Pyrrhus of Epirus... and perhaps you'll eventually come to understand how winning doesn't always translate into victory...

Sleep well...

I don't believe they were on the ballot here in VA, but if they were, they even lost to the failed bid of McSame and Flailin, so no biggee. As to sleeping well at night, I have no issues. Unlike you and the rest of you neocons who are terrified of just about everything and worry to death that Obama is going to take your guns away from you.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

First....what the hell is Obamacare, anyway? And please be specific. Additionally, why use the "with Kennedy" at all? Kennedy was a great American servant and he JUST passed away. What is the purpose of using his name on this sign?

I guess you have selective amnesia.
Everyone who's touting the healthcare reform want's it called the "Kennedy **** Act"
Obama has HIS OWN PLAN as outlined in his address to Congress...hence "ObamaCare". Do you remember now?

You and your ilk have been touting "Obamacare" long before his recent address to Congress. Care to take another stab at it, Skippy?

and Obama has been saying for quite some time he "has a plan." So continue your spin, deflection and obfuscation.

 

[VaYank5150]

I guess you have selective amnesia.
Everyone who's touting the healthcare reform want's it called the "Kennedy **** Act"
Obama has HIS OWN PLAN as outlined in his address to Congress...hence "ObamaCare". Do you remember now?

You and your ilk have been touting "Obamacare" long before his recent address to Congress. Care to take another stab at it, Skippy?

and Obama has been saying for quite some time he "has a plan." So continue your spin, deflection and obfuscation.

Well good. Since you seem to know so much about "his plan"...what specifically about "his plan" do you disagree with?

 

[Fatality]

Look... DUMBASS! Demonstrating idiocy, doesn't actually stand for a viable defense against the charge of idiocy...

If you weren't an idiot, you'd understand that.

Now here's the thing... You aren't living in Colonial times... when "liberal" meant advocate of individual Liberty... and was used in that classic sense...

Today, the word Liberal has been bastardized by the Marxist Left; and this as a facade to cloak the tyrannical nature of Left-think...

Ya see Einstein; today, YOU (the Ideological Left) are the analogical 'Torries'... You're the one arguing for Mother Governance and clinging to her apron for security... Conservatives are the analogical Founders, protesting taxation without representation; run away government power abusing our God given, unalienable INDIVIDUAL rights...

Showing once again that you have no perception of the history of this country. Liberals today have the same ideology they had in colonial times and the civil war......namely a resistence to the status quo.
Liberals in colonial times supported the revolution..........conservatives were torries and supported the King

Liberals in the civil war supported abolition.......conservatives supported a states right to choose

Conservatives....wrong side of history then......wrong side today

good gawd youre a patheticaly stupid fuck

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You and your ilk have been touting "Obamacare" long before his recent address to Congress. Care to take another stab at it, Skippy?

and Obama has been saying for quite some time he "has a plan." So continue your spin, deflection and obfuscation.

Well good. Since you seem to know so much about "his plan"...what specifically about "his plan" do you disagree with?

A government run option. If he want's to give Americans access to FEHB that's fine. All it is, is an insurance co-op for federal employees that allows the employee to have insurance regardless of state lines meaning you can take it ANYWHERE.

But I will not support a government run "insurance agency" that takes my tax dollars to pay hospitals and clinics for illegal aliens, people too lazy to work or people who voluntarily opted out of employer insurance.

 

[VaYank5150]

But I will not support a government run "insurance agency" that takes my tax dollars to pay hospitals and clinics for illegal aliens, people too lazy to work or people who voluntarily opted out of employer insurance.

He covered these concerns in his speech. Where were you? Wait a sec....Joe Wilson, is that you?

 

[mskafka]

How about this one? This is a sign, right? You asshats sure have the market on class, eh? I think this little girl was standing next to her Daddy who was holding a noose....good stuff.

What's the issue you have with this well reasoned sentiment? And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...

Granted that doesn't leave much room... but with a fair effort, I really believe that you can pull this one off...

First....what the hell is Obamacare, anyway? And please be specific. Additionally, why use the "with Kennedy" at all? Kennedy was a great American servant and he JUST passed away. What is the purpose of using his name on this sign?

