I don't disagree with the gist of that post. Weed should be legalized. Imminent domain is frequently abused. What does that have to do with the rest of your comments, and my response to them?
My first post here today was responding to the Jesus cartoons. My point was Jesus wouldn't be cool with taking people's property by force for redistribution (property meaning land, possessions or income etc.)To hear people using the teachings of Jesus to justify armed robbery is a bit much to stomach.
And you would be right; if that's what people were doing. Please post the links showing armed robbery by OWS. Last time I saw a gun at a political rally it was at a tea party rally so...
"Tax the rich!" is the idea that other people's possessions should be taken by force for distribution. A progressive tax is armed robbery.
I would feel much safer at a Tea Party rally or a gun show than an OWS event. I think 99% of the people would agree.
So your post is really directed at the progressive income tax, with you referring to income as "property." I don't know if that's the preferred nomenclature, Hightop. What does the rant about liberals have to do with any of it? Have you ever looked at the tax rates during the two term Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower? The top rates were closer to 80% than they were to the rates of today, and we did very well as a country. The economy grew. He even managed to balance the budget in 1956 and 1957, running a surpus. With all due respect, your rants about liberals are incorrect and extreme. You might also check the income tax rates during the two terms of Ronald Reagan, someone I voted against twice, by the way. They were much higher than they are now, yet he is viewed as a demi-god by Republicans. Reagan even raised taxes on more than one occasion. Are either one of those Republican presidents evil? Were they liberals? How did our country manage to survive them? Honestly, you should spend less time watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, and more time studying actual history. You would be better served by doing that, Hightop. It might also be more relaxing.
Nope! Poll after poll show Americans relate more and agree with the principals of OWS than they do the tea party
Wrong. You failed to address Hightop's comment, but I will. Businesses near OWS are losing huge amounts of business/money. http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-post-ows-protestors-costing-local-business-half-a-million-dollars-so-far/ Nobody is gonna bring their family to go eat next to the disease/poo infested OWS camps.
That has nothing to do with which events are safer. How many people have been raped at Tea Party events. How many people have been hit with tear gas at Tea Party events. Whether you agree or disagree with either group, any rational person would feel safer at a Tea Party event, because historically they have been safer.
Define “safe” I’ve been to both and I can safely say that I’ve never felt intimidated or uncomfortable at an OWS rally (except by the police). Whereas I’ve been very uncomfortable at a tea party rally where redneck assholes are walking around carrying semi automatic weapons and laughing about “taking the country back”. To each his own suppose
Unlikely to cause or result in harm, injury, or damage. Not dangerous. Just looking objectively at what has occurred at events of both groups, it is clear that TP events are safer for attendees than OWS events. While you may have felt more intimidated at TP events because of armed people using what you considered to be violent rhetoric, those armed people have not committed acts of violence at TP events. There have been quite a few reported acts of violence at OWS events. Even if you took the violence committed by the OWS people themselves out of it, you would still be safer at a TP event, because the cops are not pepper spraying them or shooting tear gas at them. By any objective measure, TP events are safer than OWS events. It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with behavior. Technically taxation meets most common definitions of armed robbery (but for the legal justification) in that it is the taking of property by force or intimidation (namely the threat of incarceration). Clearly it is not legally armed robbery, because among other things it is authorized by statute. A colorful rhetorical term is hardly cause for nausea.
