Case in point, one of you kooks said he'd like to TAKE a person's Rolls and use it to feed homeless people. TAKE. That's theft, but theft is legal among you Marxist-following *****.

If it's legal then it's legal. It's not theft if the peoples' elected representatives vote to take the Rolls. Don't like it? Leave.

(04-12-2012 04:13 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If it's legal then it's legal. It's not theft if the peoples' elected representatives vote to take the Rolls. Don't like it? Leave.

And if that becomes the prevailing attitude, lots of people WILL leave. And our economy cannot afford for them to leave, nor can our government.

This is the problem with the left. You keep attacking the goose who lays the golden eggs, at some point the goose quits laying, or moves the nest elsewhere.

This is what I don't understand. The left complains about capital flight to escape taxes at current levels, but acts as if raising those tax rates won't cause further capital flight. Exactly how do you reconcile those two positions?

(04-12-2012 04:13 PM)Max Power Wrote:  If it's legal then it's legal. It's not theft if the peoples' elected representatives vote to take the Rolls. Don't like it? Leave.

How about I just start shooting some of you morons when you come to take my property?

What your idiot ass is advocating is theft and majority rule, NOT rule of law. Regardless of whether your Commie ass likes it or not, majority doesn't rule here, nor should it ever.

Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?

I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?

I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

You never said take it out of income. You said you wanted to take the Rolls, you fuken Communist.

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

Yeah, and we have way too many firearms to allow you idiots to usher in Communism into our great nation.

(04-12-2012 04:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?

I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

You never said take it out of income. You said you wanted to take the Rolls, you fuken Communist.

LOL I meant the money for the Rolls (because it's only legal to take it out of income; we technically can't wait for the Rolls purchase). I use "Rolls" to illustrate. By taking that $50,000, we're probably just taking a Rolls off the collection; that is, if he even spends it. Oh noes, Mrs Romney can't buy that second Cadillac this year so poor people can live, cry me a river into your tri corner hats!

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?
I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

You start down the road toward that sort of crap and I'll be gone long before it reaches that point. I'll tell you that.

And not because I'm worried about my Rolls being taken away. I don't have one. But I don't want to live in a country where the government would take somebody else's away. If he or she earned it honestly, then he or she should be able to keep it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where that's not the rule of law.

(04-12-2012 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  There is no 2009 newsletter. You'll see if you click on the Socialist Party of America link in the the following article BIE is likely using from post #8, that the website does not exist: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/08/...ir-caucus/

This is a house cards completely falling on BIE, Rebel and that loon West.

You mean this newsletter?

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

Putting up walls to keep people in eh comrade.

(04-12-2012 05:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?
I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

You start down the road toward that sort of crap and I'll be gone long before it reaches that point. I'll tell you that.

And not because I'm worried about my Rolls being taken away. I don't have one. But I don't want to live in a country where the government would take somebody else's away. If he or she earned it honestly, then he or she should be able to keep it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where that's not the rule of law.

They came for Rolls, and I didn't say anything, because I didn't have a Rolls. Then they came for my truck, and I stepped out with my M-4 and started killing muthafuggas and had no Rolls owners to back me up.

(04-12-2012 08:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  There is no 2009 newsletter. You'll see if you click on the Socialist Party of America link in the the following article BIE is likely using from post #8, that the website does not exist: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/08/...ir-caucus/

This is a house cards completely falling on BIE, Rebel and that loon West.

You mean this newsletter?

You can't be serious? That is a hodgepodge put together by:

Copyright 2008-2009 All Rights Reserved American Socialist Voter, Labor donated. Not authorized by any candidateor candidate's committee. American Socialist Voter is not a Party, Political Action Committee, tendency, or caucus, 527,lobby, or soft money giver. We are a social networking site for those who call themselves socialist for education and interaction among their peers.

This is no official newsletter of the Socialist Party of America (which was defunct at the time) or the DSA. Not to mention that they clearly source the list of congresspeople as the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nice try though.

Redwing is desperately trying to put the cat back in the bag. It reminds me of Maxine Water's trying to backtrack on her Socialist statement. They can't let it be known that they're Socialists. ...and bless him, he's trying. To no avail, but he's trying.

(04-13-2012 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You can't be serious? That is a hodgepodge put together by:

Copyright 2008-2009 All Rights Reserved American Socialist Voter, Labor donated. Not authorized by any candidateor candidate's committee. American Socialist Voter is not a Party, Political Action Committee, tendency, or caucus, 527,lobby, or soft money giver. We are a social networking site for those who call themselves socialist for education and interaction among their peers.

This is no official newsletter of the Socialist Party of America (which was defunct at the time) or the DSA. Not to mention that they clearly source the list of congresspeople as the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nice try though.

Well you may not think they are DSA memebers, but the American Socialist Voter - Dem Soc of America have claimed the Congressional Progressive Congress as their own. Does this amount to proof that any or all of the list are DSA members? No. It does however, dispell the notion that some on here are presenting that West has made all of this up and has no evidence. West was simply taking the claim made at face value.

