Breitbart: We have the guns...

What I asked is who is left to tax, after Critical Bill ruled out taxing the productive, the job creators, the risk takers, the poor and the unemployed.

Who is left after that?

AspenValley wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The 2nd Amendment was put into place so that those who were no longer being governed with their consent would have recourse to address that lack of consent ....

1. 2nd Amendment, good.
2. Last recourse against tyranny, good.
3. Trying to apply it to a looney-tunes raving firebrand who looks like he's coming down off a biploar manic high because he doesn't like who the people lawfully elected? Well, that's a line that when you cross it, you enter the looney-tunes world yourself.

When did he lose his unalienable right to alter or abolish a form of government that he believes has reduced him to living under its absolute despotism? He might not have a large enough group that feels similarly at the moment to achieve that goal, but as far as I know he still retains that right since it is one of the ones that is endowed upon each of us by Nature and Nature's God rather than the government instituted by men. The text of Jefferson's remark, the last line of which was provided earlier, explains it in just such a manner.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.

Speaking only for myself here, I would much prefer Breitbart give full voice to his level of discontent and exercises his 1st Amendment rights to their absolute limits before he takes to arms to alter or abolish the current form of government instead of after he has done so.

Wayne-O wrote: What I asked is who is left to tax, after Critical Bill ruled out taxing the productive, the job creators, the risk takers, the poor and the unemployed.

Who is left after that?

There you go again, trying to demagogue what was said into something that wasn't in an effort to compel the other side into defending a statement that was never made. Critical Bill never ruled out taxing the productive, the job creators or the risk takers. Perhaps the argument might be made that he ruled out increasing their current disproportionate share of the tax burden any further, but there is simply no indication a reasonable person would point to that he ruled out taxing them at all.

PrintSmith wrote:

Wayne-O wrote: What I asked is who is left to tax, after Critical Bill ruled out taxing the productive, the job creators, the risk takers, the poor and the unemployed.

Who is left after that?

There you go again, trying to demagogue what was said into something that wasn't in an effort to compel the other side into defending a statement that was never made.

Please refrain from accusing me of something you are known for, PS.

If you're all for taxing everybody fairly (everybody pays their share), then that's great! But I'm sure you aren't. For some reason, the right -- particularly the tea party --- wants to protect the fat cats from (gasp) paying the same ratio of taxes as everyone else.

Oh no Wayne - I'm consistently on record as supporting a flat income tax regardless of how much or how little one makes or a tax on consumption over the regressive system we are currently saddled with. I also support the efforts to limit the percentage of the national production the federal government is authorized to spend each and every year to about 15%, absent the nation being engaged in fighting a declared war, with a 75% majority in both houses of Congress necessary to exceed that specified level. I don't think it should be any easier for the federal government to spend more than it can hope to realize in revenue than it is for the Constitution to be amended and we have an awful lot of debt those currently living have rung up that needs to be paid back.

are we ever going to get back to Breitbart?

bailey bud wrote: are we ever going to get back to Breitbart?

Oh, you mean the guy that said he would like to open fire on libruls?... Yeah, I remember him...

Seems like we have our own version of that there on 285B... Wait...It'll come to me....

LadyJazzer wrote:

bailey bud wrote: are we ever going to get back to Breitbart?

Oh, you mean the guy that said he would like to open fire on libruls?.

He really said that huh?

Why, yes... He did...

"There are times where I'm not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, 'Fire the first shot,'" he said. "Bring it on. Because I know who's on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns ... I'm not kidding."

He elaborates that he imagines the military is going to rise up and start killing union members to protect the country (or something), and reiterates that he’s talking about actual armed conflict and not elections.

As long as it's someone on the "right" side of the political spectrum I doubt there will be much outrage.