That sign is quite psychopathic, don't you think? How old is that girl? 14? Some people should not be allowed to have children. She probably has no idea what that means. That's like the Phelps gang and their toddlers carrying "God hates fags" signs.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

But I will not support a government run "insurance agency" that takes my tax dollars to pay hospitals and clinics for illegal aliens, people too lazy to work or people who voluntarily opted out of employer insurance.

He covered these concerns in his speech. Where were you? Wait a sec....Joe Wilson, is that you?

Ummmmmmmm......no........he didn't.

What speech did you watch?

Why all of the talk on the Sunday talk show circuit of Obama NOW SAYING he will PROVIDE A CITIZENSHIP/IMMIGRANT VERIFICATION CLAUSE?......after being called out on it by Wilson!

 

[VaYank5150]

But I will not support a government run "insurance agency" that takes my tax dollars to pay hospitals and clinics for illegal aliens, people too lazy to work or people who voluntarily opted out of employer insurance.

He covered these concerns in his speech. Where were you? Wait a sec....Joe Wilson, is that you?

Ummmmmmmm......no........he didn't.

What speech did you watch?

Why all of the talk on the Sunday talk show circuit of Obama NOW SAYING he will PROVIDE A CITIZENSHIP/IMMIGRANT VERIFICATION CLAUSE?......after being called out on it by Wilson!

I didn't get a chance to watch the SUnday shows today, but IF Obama and Congress are going to do this, it is only because the GOP can't read the exclusion that is already part of HR 3200. How sad is that?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

He covered these concerns in his speech. Where were you? Wait a sec....Joe Wilson, is that you?

Ummmmmmmm......no........he didn't.

What speech did you watch?

Why all of the talk on the Sunday talk show circuit of Obama NOW SAYING he will PROVIDE A CITIZENSHIP/IMMIGRANT VERIFICATION CLAUSE?......after being called out on it by Wilson!

I didn't get a chance to watch the SUnday shows today, but IF Obama and Congress are going to do this, it is only because the GOP can't read the exclusion that is already part of HR 3200. How sad is that?

What's actually sadder is the fact that you can't understand that if there is no ENFORCEMENT clause in the Bill...no one is going to verify shit.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

excerpt:

No Verification

During his Aug. 22 address, Obama said, “Let’s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That’s not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has never even been on the table.”

The House bill does state in Title II, Subtitle C, Section 246 that “no federal payment for undocumented aliens.”

However, the proposal provides no mechanism for verifying legal status, making it difficult for insurers and medical personal to know who legally qualifies for federal subsidies under the plan.

Amendments proposed by Rep. Dean Heller (R.-Nev.) and Rep. Nathan Deal (R.-Ga.) that would have required verification of legal status were rejected respectively by the House Ways and Means and the House Energy and Commerce committees.

Heller said that the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS), and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) would ensure that health insurance subsidy applicants are U.S. citizens or legal residents eligible for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------
There was NO exclusion. NO way for anyone to know if the people that would be covered under the bill were in fact legal or not. So in effect...Obama lied and when Wilson called him on it they scrambled to change the wording. Just another of many OOOOOPPSSS moments with the new boy hero.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah. Conservative, God-fearing liberals.

Not the leftist, marxist, pieces of shit liberals like todays' lib.

ie: you and the knuckle-draggers you support.

They were not God-Fearing.

Jefferson even had a bible that he crossed out everything he disagreed with. Not exactly fearful if you ask me.

Besides, the USA was really the first "Modern Liberal state" at the time.

We are not discussing the same thing. The Founding Fathers were not anything like the moonbat left of Today.

 

[rightwinger]

You're a LYING SACK OF SHIT! See the points highlighted above, where THIS VERY EVENING YOU PROFESSED A DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS ADVOCACY AGAINST ALL OF THAT...

How does Freedom of the Press fit into an advocacy where the property of the ownership of that press can be stripped from those owners to satisfy the NEEDS of those who are suffering a DECLINING LIFE STYLE.... as you advocate should be considered?

HOW CAN ONE BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BEING SECURE IN THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY; WHEN YOU ADVOCATE THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED WITH THAT PROPERTY?

A RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL YA SAY? For what? To prove that they didn't profit at the expense of those who lifestyle declined BECAUSE OF THEIR GREED?

ROFL....

Now this last one... it is the most delicious of ALL...

"I believe in the equality of man....."