In either case the CPC and DSA were and continue to be closely related. So closely in fact that until late in 2002 the CPC website was hosted by the DSA. Try this exceprt from the following link if you doubt the two are still maintaining a close relationship.

Quote:Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, in October 2010 WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group can cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their “one-world” plans.

CPC and DSA may not be one in the same, but are closely related.

(04-13-2012 09:33 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Redwing is desperately trying to put the cat back in the bag. It reminds me of Maxine Water's trying to backtrack on her Socialist statement. They can't let it be known that they're Socialists. ...and bless him, he's trying. To no avail, but he's trying.

A deflecting fraud says what?

(04-13-2012 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You can't be serious? That is a hodgepodge put together by:

Copyright 2008-2009 All Rights Reserved American Socialist Voter, Labor donated. Not authorized by any candidateor candidate's committee. American Socialist Voter is not a Party, Political Action Committee, tendency, or caucus, 527,lobby, or soft money giver. We are a social networking site for those who call themselves socialist for education and interaction among their peers.

This is no official newsletter of the Socialist Party of America (which was defunct at the time) or the DSA. Not to mention that they clearly source the list of congresspeople as the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nice try though.

Well you may not think they are DSA memebers, but the American Socialist Voter - Dem Soc of America have claimed the Congressional Progressive Congress as their own. Does this amount to proof that any or all of the list are DSA members? No. It does however, dispell the notion that some on here are presenting that West has made all of this up and has no evidence. West was simply taking the claim made at face value.

In either case the CPC and DSA were and continue to be closely related. So closely in fact that until late in 2002 the CPC website was hosted by the DSA. Try this exceprt from the following link if you doubt the two are still maintaining a close relationship.

Quote:Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, in October 2010 WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group can cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their “one-world” plans.

CPC and DSA may not be one in the same, but are closely related.

Well no ****. A socialist movement would target a progressive caucus to help move their agenda rather than a conservative caucus. Shock I tell you shock!

But again, that in no way makes the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus card-carrying members of the Communist Party as the frauds West and Rebel claim.

(04-13-2012 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Well you may not think they are DSA memebers, but the American Socialist Voter - Dem Soc of America have claimed the Congressional Progressive Congress as their own. Does this amount to proof that any or all of the list are DSA members? No. It does however, dispell the notion that some on here are presenting that West has made all of this up and has no evidence. West was simply taking the claim made at face value.

In either case the CPC and DSA were and continue to be closely related. So closely in fact that until late in 2002 the CPC website was hosted by the DSA. Try this exceprt from the following link if you doubt the two are still maintaining a close relationship.

Quote:Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, in October 2010 WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group can cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their “one-world” plans.

CPC and DSA may not be one in the same, but are closely related.

1. They can claim whatever they want and it doesn't make it so. Reagan had the support of neo Nazis and KKK but did he endorse them? No. He was the KKK's candidate, but the KKK wasn't his organization; they just happened to like him because he spoke about states rights. What West said is akin to saying "Ronald Reagan is a member of the KKK." And when you argue "That's f'king ridiculous you moron" then I pull out a newsletter from the KKK saying Reagan is "our candidate." See how f'king ridiculous that is when we turn the tables on you?

2. West said "MEMBERS" of the "COMMUNIST PARTY." He didn't say "socialist." Communism is an extreme form of socialism dude. Great Britain became socialist after WWII, electing Clement Atlee (regarded by many as the greatest prime minister of the 20th century) whose Labour Party did socialist things like nationalizing major industries and public utilities and instituting universal healthcare. But was Britain COMMUNIST???? No, in fact they were very much anti-communist. So even if he's somehow right and the whole Progressive Caucus are members of Socialist Democrats USA (and there's a distinction between SDs and DSs as I explained earlier), he's still lying. He made a specific factual allegation that's blatantly false.

3. West is still an idiot.

(04-12-2012 05:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?
I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

You start down the road toward that sort of crap and I'll be gone long before it reaches that point. I'll tell you that.

And not because I'm worried about my Rolls being taken away. I don't have one. But I don't want to live in a country where the government would take somebody else's away. If he or she earned it honestly, then he or she should be able to keep it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where that's not the rule of law.

We're already taking it away in the form in income (and other) taxes and have been for 100 years. Sorry to lose you.

(04-13-2012 10:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 05:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2012 04:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Uh it's absolutely rule of law because it's constitutional (well, so long as we take it out of income). Unless you're questioning the legality of our constitution?
I really doubt many will leave Owl. People have roots and ties here (not to mention it's pretty nice) and we can impose capital controls to restrict flight.

You start down the road toward that sort of crap and I'll be gone long before it reaches that point. I'll tell you that.
And not because I'm worried about my Rolls being taken away. I don't have one. But I don't want to live in a country where the government would take somebody else's away. If he or she earned it honestly, then he or she should be able to keep it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where that's not the rule of law.

We're already taking it away in the form in income (and other) taxes and have been for 100 years. Sorry to lose you.

At present tax levels you're not taking it away fast enough, at least not from ME, to push me that direction.

If you do go that far, you'll be losing many people that you'll be way more than sorry to lose.