Comments on: Wisconsin Republican Targeted For Recall by Wife and Maid

By: Frederick J Rourke

Frederick J Rourke — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:28:50 +0000

Steve So you believe that we should not advance in social welfare since the constitution was written.If you read about the life of ordinary people in former times I think you would reconsider the good old days.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Gayle Zachariasen

Gayle Zachariasen — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:23:36 +0000

I agree with BRG’s assessment of Steve’s rhighteous ramblings,in particular his comment about Steve’s “run on sentence of mind-numbing vapidity.” Steve should skip the liberal blogs and share his rants with intellectual heavy weights such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Glen Beck. I am sure the four of them will find a lot of common ground. Steve’s “talents” are wasted on liberals.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:40:47 +0000

you certainly do go to extremes. You make no attempt to understand what Michael Moore said, like others you simply say why doesn’t Michael Moore give his money to the state etc.

driving is a right once you have taken the test. at that point you have the right to drive. Nothing is guaranteed. The Constitution gives you the right to habeas corpus, and you might pretend that that’s guaranteed, but one word from people in high places and you don’t have that right any longer. Under Bush you did not have the right to assembly unless it was on his terms. The rights in the Constitution are up to those who are in power and are not guaranteed

You just keep bouncing from one thing to another and you’re getting boring. No one ever mentioned anything about paying off the national debt than all of the wealth from the top 20%. I will give one more crack at it in hopes that you can wrap yourself around it. With 20% of the people holding 80% of the wealth, that leaves 80% of the people with 20% of the wealth. The 80% of the people of the 20% of the wealth are the ones who keep the wealthy wealthy.

If the 80% of the people with the 20% of the wealth have no money to spend then the state/country will go bankrupt. If the distribution of wealth changes to something like this: 20% upper class or the wealthy: 40% in the middle class: 20% between the upper middle class and the lower middle class: and 20% in the lower-class you will have a survivable state and nation. that was Michael Moore’s point. now you may remove yourself from Michael Moore’s assets, and try to catch up

What do you think? 0 0

By: BRG

BRG — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:08:33 +0000

Wow, Steve, you dont have an argument….its a run on sentence
of mind-numbing vapidity.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Steve Miller

Steve Miller — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:55:19 +0000

Sorry again, I just cannot help myself. Driving is not a right and is not guaranteed. No one has the “right” to drive. If it were a right drunk drivers could not have their license revoked the blind would have to be allowed to drive. Obviously, if you took all the wealth from the top 10-20% of the population you would not even pay off the national debt, but since Moore cannot do math and logic seems to escape this argument, you’re right lets burn down the houses of all those who have more than you do and take all their possessions, this will solve all economic problems. I assume Moore left all his assest in the state to help us. What? He didn’t? He’s a capitalist pig? Such a surprise. Oh, and by the way if you strip away all that wealth, sell all the stocks and bonds and the businesses what will you do next year when the economy has totally collapsed? And please, please, may my argument be so ridiculous that ridiculous will be spelled correctly. It is not diculous a second time. By the way when are you selling everything you own to give to those who have less than you? If you don’t you are nothing more than another capitalist pig who should have everything they own stripped from them by the government.

What do you think? 0 0