Now tell me... PRAY TELL? How does ONE MAN OF EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE NEXT MAN... end up having HIS PROPERTY CONFISCATED TO SUBSIDIZE THE NEEDS OF THE MAN TO WHICH HE IS EQUAL?

Now I am challenging your moronic self to explain that one... I see that you're still on the board at the moment... and I will be PMing you immediately after posting this to inform you of this challenge...

Can ayone explain where there is one iota of logic in this rant??

This rant is completely delusional......

Freedom of the press? Freedom of Speech? Where have I ever posted anything questioning those values? How can.....property of the ownership of that press can be stripped from those owners to satisfy the NEEDS of those who are suffering a DECLINING LIFE STYLE.... be stripped away?
You are completely nuts here

If you read my posts, I never advocated taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What I did advocate was that due to the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, we need to end those practices that result in a shift in wealth.
1. Bush Tax cuts
2. Extensive tax shelters
3. Reinstate workforce protections

A RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL YA SAY? For what? To prove that they didn't profit at the expense of those who lifestyle declined BECAUSE OF THEIR GREED?

How can any true American question the basic human right to a fair and speedy trial? This shows that you are the one deviating from the rights our founding fathers fought for

 

[mskafka]

Not really... Washington had great respect for his Slaves... and stated such in dozens of correspondence not the least of which being his final statement freeing them in his passing.

I imagine that he'd be disappointed that the first Black President of the US was an overt Anti-American and a Muslim...

you dont enslave somebody you respect.

First, Genius... we're not talking about ME... or the mores of our culture... We're talking about a world you've little means to even comprehend; a world where the freedoms YOU ENJOY were being DEVELOPED by the understandings which YOU REJECT...

Slaves were PROPERTY... They were not recognized as human beings, but sub-humans... due in large measure to their IGNORANCE... which ironically enough, seems to be your gift... Crazy huh...

Anywho, Washington DEVELOPED an understanding of his slaves being HUMAN BEINGS through HIS WITNESS OF THEIR ACTIONS WHERE MEN OF COLOR FOUGHT UNDER HIM... and were readily able to learn and recognize something greater than themselves and sacrifice for it... which he understood as being a defining trait of humanity...

Beyond that, the very principles on which America is founded; the principles for which Washington directly fought... THOSE principle lead to the understanding that black slaves were in fact human beings and AS SUCH were endowed by the SAME creator with the SAME rights as anyone else. And THAT is what came to build the understanding which YOU presently contest in your advocacy for individuals to concede their unalienable responsibilities to the state and return the culture to tyranny.

And it is an incontrovertible FACT that the BOY King was born to a Muslim Father, thus is a Muslim; and that the blue-lipped POS is a Marxist, thus a LEFTIST and Sis...

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

PERIOD!​

Oh....my god. I cannot believe you typed that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What's the issue you have with this well reasoned sentiment? And please... be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...

Granted that doesn't leave much room... but with a fair effort, I really believe that you can pull this one off...

First....what the hell is Obamacare, anyway? And please be specific. Additionally, why use the "with Kennedy" at all? Kennedy was a great American servant and he JUST passed away. What is the purpose of using his name on this sign?

That sign is quite psychopathic, don't you think?

No... I don't see the sign demonstrating somebody affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse or empathy ... I see a sign which declares the unapologetic rejection of Socializing 1/6th of the US Economy and in so doing destroying the best healthcare system on earth, so that the lowest common denominator in the US Culture can feel better about their sorry lot... and suggests that this subversive legislation should be buried with Ted Kennedy, who was himself a life-long subversive; along with being a murderer and a general reprobate and degenerate.

How ya get psychopathic out of that is known only to you.

How old is that girl? 14? Some people should not be allowed to have children. She probably has no idea what that means. That's like the Phelps gang and their toddlers carrying "God hates fags" signs.

I'd wager that the little girl holding that sign could give you a lesson on the issue...

 

[mskafka]

Instead of calling others "dumb fuck", "moron" or "morans" as do rag dude proclaimed, "idiot"...trying listening to their concerns. Resorting to name calling makes you look like a "dumb fuck", in everyone's eyes.

 

[rightwinger]

And it is an incontrovertible FACT that the BOY King was born to a Muslim Father, thus is a Muslim; and that the blue-lipped POS is a Marxist, thus a LEFTIST and Sis...

I thought this was America, and according to the first Ammendment YOU get to choose your religion not your father

Once again Publius shows his disdain for the US Constitution

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are one delusional puss sack...

Cite for this board ONE Element of the US Revolution which you PERSONALLY espouse... and be prepared to have it shoved right up your rhetorical ass, by my citing YOUR OWN WORDS... ESTABLISHING THAT YOU ARE IN FACT A DELUSIONAL HALF WIT...

For instance, you may claim to be an advocate for individual liberty... and I'll drag up a post of your advocating for Socialized Healthcare, which incontrovertibly seeks to concede the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual for their OWN HEALTHCARE to the GOVERNMENT... whereupon I'll note the absolute certainty, well known to the Founders, that there can BE NO RIGHT ABSENT RESPONSIBILITY...

Here's an example of you advocating for the usurpation of the unalienable right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor... a direct advocacy against PROPERTY RIGHTS... which was a corner-stone of the AMERICAN FOUNDING:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/87897-unacceptable-redistribution-of-wealth.html#post1507512

While we argue additional tax cuts for the wealthy and the merits of "trickle down" economics a strange thing has happened. The standard of living for working americans has fallen. We make less money than we did a decade ago while the rich have gotten richer...

The simple fact is that you're a common idiot... which has NO BUSINESS being allowed within 10 miles of a voting booth.

One item..

I firmly support freedom of the press...freedom of religions
I believe in the rights of the individual to be secure in their papers and homes against unreasonable searches and seisures
I believe in the right to a speedy trial and trial by jury
I believe in the equality of man.....the right of every citizen to vote

All were LIBERAL ideas in their time

You're a LYING SACK OF SHIT! See the points highlighted above, where THIS VERY EVENING YOU PROFESSED A DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS ADVOCACY AGAINST ALL OF THAT...

How does Freedom of the Press fit into an advocacy where the property of the ownership of that press can be stripped from those owners to satisfy the NEEDS of those who are suffering a DECLINING LIFE STYLE.... as you advocate should be considered?

HOW CAN ONE BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BEING SECURE IN THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY; WHEN YOU ADVOCATE THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED WITH THAT PROPERTY?

A RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL YA SAY? For what? To prove that they didn't profit at the expense of those who lifestyle declined BECAUSE OF THEIR GREED?

ROFL....

Now this last one... it is the most delicious of ALL...

"I believe in the equality of man....."

Now tell me... PRAY TELL? How does ONE MAN OF EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE NEXT MAN... end up having HIS PROPERTY CONFISCATED TO SUBSIDIZE THE NEEDS OF THE MAN TO WHICH HE IS EQUAL?

Now I am challenging your moronic self to explain that one... I see that you're still on the board at the moment... and I will be PMing you immediately after posting this to inform you of this challenge...

Your failure to post a lucid, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned answer, will of course, be your CONCESSION that you are the very ANTITHESIS of everything the founders stood for...

Best of luck...

Can ayone explain where there is one iota of logic in this rant??

This rant is completely delusional......

Freedom of the press? Freedom of Speech? Where have I ever posted anything questioning those values? How can.....property of the ownership of that press can be stripped from those owners to satisfy the NEEDS of those who are suffering a DECLINING LIFE STYLE.... be stripped away?
You are completely nuts here

ROFLMNAO... Friends the entire discussion is directly above...

And that's the beautiful thing about Text forums... The record is crystal clear... and readily available for ALL to see...

What ya have here is the delusion wherein the common leftist comes to advocate against the natural American right to private property... through the pedestrian leftist assertion that a NEED is all it takes to rightfully usurp the property of another to fulfill that need.

Only to be SHOCKED! to learn that ANYONE could take them to believe that they're against the the unalienable human right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor.

And therein... lies... the lie.

What you witnessed in the above discussion was the utter evisceration of a typical 'Centrist'... the complete anihilation of the would-be principles of leftism where such is demonstrated to be little more than a fatally flawed circular species of reasoing; reasoning possessed and advocated by those who are wholly ignorant of that flaw... and this born from their simple inability to develope intellectually sound, logically valid reason.

They're idiots and it's just no more complex.... that that.

If you read my posts, I never advocated taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Well that is simply not true... as she advanced precisely the opposite, in another thread, in the same HOUR... To wit:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/87897-unacceptable-redistribution-of-wealth.html#post1507512

While we argue additional tax cuts for the wealthy and the merits of "trickle down" economics a strange thing has happened. The standard of living for working americans has fallen. We make less money than we did a decade ago while the rich have gotten richer...

What I did advocate was that due to the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, we need to end those practices that result in a shift in wealth.
1. Bush Tax cuts
2. Extensive tax shelters
3. Reinstate workforce protections

DELUSION PERSONIFIED!

Notice how the premise here, requires that 'the wealth' belongs to those from whom the Rich 'took it'... OKA: The Poor. Which is left-speak for: "The People..."

Thus the premise requires that 'the Wealth' does NOT belong to those who earned it... it is NOT THE PROPERTY OF THOSE WHO LABORED FOR IT... NO no... 'the wealth' belongs to the ethereal collective... and what's more 'the wealth' was taken from them, by cutting the tax liability to the RICH... which requires, for one to come to THAT conclusion; that Taxation is the means by which the Poor get BACK, the money that the rich steal from them...

Same with tax shelters... these are legal instruments which HIDE money stolen from the poor, BY those who stole it... to prevent the poor from getting their money back...

Again the money is the PROPERTY of 'the ethereal 'People'... NOT the SPECIFIC individuals that earned it.

But the last one is the cutest... Americans understand that valid and sustainable rights can only exist on the responsibilties which are intrinsic in those rights...

3. Reinstate workforce protections

Protections... for workers... protections which workers need because the Worker... read: "the poor" have conceded their reponsibility for their protection to the State...

Now we're to believe that the Worker is ENTITLED to all the money... that the money BELONGS TO THE WORKER... and that the WORKER NEEDS PROTECTIONS TO KEEP THAT MONEY WHICH BELONGS TO THEM FROM BEING STOLEN FROM THEM...

The Money is RIGHTFULLY OWNED BY THE WORKER... who has absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for any sustaining facet of that right...

This gal is TYPICAL of the Advocates of CHANGE! She's not some dimwitted exception to the rule.... SHE IS THE RULE...

These people have no understanding of what human rights EVEN ARE... they've absolutely NO IDEA of what the US IS, how it was founded, who the people that started it were, or what they believed... this person is an abyss of abject ignorance...

YET SHE IS ALLOWED TO VOTE!

Now I ask you... HOW LONG CAN A CULTURE THAT ALLOWS THIS LEVEL OF IGNORANCE... POSSIBLY SUSTAIN ITSELF, WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THIS ARE GIVEN THE MEANS TO ELECT OTHER PEOPLE TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THAT CULTURE?

The answer is: Not long...

It's time we began to discuss the unenviable work of what needs to be done to stop the intellectuall hemorrhaging... and set the nation back on it's tracks... by requiring a minimal understanding of what America is and an unambiguous pledge of loyalty to that concept, before ANYONE is allowed to cast a vote for anything... except the addled-minded nonsense of who stays on the island and what team of celebrities danced best...

 

[rightwinger]

You're a LYING SACK OF SHIT! See the points highlighted above, where THIS VERY EVENING YOU PROFESSED A DIRECT, UNAMBIGUOUS ADVOCACY AGAINST ALL OF THAT...

How does Freedom of the Press fit into an advocacy where the property of the ownership of that press can be stripped from those owners to satisfy the NEEDS of those who are suffering a DECLINING LIFE STYLE.... as you advocate should be considered?

HOW CAN ONE BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BEING SECURE IN THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY; WHEN YOU ADVOCATE THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED WITH THAT PROPERTY?

A RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL YA SAY? For what? To prove that they didn't profit at the expense of those who lifestyle declined BECAUSE OF THEIR GREED?

ROFL....

Now this last one... it is the most delicious of ALL...

"I believe in the equality of man....."

Now tell me... PRAY TELL? How does ONE MAN OF EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE NEXT MAN... end up having HIS PROPERTY CONFISCATED TO SUBSIDIZE THE NEEDS OF THE MAN TO WHICH HE IS EQUAL?

Now I am challenging your moronic self to explain that one... I see that you're still on the board at the moment... and I will be PMing you immediately after posting this to inform you of this challenge...

Your failure to post a lucid, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned answer, will of course, be your CONCESSION that you are the very ANTITHESIS of everything the founders stood for...

Best of luck...

Can ayone explain where there is one iota of logic in this rant??

This rant is completely delusional......

Freedom of the press? Freedom of Speech? Where have I ever posted anything questioning those values? How can.....property of the ownership of that press can be stripped from those owners to satisfy the NEEDS of those who are suffering a DECLINING LIFE STYLE.... be stripped away?
You are completely nuts here

ROFLMNAO... Friends the entire discussion is directly above...

And that's the beautiful thing about Text forums... The record is crystal clear... and readily available for ALL to see...

What ya have here is the delusion wherein the common leftist comes to advocate against the natural American right to private property... through the pedestrian leftist assertion that a NEED is all it takes to rightfully usurp the property of another to fulfill that need.

Only to be SHOCKED! to learn that ANYONE could take them to believe that they're against the the unalienable human right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor.

And therein... lies... the lie.

What you witnessed in the above discussion was the utter evisceration of a typical 'Centrist'... the complete anihilation of the would-be principles of leftism where such is demonstrated to be little more than a fatally flawed circular species of reasoing; reasoning possessed and advocated by those who are wholly ignorant of that flaw... and this born from their simple inability to develope intellectually sound, logically valid reason.

They're idiots and it's just no more complex.... that that.




Well that is simply not true... as she advanced precisely the opposite, in another thread, in the same HOUR... To wit:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/87897-unacceptable-redistribution-of-wealth.html#post1507512

What I did advocate was that due to the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, we need to end those practices that result in a shift in wealth.
1. Bush Tax cuts
2. Extensive tax shelters
3. Reinstate workforce protections

DELUSION PERSONIFIED!

Notice how the premise here, requires that 'the wealth' belongs to those from whom the Rich 'took it'... OKA: The Poor. Which is left-speak for: "The People..."

Thus the premise requires that 'the Wealth' does NOT belong to those who earned it... it is NOT THE PROPERTY OF THOSE WHO LABORED FOR IT... NO no... 'the wealth' belongs to the ethereal collective... and what's more 'the wealth' was taken from them, by cutting the tax liability to the RICH... which requires, for one to come to THAT conclusion; that Taxation is the means by which the Poor get BACK, the money that the rich steal from them...

Same with tax shelters... these are legal instruments which HIDE money stolen from the poor, BY those who stole it... to prevent the poor from getting their money back...

Again the money is the PROPERTY of 'the ethereal 'People'... NOT the SPECIFIC individuals that earned it.

But the last one is the cutest... Americans understand that valid and sustainable rights can only exist on the responsibilties which are intrinsic in those rights...

3. Reinstate workforce protections

Protections... for workers... protections which workers need because the Worker... read: "the poor" have conceded their reponsibility for their protection to the State...

Now we're to believe that the Worker is ENTITLED to all the money... that the money BELONGS TO THE WORKER... and that the WORKER NEEDS PROTECTIONS TO KEEP THAT MONEY WHICH BELONGS TO THEM FROM BEING STOLEN FROM THEM...

The Money is RIGHTFULLY OWNED BY THE WORKER... who has absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for any sustaining facet of that right...

This gal is TYPICAL of the Advocates of CHANGE! She's not some dimwitted exception to the rule.... SHE IS THE RULE...

These people have no understanding of what human rights EVEN ARE... they've absolutely NO IDEA of what the US IS, how it was founded, who the people that started it were, or what they believed... this person is an abyss of abject ignorance...

YET SHE IS ALLOWED TO VOTE!

Now I ask you... HOW LONG CAN A CULTURE THAT ALLOWS THIS LEVEL OF IGNORANCE... POSSIBLY SUSTAIN ITSELF, WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THIS ARE GIVEN THE MEANS TO ELECT OTHER PEOPLE TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THAT CULTURE?

The answer is: Not long...

It's time we began to discuss the unenviable work of what needs to be done to stop the intellectuall hemorrhaging... and set the nation back on it's tracks... by requiring a minimal understanding of what America is and an unambiguous pledge of loyalty to that concept, before ANYONE is allowed to cast a vote for anything... except the addled-minded nonsense of who stays on the island and what team of celebrities danced best...

What a rambling discourse on nothing

Can someone please make sense of this and put it into English?